The shadow
The shadow knows!
Rep. Melissa Hortman killed, Sen. John Hoffman shot in 'targeted' shootings: Sources | FOX 9 Minneapolis-St. Paul Rep. Melissa Hortman killed, Sen. John Hoffman shot in 'targeted' shootings: Sources
Have we come to this?
Have we come to this?
The shadow
The shadow knows!
Just met Mark pocan wow!
The shadow
The shadow knows!
Lie #1 Trump is a dictator who held a military parade on his birthday.
Fact Check: The US Army was in fact founded June 14th, 1775. Coincidentally Trump was born the same day.
Lie #2 This is funded with taxpayer dollars.
Fact Check: This vast majority of this was funded by America250 Foundation with sponsorships from major corporations including Oracle, Lockheed Martin, Palantir, and reportedly Amazon and Coinbase to name a few
Lie #3 Only Authoritarian regimes have military parades.
Fact Check: Numerous democracies have military parades like... France, UK, Canada, Italy, Israel, Australia, South Korea... among numerous others.
Lie #4 Biden never had a parade
FACT CHECK #4 Biden had an inaugural parade across America in 2021..and not one outcry about that!
Fact Check: The US Army was in fact founded June 14th, 1775. Coincidentally Trump was born the same day.
Lie #2 This is funded with taxpayer dollars.
Fact Check: This vast majority of this was funded by America250 Foundation with sponsorships from major corporations including Oracle, Lockheed Martin, Palantir, and reportedly Amazon and Coinbase to name a few
Lie #3 Only Authoritarian regimes have military parades.
Fact Check: Numerous democracies have military parades like... France, UK, Canada, Italy, Israel, Australia, South Korea... among numerous others.
Lie #4 Biden never had a parade
FACT CHECK #4 Biden had an inaugural parade across America in 2021..and not one outcry about that!
The shadow
The shadow knows!
Look a military parade! Trooping the colors hosted by that "dictator" Charles III in the nation of England.
pigfarmer
tall, thin, irritable
Have a look 4 posts up. GW Bush had one in 91
pigfarmer
tall, thin, irritable
Random thoughts.
FDR is my favorite president for a number of reasons. DT, not so much but he is certainly unique.
Each and every morning without fail we are subjected to lengthy rants from family members with nothing better to do than to shut themselves in and have CNN on all day. The bias is sickening, truly frightening and whatever was said last night is parroted verbatim.
I was thinking about Trump Derangement Syndrome and what will they do when he's not in office anymore ? The same thing, continue to blame him for anything - they must have their ogre to give themselves purpose. The only other president I can think of that generated that amount if visceral hatred is FDR. DT doesn't hold a candle to FDR in most respects but there are parallels.
He was a wealthy patrician that learned to use the social media of his day to communicate directly with people in their living room speaking to them in 'kitchen table concepts'. The media outlets of the era were entirely aligned either through family or association and they loathed him, there were no lack of politicians with agendas from both sides willing to use that against him. The right called him a socialist and the left a capitalist. On December 6 1941 his relationship with the press was at it's nadir. Don't get to trot 'nadir' out all that often, eh ? The same press that had willingly covered up his paralysis had taken an ugly turn and even during the war he kept them at arm's length. Unlike DT he knew how to manipulate people rather than just bluntly insult them - although I admit that's entertaining at times.
Like DT he also survived a number of improbable events to remain in office even when it was evident he was dying and there were many who openly celebrated his death. He had been in office so long that hating FDR was very much like TDS. Can't think of any other president that had been subject to that level of emotion for that length of time.
FDR is my favorite president for a number of reasons. DT, not so much but he is certainly unique.
Each and every morning without fail we are subjected to lengthy rants from family members with nothing better to do than to shut themselves in and have CNN on all day. The bias is sickening, truly frightening and whatever was said last night is parroted verbatim.
I was thinking about Trump Derangement Syndrome and what will they do when he's not in office anymore ? The same thing, continue to blame him for anything - they must have their ogre to give themselves purpose. The only other president I can think of that generated that amount if visceral hatred is FDR. DT doesn't hold a candle to FDR in most respects but there are parallels.
He was a wealthy patrician that learned to use the social media of his day to communicate directly with people in their living room speaking to them in 'kitchen table concepts'. The media outlets of the era were entirely aligned either through family or association and they loathed him, there were no lack of politicians with agendas from both sides willing to use that against him. The right called him a socialist and the left a capitalist. On December 6 1941 his relationship with the press was at it's nadir. Don't get to trot 'nadir' out all that often, eh ? The same press that had willingly covered up his paralysis had taken an ugly turn and even during the war he kept them at arm's length. Unlike DT he knew how to manipulate people rather than just bluntly insult them - although I admit that's entertaining at times.
Like DT he also survived a number of improbable events to remain in office even when it was evident he was dying and there were many who openly celebrated his death. He had been in office so long that hating FDR was very much like TDS. Can't think of any other president that had been subject to that level of emotion for that length of time.
nivek
As Above So Below
Dems suddenly outraged over presidential war powers
Democrats in Washington are again talking impeachment. Politicians and pundits are expressing outrage over President Donald Trump attacking Iran without a prior authorization of Congress. It is the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law where politicians are "shocked, shocked" that Trump is using the authority that they accepted in Democratic predecessors. Fourteen years ago this week, I was in court litigating that very issue when President Barack Obama attacked Libya. Most Democrats supported or were silent on the action.Nevertheless, Democratic members are now calling for impeachment, while others are declaring the attacks unconstitutional. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is particularly shocked that Trump took the action and is calling for a vote under the War Powers Act.
Schumer insisted that "no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has issued a similar statement.
Schumer is the same politician who was silent or supportive in earlier unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign against Libya.
Democrats were supportive when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks under Operation Infinite Reach on two continents on August 20, 1998. He ordered attacks in locations in Khartoum, Sudan, and Khost Province, Afghanistan.
The War Powers Act has always been controversial and largely ineffectual. Presidents have long asserted the inherent powers to conduct such attacks under their Article II authority as the designated Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The WPA requires the President to inform Congress within 48 hours in a written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate of the action.
The WPA further bars the use of armed forces in such a conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. There is a further 30-day withdrawal period.
President Trump reportedly did immediately notify Congress after the attack under the WPA.
Presidents have long maintained their right to deploy military assets unilaterally without congressional approval to address imminent threats. President Thomas Jefferson did so when he went to war with the Barbary Pirates at the start of the Nineteenth Century.
Presidents have also routinely ignored the WPA when it limited their ability to conduct foreign military operations. In 1999, Clinton ignored the 60-day deadline and continued to bomb forces in Kosovo. His actions were also challenged, but the court in Campbell v. Clinton just shrugged off the violation and said it was a non-justiciable political question.
In responding to the current demands, Trump could look to a curious ally: Hillary Clinton.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for unilateral attacks during the Obama Administration. She dismissed the need to consult, let alone secure authorization, from Congress. In March 2011, Clinton testified that there was no need for such consultation and declared that the Administration would ignore a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.
Obama also defied the War Powers resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in 2013, but Congress refused to approve it. He did it anyway. Despite Congress expressly denying "authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces," both Obama and Trump did precisely that.
Trump was wise to notify Congress and is currently in compliance with the Act. However, what occurs after that is anyone’s guess. The WPA and the AUMF have been paper tigers for decades and most in Congress wanted it that way. Politicians long ago abandoned their responsibilities to declare war. What remains has been little more than political theater.
Even under the WPA, Trump would have 60 days to prosecute this war and another 30 days to draw down forces without congressional approval. The court, in Campbell v. Clinton, noted that even if Clinton violated the WPA by continuing operations after the 60-day period, he was technically in compliance by withdrawing forces before the end of the 90-day period.
Trump could likely prosecute this campaign in 90 days. Indeed, if it goes beyond 90 days, we will likely be facing a potential global war with retaliatory strikes on both sides. In such an environment, it is very unlikely that Congress would withhold support for our ongoing operations.
In the meantime, the calls for impeachment are absurd given the prior actions of presidents in using this very authority. Once again, some Democrats appear intent on applying a different set of rules for impeaching Trump than any of his predecessors. Trump can cite both history and case law in allowing presidents to take such actions. At most, the line over war powers is murky. The Framers wanted impeachments to be based on bright-line rules in establishing high crimes and misdemeanors.
This is all part of the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law. Members will once again express their shock and disgust at the use of the same authority that they once accepted from prior presidents. Trump has a great number of risks in this action from global military and economic consequences. The War Powers Act is not one of them if history is any measure.
.
nivek
As Above So Below
The terrifying truth that Gen-Z nincompoops, who voted for a radical anti-Semite to run the greatest city in the world, must hear
The greatest city in the world is one step closer to electing a radical, anti-Israel socialist – and it's scaring the knishes out of me. Armed with a decade of horrible takes and very thinly veiled anti-Semitism, 33-year-old dimpled pinko Zohran Mamdani bested handsy former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in Tuesday's Democratic mayoral primary.Sure, Democrats didn't have much of a choice. It was either a disgraced accused groper or a Bernie Sanders-adjacent state assembly member with a resume shorter than Lauren Sanchez's hem. But, hey, at least Dems got to vote this time (right, Kamala?). Though I won't blow off the threat of Comrade Mamdani so easily. He cleverly used glossy social media posts to sell a slightly warmed-over version of stale statism to starry-eyed millennials and Gen Z'ers who gobbled it up by the handful.
He promised everything that a spoiled hipster heart desires: no fare bus rides; rent freezes; subsidized city-owned grocery stores; universal childcare and free ironic tattoos. (I made that last one up). This naïve generation of nincompoops doesn't yet realize (give it time) that 'free' programs don't pay for themselves – and the millionaires who Mamdani will have to tax into oblivion to bankroll his giveaways can pack and move away to say… low-tax Palm Beach, Florida.
What else has Mamdani's millennial brain cooked up?
He's for 'defund the police.' TikTok-educated imbeciles who backed this boob must be too young to remember how terrifying the city became during the Mayor Bill DeBlasio era.
DeBozo breezed into office in 2013 promising gratis rainbows and unicorns and the decriminalization of public drinking, urination, littering and a whole host of other undesirable activities. Turns out the rainbows and sparkly flying horses never materialized, but junkies and feces in the streets sure did. New York has been in recovery ever since.
Finally – and most existentially terrifying of all – Mamdani's promises come with a disturbing dose of super-charged anti-Israel politics that veer dangerously close to outright antisemitism.
For years, this Ugandan-born whipper snapper has badgered every institution that he's been a part of – from his small liberal arts college in Maine to the New York State Assembly – to 'BDS' Israel. But BDS is not some hot new Facetuned K-Pop boy band. It stands for the far-left Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement, which seeks to starve Israel of investment and bleed the Jewish state out of existence.
'When someone spends years relentlessly targeting the world's only Jewish state through legislation, boycotts and protests — while remaining silent on the abuses of regimes like Iran, China or Russia —it's not principled criticism, it's antisemitism, plain and simple,' said Sam Berger, a Democratic Jewish state lawmaker from Queens.
Then in a podcast interview on Sunday, Mamdani claimed the phrase 'globalize the intifada' isn't a call for violence but an expression of a desire for Palestinian 'equality and human rights.'
Tell that to the families of the young couple gunned down by a left-wing extremist shouting 'Free, Free Palestine' outside the Jewish Museum in Washington DC in May. Or the peaceful marchers in Boulder, Colorado, who were set on fire earlier this month by an illegal immigrant from Egypt. He was also screaming 'Free Palestine'.
Mamdani knows damn well what 'globalize the intifada' means, but for those who would still give Mamdani the benefit of the doubt (which seems suicidal at this point), remember that he sent out a press release following the October 7 attacks condemning Israel for their 'apartheid' and without mentioning Hamas.
So, here's my message to those pulling the lever for Zohran the Fraud.
If you'd vote for an unqualified, Israel-hating blowhard just because you can't afford to live in New York City - move across the river to Hoboken, New Jersey, you self-centered crybaby!
Reality alert: New York City is expensive, but you don't have to live there.
Don't you all exist in cyberspace anyway? You can work-from-home and play Call of Duty in your underpants from a cabin in the Ozarks. You don't need to be in a loft in Soho to be a waste of space.
On a lighter note, I ran into Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels and perennial NYC mayoral candidate, and his little red hat today. He's fresh off his victory in the Republican primary and he promised to reach out to the 'kids.'
.
pigfarmer
tall, thin, irritable
Meet your mayor: Curtis Sliwa
I am not a resident and won't be voting but if I did it would be for this guy. He's been a drive time AM radio host for years and is extremely entertaining. As a Guardian Angel this man has literally fought for that city and would undoubtedly make a very good mayor. He's run a number of times and stands absolutely zero chance of winning.
Instead they will almost certain elect Zohran Mamdani. There are more than enough wealthy liberals who feel some sense of noblesse oblige and there are always masses of stupid people that only hear 'free stuff'. This one's a real piece of work that absolutely will bring back the bad old days of the 70s. Bill DeBlasio managed to lose a billion dollars without any repercussion .. somewhere..for something.. and Eric Adams is utterly feckless. Trump dropped the federal charges simply to use him as a tool. Andrew Cuomo served no purpose in that race except to hopefully finally make that arrogant ass go away.
Ron DeSantis said Florida will benefit from this and he's right. I also suspect New York State has an excellent chance of flipping red next year. Elise Stefanik will be the Republican nominee and Mamdani could very well be the one to assist her most.
We have one relative left in NYC who will never leave otherwise I wouldn't care. My wife has to venture down there regularly. When I was working there 8+ years ago I spent more than one night in Grand Central waiting for a train, I've been there at all hours and it was perfectly safe. Now, no way in hell.
Socialist New York mayor would raise taxes on ‘white neighbourhoods’
Billionaire CEO warns he'll close grocery stores if democratic socialist candidate wins NYC mayor race
I don't know how long he'll be in there but the next mayor after him will be Snake Plissken
I am not a resident and won't be voting but if I did it would be for this guy. He's been a drive time AM radio host for years and is extremely entertaining. As a Guardian Angel this man has literally fought for that city and would undoubtedly make a very good mayor. He's run a number of times and stands absolutely zero chance of winning.
Instead they will almost certain elect Zohran Mamdani. There are more than enough wealthy liberals who feel some sense of noblesse oblige and there are always masses of stupid people that only hear 'free stuff'. This one's a real piece of work that absolutely will bring back the bad old days of the 70s. Bill DeBlasio managed to lose a billion dollars without any repercussion .. somewhere..for something.. and Eric Adams is utterly feckless. Trump dropped the federal charges simply to use him as a tool. Andrew Cuomo served no purpose in that race except to hopefully finally make that arrogant ass go away.
Ron DeSantis said Florida will benefit from this and he's right. I also suspect New York State has an excellent chance of flipping red next year. Elise Stefanik will be the Republican nominee and Mamdani could very well be the one to assist her most.
We have one relative left in NYC who will never leave otherwise I wouldn't care. My wife has to venture down there regularly. When I was working there 8+ years ago I spent more than one night in Grand Central waiting for a train, I've been there at all hours and it was perfectly safe. Now, no way in hell.
Socialist New York mayor would raise taxes on ‘white neighbourhoods’
Billionaire CEO warns he'll close grocery stores if democratic socialist candidate wins NYC mayor race
I don't know how long he'll be in there but the next mayor after him will be Snake Plissken
Last edited:
nivek
As Above So Below
Alaska’s oil reserves are America’s national security shield
At first glance, the unrest in the Middle East, the conflict in Ukraine and a recent Supreme Court ruling might appear to have little in common. But the first two illustrate the way in which American energy dominance – led by the abundant resources of the Last Frontier – can bolster our national security, while the court’s ruling provides one way to accelerate development of our natural resources into an energy powerhouse.The recent fluctuations in oil markets arising from Israel’s conflict in Iran demonstrate the twin failures of former President Joe Biden’s foreign policy and his energy policy. By removing President Donald Trump’s "maximum pressure" sanctions on the Iranian regime, Biden gifted the mullahs nearly $200 billion in oil revenue, which they have used to wreak global havoc via proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen.
The Biden administration had to rely upon Iran and other unsavory foreign regimes to keep supplying the world with oil in large part because of its reckless actions to squelch energy development at home. From canceling leases on Alaska’s Coastal Plain – an action ruled unlawful by a federal judge – to blocking access to areas required by federal law, the Biden administration took literally dozens of steps to hinder Alaskans’ ability to develop our natural resources for America’s benefit. The Biden administration’s actions – or, in many cases, its inactions – affected not just policy in the Middle East, but the conflict in Ukraine as well. More development of American resources would have made Europe less dependent upon Russian natural gas, and deprived Vladimir Putin of the oil and gas revenues that continue to fund his regime.
President Trump is absolutely right to say that the war in Ukraine would not have started on his watch, because he would not have made America and its allies more reliant on energy from our adversaries. Make no mistake: Energy resources are, and remain, a critical national security issue. The American oil embargo on Japan, which helped precipitate that country’s attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, demonstrated the direct link between access to affordable energy and national security. That’s why Democrats’ policies and actions that sought to appease the environmental lobby harmed not just our economic growth, but America’s global standing.
Thankfully, we now have leaders who understand the need for American energy dominance, as expressed in his Day One executive order beginning to undo the harm inflicted by his predecessor.
The Supreme Court’s recent unanimous ruling scaling back requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act also brought a welcome breath of common sense to the federal permitting process, which should accelerate the development of energy resources – not to mention infrastructure like roads and bridges – nationwide. With proven reserves of 3.4 billion barrels of oil and 125 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, Alaska stands ready to power America’s 21st-century energy needs. That energy can create high-paying jobs, grow our economy and improve relationships with our allies.
Just as important, by relying on our own energy resources instead of those of foreign dictators, it will make America safer – and help Americans feel more secure.
.
nivek
As Above So Below
CIA report makes it clear Trump was framed
In a blockbuster report, the CIA has belatedly exposed the rank corruption among top intelligence officials who connived to frame President Donald Trump and drive him from office during his first term.Their pernicious lie was that Trump colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 presidential election in his favor. The principal piece of so-called evidence was a document known infamously as the dossier.
It was secretly financed by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and Democrats, conceived by a foreign agent with a checkered past in espionage, and then brokered to solicitous collaborators at the FBI, CIA, the Department of Justice and the Trump-hating media.
The dossier was garbage, of course. The FBI largely debunked it before Trump was even sworn in and fired its author, Christopher Steele, for lying as a confidential human source. But the bureau concealed those inconvenient facts under then-Director James Comey and deftly exploited the document as a cudgel to bludgeon the newly elected president.
Comey was aided and abetted by others in the intelligence community, including CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. This malignant force of unelected officials plotted to smear Trump with what is surely the dirtiest trick in political history.
Recently, current CIA Director John Ratcliffe declassified and released an internal agency review of the machinations that helped fuel the Russia hoax. In a statement posted on social media, Ratcliffe stated, "All the world can now see the truth: Brennan, Clapper and Comey manipulated intelligence and silenced career professionals — all to get Trump."
Citing previously hidden records, the review concluded that Brennan, in particular, pushed for the phony dossier to be included in the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) to catalyze a false narrative against Trump. Senior CIA experts on Russia objected but were sidelined and silenced.
The CIA’s deputy director for analysis warned Brennan in writing that including the discredited dossier in any capacity jeopardized "the credibility of the entire paper." Brennan didn’t care. The fiction penned by the ex-British spy conformed to the director’s preconceived fable that Trump colluded with Russia.
The ICA, which was ordered by President Barack Obama, was rushed to completion just days before Trump’s inauguration. Brennan directed its composition and handpicked the analysts who compiled the ersatz information. To stifle dissent, 13 other key intelligence agencies were deliberately excluded. To put it bluntly, Trump was set up.
According to the new CIA review, Comey and Clapper were all in on the scheme. In an interview with the New York Post, Ratcliffe said, "This was Obama, Comey, Clapper and Brennan deciding ‘We’re going to screw Trump.’"
They knew the dossier was junk, which motivated them to prop it up as a reliable indictment of Trump. By incorporating it in the ICA they could leak and propagate both documents as mutual corroboration. It was a clever ruse. An illusion.
Those of us who have long covered the bogus collusion story knew it long ago. In my 2019 book, "Witch Hunt," I recounted how Brennan "insisted that the dossier be included in the classified intelligence report," but then told Congress under oath that the dossier was "not in any way used as the basis for the intelligence community’s assessment." Clapper’s testimony was nearly identical.
Here is what I wrote in chapter 2:
"Brennan and Clapper were spinning a deception. A prominent colleague contradicted them and produced documents as proof that they were not telling the truth. In a classified letter to Congress, National Security Agency director Michael Rogers disclosed that the uncorroborated document (the dossier) ‘did factor into the ICA’ report. Having been caught in a falsehood, Clapper then repudiated his earlier statement. Brennan continued to deny all of it, the contrary evidence notwithstanding."
Neither Brennan nor Clapper was ever prosecuted for perjury. None of that bothered news organizations. MSNBC promptly hired Brennan, while Clapper went to work for CNN. I described what they did from their media perches:
"The two super spooks launched an all-out attack on Trump, exploiting their new television platforms to advance the toxic fiction that the president was a secret Russian asset who had ‘colluded’ with Putin. It didn’t matter to CNN that a House Intelligence Committee report determined that it had been Clapper who had leaked news of the phony dossier to the network before Trump had ever taken office."
The collusion narrative was a conspiracy itself. The collaborators knew it was a lie, but they manipulated the dossier and the ICA to peddle their fairy tale. With Hillary and her confederates, they engineered the hoax. Brennan even accused Trump of treason.
Comey also knew the dossier was spurious, as I wrote in chapter 4:
"He knew exactly where the dossier came from and who paid for it. He used it as the primary basis for the warrants, used it as part of the nonpublic version of the intelligence community assessment, and used it to debrief President-elect Trump so that it could be leaked to the media in January 2017."
Comey’s decision to purloin and leak additional FBI documents triggered — just as he planned — the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his dilating investigation of Trump that hobbled his presidency for two years.
On the day that Mueller issued his report concluding that there was no evidence of a Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy, the sheepish Brennan conceded, "I don’t know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was."
That’s quite the Jekyll-Hyde metamorphosis for a guy who enthusiastically endorsed the dossier and who kept claiming that "it was in line" with his own CIA sources, in which he "had great confidence." That, too, was a fabrication, according to the newly released CIA review.
What did Comey have to say? In public, the master prevaricator dissembled and pleaded ignorance. But before Congress, he was forced to admit that some of his actions would have been different had he known then what he knows now. Not likely. He was wedded to the artifice of collusion because he despised Trump.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has vowed a reckoning. She told Fox News, "We are digging deep to find everything that has been related to this, and I guarantee you there are some U.S. attorneys who are eager to see what we are finding — in some cases are already working their own cases to bring about that necessary accountability."
Unless those who unscrupulously weaponized their immense power for political purposes are held to account, it will happen again. And again. The only remedy for lawlessness is justice.
The reckoning awaits.
.
nivek
As Above So Below
What Happened to Democrats' Patriotism?
"And I'm proud to be an American," goes the refrain of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA," an intensely patriotic song the country singer has frequently performed at political rallies and campaign events for President Donald J. Trump. As Americans marked the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence last weekend, polling data on patriotism highlighted an alarming trend. While almost all Republicans say they are "extremely" or "very patriotic," scarcely more than one-third of Democrats now share that sentiment.It was not always this way. In 2001, according to Gallup, America's two major political parties were roughly even in national pride, with 90 percent of Republicans and 87 percent of Democrats identifying as "extremely" or "very patriotic." Those figures diverged only marginally over the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In 2015, after six years under Obama, Republicans were still registering high levels of patriotism, at 90 percent, while Democratic patriotism had only slightly receded, to 80 percent, with no intervening year seeing the latter fall below the 74 percent recorded in 2007.
The last decade, however, has seen patriotism among Democrats plummet while the Republican figure has remained virtually unchanged. In the course of just one year, from 2015 to 2016, the share of highly patriotic Democrats fell to a then-historic low of 68 percent. That figure further declined to 60 percent in 2018 before dropping to just 42 percent in 2020.
Recovering the White House for four years after Trump's first term did little to encourage Democrats' enthusiasm for their country. By 2022, the midpoint of Joe Biden's time in office, extreme or very high levels of Democratic patriotism had anemically recovered to just 52 percent. The Republicans, meanwhile, dipped only slightly that year, to 84 percent, their lowest number on record.
According to Gallup's most recent survey, taken in June, the Republicans have vaulted back to near unanimity, at 92 percent, while the Democrats have hit a new low, with just 36 percent saying they have a high level of patriotism. A less nuanced poll of registered voters taken in June by the Republican firm National Research, Inc., which merely asked if the respondents considered themselves to be "patriots," found that 91 percent of Republicans answered affirmatively to that description compared to only 50 percent of Democrats. An alternative opinion question in the same survey found roughly equivalent figures among "conservatives" and "liberals," at 87 and 51 percent, respectively.
Notably, the Democratic patriotism dive began around 2015, as diversity, equity, and inclusion and critical race theory began to ooze from small academic circles through virtually the entire educational system. These ideologies carried criticism of the national past, the Founding Fathers, the Constitution, free speech, perceived structural inequalities, and "whiteness" into many American institutions. Patriotic feelings have sharply declined among the younger generations who were most exposed to that unhappy development. Regardless of party affiliation, according to Gallup, only 41 percent of Gen Z and 58 percent of millennial respondents claim to be extremely or very patriotic, compared to 71 percent of Generation X, 75 percent of Baby Boomers, and 83 percent of the "Greatest Generation."
For a political party even to be perceived as unpatriotic can be lethal in American politics. Gallup finds that 58 percent of all Americans still subscribe to high levels of patriotism. That figure, too, is a historic low, clearly dragged down by Democrats who express little love for their country.
Democratic politicos are scrambling to explain away the results or find palliative measures. Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman (D) said of Gallup's results: "in the greatest country in the world, that's just wrong. I'm unapologetically grateful for our nation and the American Way of Life—today, and always."
As Biden put it in his first public address after Kamala Harris ingloriously lost to Trump, "you can't love your country only when you win." The numbers show that, win or lose, Democrats don't love it very much at all. With the progressive faction now ascendant in Democratic politics it is hard to see that these sentiments will change—or make them more electable.
.