OUR READERS WRITE
Got something to say that relates to Yonkers electoral politics? Write it down, identify yourself (first and last name) and email it to us at [email protected].
____________________________
WHAT IS THE JOB OF A COUNTY LEGISLATOR IN THE MINORITY?
By Joseph Berger, John P. O’Leary Northwest Yonkers Republican Club co-founder, member and YonkersRepublican.com contributor.
By Joseph Berger, John P. O’Leary Northwest Yonkers Republican Club co-founder, member and YonkersRepublican.com contributor.
Photo: lohud.com
Serving in the minority is not an excuse for being silent or ineffective. In many ways, it makes the responsibility of a County Legislator even more important.
A legislator elected as a member in the minority party has a responsibility to represent the principles and point of view of the people and party that elected him or her. The job isn’t simply to vote yes or no after the majority has already decided what it wants to do.
It is to offer an alternative vision for county government.
That means studying proposed legislation, developing alternative solutions, introducing ideas before and during debate, asking difficult questions, and explaining publicly why another approach may better serve taxpayers and improve their quality of life.
The county budget is one of the clearest examples. A minority legislator shouldn’t simply wait until the final budget is presented and then vote for it or against it. The legislator should examine spending priorities, question unnecessary expenditures, identify waste and bureaucracy, and present alternatives. If you believe taxes are too high, show where spending can be reduced. If services are inadequate, identify what needs to change. If the administration is making poor decisions, explain what you would do differently.
The Minority Must Be the Watchdog
One of the most important responsibilities of an opposition party is oversight.
When one political party controls county government, minority legislators should provide an independent set of eyes. They should question policies that increase taxes unnecessarily, expand bureaucracy without improving services, waste taxpayer money, or diminish the quality of life of county residents.
That doesn’t mean opposing everything simply because the other party proposed it. Good legislation should be supported regardless of who introduces it. But when the majority is heading in the wrong direction, the minority has an obligation to say so—and to offer a better direction.
A County Legislator is not primarily elected to become a complaint department for potholes or to perform the administrative functions that county agencies are already responsible for performing. Certainly, legislators should help constituents navigate government when necessary. But constituent service cannot become a substitute for legislative leadership.
There Must Be a Clear Alternative
Democracy works best when voters are given competing ideas.
The minority should constantly be demonstrating: Here is what the majority is doing. Here is where we disagree. And here is what we would do instead.
That is how an opposition party earns the confidence of voters and eventually earns the opportunity to govern.
A minority legislator who remains silent, rarely challenges the administration, offers few alternatives, and routinely votes with the majority simply to maintain a comfortable relationship may hold the title of County Legislator—but is not fulfilling the most important responsibility of being the opposition.
The purpose of the minority isn’t to get along with the majority.
It is to work with the majority when it benefits the public, challenge the majority when it doesn’t, protect taxpayers, and always be prepared to offer a better alternative.
The minority should adhere to the principles and standards of the party that he/she represents.
That is what effective representation should look like.
Joseph Berger has been an active force in Yonkers politics and local government for decades. His extensive leadership includes serving as a Republican and Conservative Party County Committee Member, 9th Ward Conservative Party Leader, Yonkers Conservative Party City Executive Committee Member, Conservative Party State and Judicial Committee Delegate, and Southeast Conservative Party Chairman.
As a seasoned campaign strategist, he managed successful bids for former Yonkers Councilman and Mayor Henry Spallone and former Councilman Sal Saliano, while also lending his expertise as a political consultant to candidates on both sides of the aisle.
The opinions expressed are rooted in decades of firsthand involvement in Yonkers political campaigns and municipal governance, offering deep, authentic insight into the issues shaping the city and its residents.
A legislator elected as a member in the minority party has a responsibility to represent the principles and point of view of the people and party that elected him or her. The job isn’t simply to vote yes or no after the majority has already decided what it wants to do.
It is to offer an alternative vision for county government.
That means studying proposed legislation, developing alternative solutions, introducing ideas before and during debate, asking difficult questions, and explaining publicly why another approach may better serve taxpayers and improve their quality of life.
The county budget is one of the clearest examples. A minority legislator shouldn’t simply wait until the final budget is presented and then vote for it or against it. The legislator should examine spending priorities, question unnecessary expenditures, identify waste and bureaucracy, and present alternatives. If you believe taxes are too high, show where spending can be reduced. If services are inadequate, identify what needs to change. If the administration is making poor decisions, explain what you would do differently.
The Minority Must Be the Watchdog
One of the most important responsibilities of an opposition party is oversight.
When one political party controls county government, minority legislators should provide an independent set of eyes. They should question policies that increase taxes unnecessarily, expand bureaucracy without improving services, waste taxpayer money, or diminish the quality of life of county residents.
That doesn’t mean opposing everything simply because the other party proposed it. Good legislation should be supported regardless of who introduces it. But when the majority is heading in the wrong direction, the minority has an obligation to say so—and to offer a better direction.
A County Legislator is not primarily elected to become a complaint department for potholes or to perform the administrative functions that county agencies are already responsible for performing. Certainly, legislators should help constituents navigate government when necessary. But constituent service cannot become a substitute for legislative leadership.
There Must Be a Clear Alternative
Democracy works best when voters are given competing ideas.
The minority should constantly be demonstrating: Here is what the majority is doing. Here is where we disagree. And here is what we would do instead.
That is how an opposition party earns the confidence of voters and eventually earns the opportunity to govern.
A minority legislator who remains silent, rarely challenges the administration, offers few alternatives, and routinely votes with the majority simply to maintain a comfortable relationship may hold the title of County Legislator—but is not fulfilling the most important responsibility of being the opposition.
The purpose of the minority isn’t to get along with the majority.
It is to work with the majority when it benefits the public, challenge the majority when it doesn’t, protect taxpayers, and always be prepared to offer a better alternative.
The minority should adhere to the principles and standards of the party that he/she represents.
That is what effective representation should look like.
Joseph Berger has been an active force in Yonkers politics and local government for decades. His extensive leadership includes serving as a Republican and Conservative Party County Committee Member, 9th Ward Conservative Party Leader, Yonkers Conservative Party City Executive Committee Member, Conservative Party State and Judicial Committee Delegate, and Southeast Conservative Party Chairman.
As a seasoned campaign strategist, he managed successful bids for former Yonkers Councilman and Mayor Henry Spallone and former Councilman Sal Saliano, while also lending his expertise as a political consultant to candidates on both sides of the aisle.
The opinions expressed are rooted in decades of firsthand involvement in Yonkers political campaigns and municipal governance, offering deep, authentic insight into the issues shaping the city and its residents.
____________________________
Why I'm for Trump: 'Consistence with Persistence'
By Brian Strandberg - August 3, 2026
For me, The Apprentice had nothing to do with supporting Donald Trump. My opinion was formed decades before that show ever aired.
I watched Trump throughout the 80s and 90s on interview after interview with some of the biggest names in television; Rona Barrett, Merv Griffin, Phil Donahue, Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Sally Jessy Raphael, Geraldo Rivera, David Letterman, Charlie Rose, Joan Rivers, Howard Stern, Regis & Kathie Lee, Chris Matthews, and Don Imus.
What stood out wasn't celebrity. It was consistency.
For decades, Trump repeated the same core themes.
He argued America was getting ripped off on trade deals. He said our politicians were poor negotiators. He believed our allies should contribute more toward their own defense instead of relying so heavily on American taxpayers. He warned that the United States was losing leverage and respect around the world. And long before he entered politics, he was talking about illegal immigration, stronger border enforcement, and deporting immigrants who commit serious crimes.
Whether you agreed with him or not, the message barely changed from interview to interview, and from decade to decade.
That's why I find it odd when people say Trump suddenly invented these ideas to run for president. I watched him make many of these same arguments in the 1980s and 1990s, years before there was a campaign, before social media, and before The Apprentice.
Today, many countries in Europe are debating immigration, border security, and national identity in ways that were far less common in American political discussion decades ago. To me, that's one reason Trump's old interviews are worth revisiting, they show that many of his concerns were not new positions adopted for political convenience.
You don't have to agree with every policy. You don't even have to like his style. But if you're asking why I support Donald Trump, it isn't because of a television show. It's because I've watched him make essentially the same arguments for decades. I see consistency between what he was saying in the 1980s and what he advocates today.
People can disagree with his conclusions. That's fair.
But from my perspective, supporting someone whose core message has remained consistent over time isn't blind loyalty. It's believing that the person I watched on television decades ago is still pursuing many of the same goals today.
That's why I support President Trump! ##
By Brian Strandberg - August 3, 2026
For me, The Apprentice had nothing to do with supporting Donald Trump. My opinion was formed decades before that show ever aired.
I watched Trump throughout the 80s and 90s on interview after interview with some of the biggest names in television; Rona Barrett, Merv Griffin, Phil Donahue, Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters, Tom Brokaw, Larry King, Sally Jessy Raphael, Geraldo Rivera, David Letterman, Charlie Rose, Joan Rivers, Howard Stern, Regis & Kathie Lee, Chris Matthews, and Don Imus.
What stood out wasn't celebrity. It was consistency.
For decades, Trump repeated the same core themes.
He argued America was getting ripped off on trade deals. He said our politicians were poor negotiators. He believed our allies should contribute more toward their own defense instead of relying so heavily on American taxpayers. He warned that the United States was losing leverage and respect around the world. And long before he entered politics, he was talking about illegal immigration, stronger border enforcement, and deporting immigrants who commit serious crimes.
Whether you agreed with him or not, the message barely changed from interview to interview, and from decade to decade.
That's why I find it odd when people say Trump suddenly invented these ideas to run for president. I watched him make many of these same arguments in the 1980s and 1990s, years before there was a campaign, before social media, and before The Apprentice.
Today, many countries in Europe are debating immigration, border security, and national identity in ways that were far less common in American political discussion decades ago. To me, that's one reason Trump's old interviews are worth revisiting, they show that many of his concerns were not new positions adopted for political convenience.
You don't have to agree with every policy. You don't even have to like his style. But if you're asking why I support Donald Trump, it isn't because of a television show. It's because I've watched him make essentially the same arguments for decades. I see consistency between what he was saying in the 1980s and what he advocates today.
People can disagree with his conclusions. That's fair.
But from my perspective, supporting someone whose core message has remained consistent over time isn't blind loyalty. It's believing that the person I watched on television decades ago is still pursuing many of the same goals today.
That's why I support President Trump! ##
____________________________
By Jonathan Turley
Below is an expanded version of my column in the New York Post on Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s press conference this week on his planned state-run grocery stores. The plan is a multimillion-dollar version of the $5 gold watch grift. The chumps are New York taxpayers who believe that Mamdani can sell them produce at a discount of 30 percent below the market rate and not lose money. Indeed, this could end up the most expensive produce in the Big Apple.
Here is the column:
Last week, Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s short stint as a faux president ended with an embarrassing acknowledgment that he could not, as promised during his campaign, arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
So, this week, Mamdani the Grocer made a reappearance, with details on the five city-run grocery stores that he will open.
But rather than deliver discount groceries, Mamdani is selling New Yorkers a bill of goods that will cost them millions.
What Mamdani described was a discount food bank dressed up as a grocery. Standing in front of blackboards saying “REDUCED 30%,” Mamdani sounded like a bodega hawker: “Once a month, our five city-run grocery stores will set prices for this core set of goods at 30% below typical retail prices. No exceptions, no gimmicks.”
Here’s the most delicious part: the presser was a gimmick from beginning to end.
The mayor promised that “The savings will last for the entire month. That means no weekly fluctuations or sticker shock at the checkout line — not for our seniors living on fixed incomes, nor for the parents who rely on a regular supply of apple slices to keep toddler tantrums at bay.”
The Mamdani markets are new variations of an old New York grift: selling gold watches for $5. The dupes want to believe that somehow this street vendor, surreptitiously displaying watches inside his overcoat, actually found a way to sell “solid gold watches” for just a few bucks.
The math simply does not add up for Mamdani. Most groceries have an average profit margin between 1% and 3%, one of the smallest margins of any industry.
To promise a 30% discount below market rate that cannot be adjusted due to monthly market fluctuations is economically absurd.
It is not a description of a competitive grocery but a public charity. It is a quasi-food bank where taxpayers subsidize the cost.
As usual, Mamdani turns this into a class war, demonizing business owners. He suggests that real grocery stores are simply price gougers hoarding windfall profits from consumers. He ignores that they must pay rent, upkeep and fees — all things the city-run stores may simply write off.
He proclaimed, “May the most affordable grocery store win.”
Of course, the test is not which grocery is the most affordable, but which is the most sustainable. If you are willing to take a bath on sales, you can always offer the most affordable prices for as long as your excess cash holds out.
In Mamdani’s case, he has the credit of New York City to draw on to compete against Mom-and-Pop bodegas.
The subsidy, however, is only part of the costs. The average bodega owner must cover the fixed costs of renting a space, building the store, and complying with inspectors. Those are the fixed costs that must be internalized into the cost of produce to break even.
Real stores are competing in one of the tightest markets in the world and are grappling with a 33% nationwide increase in costs since 2019. Mamdani wants to use the stores to prove that socialism works as part of his effort to introduce New York to the “warmth of socialism.” We may never know the real costs of the Mamdani markets.
According to the New York Post, the city plans to open an East Harlem location as its first store, at a reported cost of $30 million.
However, that is not the full cost. The Post also reported that the city had already appropriated $25 million to improve the first site. The city will lose millions that could have been acquired through a sale of the land or through rents to private companies. Those costs are left on other ledgers and not likely counted in the true costs of the Mamdani markets.
The first store will not even open until 2027 despite the props behind Mamdani. The second Manhattan store will not open until 2029. That is three years and tens of millions of dollars for just the first two stores.
That is how Mamdani is promising New Yorkers savings of “$90 a month, or roughly $1,000 a year.” He is using the city to subsidize food under the guise of selling at low, but still profitable prices. Ironically, those who can take advantage of the subsidy at the first two stores in Manhattan will be anyone, including the privileged, wealthy New Yorkers whom Mamdani denounces for not paying their fair share. After all, everyone wants below-market-priced slices in the Big Apple.
The first city-run grocery, in East Harlem, will cost $30 million to build — and perhaps more. It will never need to pay this money back nor factor it into its prices. The “warmth of socialism” will cover it; that is, you.
In reality, Mamdani will be selling apples at a far greater cost than any competitor, but those true costs will be buried in the city budget and paid for by the taxpayers.
Indeed, the Mamdani markets are likely to prove the most expensive groceries in the city.
Mamdani, however, has never sweated the math or the means. He knows that the focus will be on the cash register price and not the true cost.
Of course, there is a big difference between the gold watch grift and the Mamdani grift: buying a knockoff watch only costs chumps a few bucks. The Mamdani con will cost New Yorkers millions, and most will thank him for it.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Here is the column:
Last week, Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s short stint as a faux president ended with an embarrassing acknowledgment that he could not, as promised during his campaign, arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
So, this week, Mamdani the Grocer made a reappearance, with details on the five city-run grocery stores that he will open.
But rather than deliver discount groceries, Mamdani is selling New Yorkers a bill of goods that will cost them millions.
What Mamdani described was a discount food bank dressed up as a grocery. Standing in front of blackboards saying “REDUCED 30%,” Mamdani sounded like a bodega hawker: “Once a month, our five city-run grocery stores will set prices for this core set of goods at 30% below typical retail prices. No exceptions, no gimmicks.”
Here’s the most delicious part: the presser was a gimmick from beginning to end.
The mayor promised that “The savings will last for the entire month. That means no weekly fluctuations or sticker shock at the checkout line — not for our seniors living on fixed incomes, nor for the parents who rely on a regular supply of apple slices to keep toddler tantrums at bay.”
The Mamdani markets are new variations of an old New York grift: selling gold watches for $5. The dupes want to believe that somehow this street vendor, surreptitiously displaying watches inside his overcoat, actually found a way to sell “solid gold watches” for just a few bucks.
The math simply does not add up for Mamdani. Most groceries have an average profit margin between 1% and 3%, one of the smallest margins of any industry.
To promise a 30% discount below market rate that cannot be adjusted due to monthly market fluctuations is economically absurd.
It is not a description of a competitive grocery but a public charity. It is a quasi-food bank where taxpayers subsidize the cost.
As usual, Mamdani turns this into a class war, demonizing business owners. He suggests that real grocery stores are simply price gougers hoarding windfall profits from consumers. He ignores that they must pay rent, upkeep and fees — all things the city-run stores may simply write off.
He proclaimed, “May the most affordable grocery store win.”
Of course, the test is not which grocery is the most affordable, but which is the most sustainable. If you are willing to take a bath on sales, you can always offer the most affordable prices for as long as your excess cash holds out.
In Mamdani’s case, he has the credit of New York City to draw on to compete against Mom-and-Pop bodegas.
The subsidy, however, is only part of the costs. The average bodega owner must cover the fixed costs of renting a space, building the store, and complying with inspectors. Those are the fixed costs that must be internalized into the cost of produce to break even.
Real stores are competing in one of the tightest markets in the world and are grappling with a 33% nationwide increase in costs since 2019. Mamdani wants to use the stores to prove that socialism works as part of his effort to introduce New York to the “warmth of socialism.” We may never know the real costs of the Mamdani markets.
According to the New York Post, the city plans to open an East Harlem location as its first store, at a reported cost of $30 million.
However, that is not the full cost. The Post also reported that the city had already appropriated $25 million to improve the first site. The city will lose millions that could have been acquired through a sale of the land or through rents to private companies. Those costs are left on other ledgers and not likely counted in the true costs of the Mamdani markets.
The first store will not even open until 2027 despite the props behind Mamdani. The second Manhattan store will not open until 2029. That is three years and tens of millions of dollars for just the first two stores.
That is how Mamdani is promising New Yorkers savings of “$90 a month, or roughly $1,000 a year.” He is using the city to subsidize food under the guise of selling at low, but still profitable prices. Ironically, those who can take advantage of the subsidy at the first two stores in Manhattan will be anyone, including the privileged, wealthy New Yorkers whom Mamdani denounces for not paying their fair share. After all, everyone wants below-market-priced slices in the Big Apple.
The first city-run grocery, in East Harlem, will cost $30 million to build — and perhaps more. It will never need to pay this money back nor factor it into its prices. The “warmth of socialism” will cover it; that is, you.
In reality, Mamdani will be selling apples at a far greater cost than any competitor, but those true costs will be buried in the city budget and paid for by the taxpayers.
Indeed, the Mamdani markets are likely to prove the most expensive groceries in the city.
Mamdani, however, has never sweated the math or the means. He knows that the focus will be on the cash register price and not the true cost.
Of course, there is a big difference between the gold watch grift and the Mamdani grift: buying a knockoff watch only costs chumps a few bucks. The Mamdani con will cost New Yorkers millions, and most will thank him for it.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
____________________________
Dems’ Hatred of Trump Created this Socialist Monster — and Now it’s Turning on Them
By Victor Davis Hanson, July 31, 2026
Voters’ “affordability” fears are supposedly fueling the Democratic Party’s new, strident socialism.
Yet annual inflation during former President Joe Biden’s four years peaked at over 9%, while prices for some key staples rose by 30% over his tenure — all to silence from the left.
The socialists weren’t just quiet during Biden’s term; they were themselves responsible for his rampant inflation.
They had implemented an inflationary de facto third Obama term, ramming through the most radical and costly agenda in decades under the veneer of Biden’s cognitively challenged waxen effigy.
So the current Jacobin takeover of the Democratic Party was not sparked by concerns about “affordability” — at least not if “affordability” means the middle-class struggle to buy a house, a car or groceries.
Instead, this socialist moment is merely the logical culmination of years of boutique radicalism within the Democratic aristocracy.
Almost every weaponized scam and national hysteria in the last two decades was amplified and spread by mainstream Democrats: the farcical claim that the Wuhan-lab-hatched COVID virus came from pangolins or bats, the deification of George Floyd, the radical diminution of in-person voting, the mythology of a 1619 national founding and more.
Who allowed over 10 million border-jumpers into the country — illegal, unvetted and instantaneously dependent on the welfare state?
Who gave us multiple genders and biological males showering with teenage girls or female prisoners?
Who sloganeered about “defund the police” and “no cash bail”?
All this was about as radical as it gets.
The Democratic establishment’s unhinged hatred of Donald Trump helped birth the socialist-cum-communist Frankensteinian monster that’s now devouring its mad-scientist creators.
“By any means necessary” was a Democratic mantra over a decade ago.
By 2016, the Democratic leadership and the Clinton campaign were hatching the Steele-dossier farce to warp an election.
In 2020, the Democratic deep state fabricated the farcical claim that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, a hoax that, this time around, likely did alter an election.
Then came four unhinged years of anti-Trump lawfare.
All those perversions of the legal system were accompanied by a host of mainstream Democrats, retired generals, politicos and athletes shouting that Trump was a Nazi, a fascist, a traitor or a Putin asset.
Three would-be assassins got close to killing Trump — near-death encounters that elicited unapologetic applause for the attempts.
Murderers themselves were normalized as leftist icons, as seen in the canonization of Luigi Mangione.
Yet did the establishment Democratic apparat calm these waters?
Or did it set them boiling?
It was Chuck Schumer who threatened conservative Supreme Court justices, sounding more like a pink-haired anti-ICE street protester than a US senator.
No surprise that two years later a left-wing would-be assassin turned up at Kavanaugh’s home.
Maxine Waters urged the public to bird-dog Trump administration officials and harass them whenever they were seen in public — “in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station.”
Then there was soon-to-be Vice President Kamala Harris egging on the violent George Floyd demonstrations: “This is a movement, I’m telling you . . . And everyone beware, because . . they’re not going to let up, and they should not.”
So today’s young socialists and communists did not really hijack the party: They were spawned and nurtured by aged Democrats.
They became irate over their impotence and loss of influence — and simply upgraded the methods and message of their elders.
They did not storm the party parapets, but were invited in by a party that had already radicalized itself — amid its hatred of Trump and its growing estrangement from the majority of the American people.
Socialists did not lower the bar for extremism; establishment Democrats had already destroyed that standard altogether.
The only change is that the electrified socialist monsters have awakened.
They have mocked their stagnant creators, reenergized the old messages, and now simply seek to replace the messengers.
Now, the new socialists think, hardcore leftists no longer have to hide their agendas for fear of losing elections.
In their folly, they attributed Harris’ 2024 implosion not to her clumsy efforts to disown and disguise her radical past (including the most left-wing voting record in the Senate), but to her not being left-wing enough.
In other words, they’re convinced a milquetoast socialist lost in 2024 not because she was too radical for America, but because she was not socialist — or indeed, communist — enough.
So the crazed new socialists are brazenly broadcasting the old agendas: open borders, mass amnesties, defunding the police, ending fossil fuels, seeking to destroy the Senate and Supreme Court, scapegoating whites and white “privilege” — and adding a new element, anti-Zionism and indeed antisemitism.
America will soon see how this insanity works out.
Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
By Victor Davis Hanson, July 31, 2026
Voters’ “affordability” fears are supposedly fueling the Democratic Party’s new, strident socialism.
Yet annual inflation during former President Joe Biden’s four years peaked at over 9%, while prices for some key staples rose by 30% over his tenure — all to silence from the left.
The socialists weren’t just quiet during Biden’s term; they were themselves responsible for his rampant inflation.
They had implemented an inflationary de facto third Obama term, ramming through the most radical and costly agenda in decades under the veneer of Biden’s cognitively challenged waxen effigy.
So the current Jacobin takeover of the Democratic Party was not sparked by concerns about “affordability” — at least not if “affordability” means the middle-class struggle to buy a house, a car or groceries.
Instead, this socialist moment is merely the logical culmination of years of boutique radicalism within the Democratic aristocracy.
Almost every weaponized scam and national hysteria in the last two decades was amplified and spread by mainstream Democrats: the farcical claim that the Wuhan-lab-hatched COVID virus came from pangolins or bats, the deification of George Floyd, the radical diminution of in-person voting, the mythology of a 1619 national founding and more.
Who allowed over 10 million border-jumpers into the country — illegal, unvetted and instantaneously dependent on the welfare state?
Who gave us multiple genders and biological males showering with teenage girls or female prisoners?
Who sloganeered about “defund the police” and “no cash bail”?
All this was about as radical as it gets.
The Democratic establishment’s unhinged hatred of Donald Trump helped birth the socialist-cum-communist Frankensteinian monster that’s now devouring its mad-scientist creators.
“By any means necessary” was a Democratic mantra over a decade ago.
By 2016, the Democratic leadership and the Clinton campaign were hatching the Steele-dossier farce to warp an election.
In 2020, the Democratic deep state fabricated the farcical claim that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, a hoax that, this time around, likely did alter an election.
Then came four unhinged years of anti-Trump lawfare.
All those perversions of the legal system were accompanied by a host of mainstream Democrats, retired generals, politicos and athletes shouting that Trump was a Nazi, a fascist, a traitor or a Putin asset.
Three would-be assassins got close to killing Trump — near-death encounters that elicited unapologetic applause for the attempts.
Murderers themselves were normalized as leftist icons, as seen in the canonization of Luigi Mangione.
Yet did the establishment Democratic apparat calm these waters?
Or did it set them boiling?
It was Chuck Schumer who threatened conservative Supreme Court justices, sounding more like a pink-haired anti-ICE street protester than a US senator.
No surprise that two years later a left-wing would-be assassin turned up at Kavanaugh’s home.
Maxine Waters urged the public to bird-dog Trump administration officials and harass them whenever they were seen in public — “in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station.”
Then there was soon-to-be Vice President Kamala Harris egging on the violent George Floyd demonstrations: “This is a movement, I’m telling you . . . And everyone beware, because . . they’re not going to let up, and they should not.”
So today’s young socialists and communists did not really hijack the party: They were spawned and nurtured by aged Democrats.
They became irate over their impotence and loss of influence — and simply upgraded the methods and message of their elders.
They did not storm the party parapets, but were invited in by a party that had already radicalized itself — amid its hatred of Trump and its growing estrangement from the majority of the American people.
Socialists did not lower the bar for extremism; establishment Democrats had already destroyed that standard altogether.
The only change is that the electrified socialist monsters have awakened.
They have mocked their stagnant creators, reenergized the old messages, and now simply seek to replace the messengers.
Now, the new socialists think, hardcore leftists no longer have to hide their agendas for fear of losing elections.
In their folly, they attributed Harris’ 2024 implosion not to her clumsy efforts to disown and disguise her radical past (including the most left-wing voting record in the Senate), but to her not being left-wing enough.
In other words, they’re convinced a milquetoast socialist lost in 2024 not because she was too radical for America, but because she was not socialist — or indeed, communist — enough.
So the crazed new socialists are brazenly broadcasting the old agendas: open borders, mass amnesties, defunding the police, ending fossil fuels, seeking to destroy the Senate and Supreme Court, scapegoating whites and white “privilege” — and adding a new element, anti-Zionism and indeed antisemitism.
America will soon see how this insanity works out.
Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
____________________________
____________________________
Alyssa Ahlgren
My Generation Is Blind to the Prosperity Around Us
By Alyssa Ahlgren
I’m sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to “fix” the so-called injustices of capitalism.
I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook’s, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me.
We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times.
Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.
Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, “An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.”
Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Now, I’m not attributing Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s words to outright dishonesty. I do think she whole-heartedly believes the words she said to be true. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided. My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let’s just say I didn’t have the popular opinion, but I digress.
Let me lay down some universal truths really quick. The United States of America has lifted more people out of abject poverty, spread more freedom and democracy, and has created more innovation in technology and medicine than any other nation in human history. Not only that but our citizenry continually breaks world records with charitable donations, the rags to riches story is not only possible in America but not uncommon, we have the strongest purchasing power on earth, and we encompass 25% of the world’s GDP.
The list goes on. However, these universal truths don’t matter. We are told that income inequality is an existential crisis (even though this is not an indicator of prosperity, some of the poorest countries in the world have low-income inequality), we are told that we are oppressed by capitalism (even though it’s brought about more freedom and wealth to the most people than any other system in world history), we are told that the only way we will acquire the benefits of true prosperity is through socialism and centralization of federal power (even though history has proven time and again this only brings tyranny and suffering).
Why then, with all of the overwhelming evidence around us, evidence that I can even see sitting at a coffee shop, do we not view this as prosperity?
We have people who are dying to get into our country. People around the world destitute and truly impoverished. Yet, we have a young generation convinced they’ve never seen prosperity, and as a result, elect politicians dead set on taking steps towards abolishing capitalism. Why?
The answer is this, my generation has ONLY seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn’t live in the great depression, or live through two world wars, or see the rise and fall of socialism and communism. We don’t know what it’s like not to live without the internet, without cars, without smartphones. We don’t have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it’s spreading like a plague.
With the current political climate giving rise to the misguided idea of a socialist utopia, will we see the light? Or will we have to lose it all to realize that what we have now is true prosperity? Destroying the free market will undo what millions of people have died to achieve.
My generation is becoming the largest voting bloc in the country. We have an opportunity to continue to propel us forward with the gifts capitalism and democracy has given us. The other option is that we can fall into the trap of entitlement and relapse into restrictive socialist destitution. The choice doesn’t seem too hard, does it?”
By Alyssa Ahlgren
I’m sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of Democratic candidates calling for policies to “fix” the so-called injustices of capitalism.
I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook’s, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me.
We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we’ve become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose. These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don’t give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty. One. Times.
Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful.
Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, “An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity.”
Never saw American prosperity. Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I’ve ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Now, I’m not attributing Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s words to outright dishonesty. I do think she whole-heartedly believes the words she said to be true. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided. My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let’s just say I didn’t have the popular opinion, but I digress.
Let me lay down some universal truths really quick. The United States of America has lifted more people out of abject poverty, spread more freedom and democracy, and has created more innovation in technology and medicine than any other nation in human history. Not only that but our citizenry continually breaks world records with charitable donations, the rags to riches story is not only possible in America but not uncommon, we have the strongest purchasing power on earth, and we encompass 25% of the world’s GDP.
The list goes on. However, these universal truths don’t matter. We are told that income inequality is an existential crisis (even though this is not an indicator of prosperity, some of the poorest countries in the world have low-income inequality), we are told that we are oppressed by capitalism (even though it’s brought about more freedom and wealth to the most people than any other system in world history), we are told that the only way we will acquire the benefits of true prosperity is through socialism and centralization of federal power (even though history has proven time and again this only brings tyranny and suffering).
Why then, with all of the overwhelming evidence around us, evidence that I can even see sitting at a coffee shop, do we not view this as prosperity?
We have people who are dying to get into our country. People around the world destitute and truly impoverished. Yet, we have a young generation convinced they’ve never seen prosperity, and as a result, elect politicians dead set on taking steps towards abolishing capitalism. Why?
The answer is this, my generation has ONLY seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn’t live in the great depression, or live through two world wars, or see the rise and fall of socialism and communism. We don’t know what it’s like not to live without the internet, without cars, without smartphones. We don’t have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it’s spreading like a plague.
With the current political climate giving rise to the misguided idea of a socialist utopia, will we see the light? Or will we have to lose it all to realize that what we have now is true prosperity? Destroying the free market will undo what millions of people have died to achieve.
My generation is becoming the largest voting bloc in the country. We have an opportunity to continue to propel us forward with the gifts capitalism and democracy has given us. The other option is that we can fall into the trap of entitlement and relapse into restrictive socialist destitution. The choice doesn’t seem too hard, does it?”
____________________________
Justice Clarence Thomas delivers "Remarks on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence," April 15, 2026, University of Texas at Austin.
Justice Clarence Thomas: 'Remarks on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence'
This is a lightly edited transcript of a speech delivered by Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, at the University of Texas at Austin on April 15, 2026.
President Davis, Provost Inboden, Dean Dyer, faculty, and students, thank you for the invitation to visit the University of Texas at Austin. It is an honor to be here at one of the nation’s finest universities to celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
I am pleased to join you all today. I hope that my will help in some small way to inaugurate another great initiative, the State of Texas’s plan to restore the teaching of civics and Western civilization to a central place in its flagship university.
Your plans could not come at a more important moment for our nation, when, as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the very values announced in it have fallen out of favor.
It is my sincere hope that your work to revitalize the teaching and research of Western civilization and the American constitutional tradition will lead the way in the reform of our nation’s colleges and universities.
And I hope that your example will help to rejuvenate our fellow citizens’ commitment to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
One of the features of this state that stands out is the way that Texans talk about it. What comes through is the sustained and sustaining affection that they have for their home state. That reverential feeling for and attachment to Texas is to be respected, admired, and, if possible, emulated.
This affection is similar to the attachment that I grew to have for my home state of Georgia and certainly for our country, despite the indelible mark of segregation and its companion evils.
I was proud to say that I was American by birth and Georgian by the grace of God. And, it was not uncommon to hear others proclaim their allegiance to “God and country” or, as Superman was wont to say, “Truth, justice, and the American way.”
At our grammar school, St. Benedict’s, we started each school day by lining up two by two and class by class in the school yard to watch the raising of the American flag and to say the pledge of allegiance before silently marching to our respective classrooms.
Even as so much of our God-given and Constitutional rights were denied us, we still faithfully said the pledge of allegiance, memorized the preamble to our Constitution, and yearned for the fulfillment of its promised ideals.
Sadly, these sentiments are not as widely shared among our fellow citizens today. And, they certainly do not seem to have that sustaining strength that they had back then.
In fact, all too often the sentiments tend toward cynicism, rejection, hostility, and animus toward our country and its ideals. With the foregoing in mind, I would like to begin by addressing my first encounter with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It is perhaps not what you would immediately think.
The second paragraph of the Declaration proclaims: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….”
Throughout my youth, these truths were articles of faith that were impervious to bigotry or discrimination.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “self-evident” as “obviously true, and requiring no proof, argument, or explanation.” Whether they had a divine source, or a worldly one, they were never questioned. They were the Holy Grail, the North Star, the rock – immovable and unquestioned.
Despite the multiplicity of laws and customs that reeked of bigotry, it was universally believed among those blacks with whom I lived and who had very little or no formal education, that “in God’s eyes and under our Constitution, we are equal.”
This was also the case with my nuns, most of whom were Irish immigrants. At home, at school, and at Church, we were taught that we are inherently equal; that equality came from God; and that it could not be diminished by man.
We were made in the image and likeness of God. That proposition was not debatable and was beyond the power of man to alter. Others, with power and animus, could treat us as unequal, but they lacked the divine power to make us so.
Somehow, without formal education, the older people knew that these God-given or natural rights preceded and transcended governmental power or authority.
When you lived in a segregated world with palpable discrimination, and the governments nearest to you enforced laws and customs that promoted unequal treatment, it was obvious that you did not get your rights or your dignity from those governments, but from God.
Though not a literate man, my grandfather often spoke of our rights and obligations coming from God, not from the architects of segregation and discrimination.
Men were not angels. They were subject to the constraints of antecedent rights. And, we were not subject to them even as we were subjected to their whims. We knew that life, liberty, and property were sacrosanct.
These truths were self-evident to the adults in our lives and were taught to us as undeniable truths. Those around us could endure with dignity the insults of segregation because they knew that, in God’s eyes, they were equal.
All too often, there is an unfortunate tendency, when discussing the Declaration, to make these self-evident truths and first principles of government obscure.
Intellectuals want you to believe that our founding principles are matters of esoteric philosophy or sophisticated debate. Even those who support them too often talk about them as if they were academic playthings. They over-complicate them, take the spirit out of them, and discuss them in a manner that puts us to sleep.
But the principles of the Declaration of Independence, as I encountered them, are a way of life. They are not an abstract theory that you learn in college or law school, but the basic premises of our Constitution and government that you learn from the people all around you.
When Alexis de Tocqueville visited early America from France, he was struck that there was “no country in the civilized world where they are less occupied with philosophy than the United States.”
But there was likewise no country where the principles of the Declaration were more deeply ingrained or more fiercely defended than those same United States.
That is the sense in which I knew the principles of the Declaration in my childhood; that is the only sense in which those principles can sustain our country; and that is the sense in which I will speak to you about those principles today.
I still believe now, as I did then, that the Declaration of 1776 provides us with the principles to guide us as citizens of our great Republic.
Even in this time of questioning and criticism of our founding, we should not forget that the Declaration established the principles that produced – despite all of our imperfections, miscues, and tragic mistakes – the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation in the history of the world.
It provided the moral principles by which Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. could criticize the institutions of slavery and segregation.
The Declaration is, in fact, along with the Gospels, one of the greatest antislavery documents in the history of Western civilization. It did not establish a form of government – that was the job of the Constitution that followed – but it stated the purpose of government.
The Declaration made clear in clear prose that the purpose of government is to protect our God-given inalienable rights, rights that all individuals equally possess.
As Abraham Lincoln declared in 1858, in the midst of his great debate with Stephen Douglas, “drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man’s success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity – the Declaration of American Independence.”
The ideas of the Declaration were so powerful that our nation could not coexist with the contradiction created by the great evil of slavery.
Those principles were so powerful that hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and died in the Civil War to make men free.
Those ideas have been so powerful that they convinced our nation to finally end segregation. They continue to be so powerful today that they have inspired people throughout the world to throw off the shackles of their oppressors.
And, it all began with our Founders declaring in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
We should also not forget the important sentence that follows: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The principle of consent follows from the principle of equality. We the people can never legitimately consent to the violation of our God-given equality.
However, when I encounter the Declaration of Independence anew today, I am most struck by the final sentence. It can be easy to forget, 250 years later, the courage it took for those 56 men to sign the Declaration.
Arguably, these men committed treason against the King, risking death at the hands of an empire far mightier than the newborn United States.
They thus concluded with the memorable final sentence: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.”
I will say that again: “we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
Recently, I came across a definition of “courage” that is attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt:
“Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.” In essence, the signers of the Declaration were saying that they were willing to die for the principles they were asserting, the supreme act of courage.
Nothing in the Declaration of Independence, I now realize, matters without that final sentence. Without that sentence, the rest of the Declaration is but mere words on parchment paper. Nice words, but, nonetheless, just words.
What changed the world was not the words, but the commitment and spirit of the people who were willing to labor, sacrifice, and even give their lives—what Lincoln at Gettysburg called “the last full measure of devotion”—for the Declaration’s principles.
It is that devotion to which we owe our rich inheritance. It was that devotion that sustained the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army as they fought and won the Revolutionary War, braved the winter at Valley Forge, crossed the Delaware, and defeated an army many times their number and firepower to win their freedom.
It was that devotion that Nathan Hale expressed when, before being executed by the British, he reportedly stated: “I only regret that I have but one life to give for this country.”
It was that devotion that Patrick Henry invoked when he stood before the Virginia Convention and asked, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
That devotion has driven the great achievements and heroism of Americans in the 250 years since. Think of the frontiersmen who settled the West. Think of the families who built little towns on the prairies.
Think of the women who raised their boys to love God and country and sent them off to war. Think of the soldiers on the battlefields of the Civil War, who sang together “as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
Think of the innovators and laborers and engineers who, Tocqueville observed, were so infused with patriotism that they felt every triumph for their country as a triumph in their personal lives. Think of how that devotion carried us from Independence Hall to the Alamo to Flanders Field and the beaches of Normandy.
Think of the memorable scene in Band of Brothers when the American soldiers arrived at the concentration camp, saw the suffering, emaciated, desperate prisoners, unlocked the gates, and gave them food and blankets and warm embraces.
The soldiers looked around and knew in their hearts, as the episode is titled, “Why We Fight.” Think of the passengers of Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on 9/11, or the young men and women whom we send into harm’s way, even as we sit here today.
Think of my grandparents who heroically, quietly, without fanfare sat my brother and me down at the kitchen table in August of 1955, and committed the rest of their lives to us so that we would have a chance.
They said: “We didn’t have no education and no chance but you boys are going to have a chance. But, we goin’ to devote the rest of our lives to you boys.”
It was their devotion, their love, their dedication to raising us right that has made the difference — not the words — though the words expressed as best they could what they intended to do.
Similarly, it is the devotion expressed in the final sentence of the Declaration, the willingness to do anything for our principles that has, throughout American history, been most indispensable.
It is that devotion that we are missing today, and that we must find in our hearts if this nation is to endure.
I arrived in Washington, D.C., 47 years ago. I arrived as a staffer for Senator Jack Danforth in 1979, telling myself that the job on Capitol Hill would be a short stop on my way home to Savannah.
I then joined the executive branch during the Reagan Administration, served in two federal agencies for nearly a decade, served as a judge on a federal court of appeals, and have, for the past 34 years, served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
Since the day that I arrived in Washington, there was never a shortage of people espousing noble purposes. All around me, there have always been people, full of promises, claiming a commitment to some righteous cause—to traditional morality, to national defense, to free enterprise, to religious piety, or to the original meaning of the Constitution.
These people can be just as high-minded as the men who signed the Declaration. They can mouth the words of the Declaration and parrot its principles. They can write essays and talk at conferences about the Declaration with the best of them.
All too often, however, this was but lip service camouflaged by grand theories in the tall grass of big words and eloquent phrases.
What seemed to be lacking, however, was the devotion. People come to Washington and you learn who they really are. To paraphrase something I recently read, combat strips us down to our essentials. But once in the spotlight, in that combat, many people fall prey to the lures that are set up to turn them away from their previously untested principles.
They become controlled by criticism, so fearful of negative attention that they find ways to avoid doing the right thing. Or, they fall prey to the enchanting siren songs of flattery and become so bewitched by praise that they will desperately seek to conform accordingly. They are enticed by access to things that were previously unavailable to them.
They get so swept up in the euphoria of acclamation and acceptance that they put aside their convictions. They water down their message, negotiate against themselves, vote against their principles, and hide in the tall grass.
They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences, and their country.
It did not take me long in Washington to stop wondering why the Supreme Court took sixty years to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that endorsed government racial segregation and validated the Jim Crow South that I grew up in.
It could not have taken my Court sixty years to know that Plessy was a hideous wrong and that racial segregation was grossly incompatible with our colorblind Constitution. The Justices must have known it all along.
The right thing to do, as Justice Harlan spelled out his lone dissent at the time, was obvious, as it so often is. What stood in the way was cowardice. The Justices were afraid of the societal consequences. They were afraid of coming under political fire. They were afraid of losing their social standing. They were afraid of bad press.
They were afraid that, if they began to enforce a colorblind Constitution, they would have to address interracial marriage next. So, for sixty disgraceful years, they made American children like me grow up in a racial caste system because it was easier to do nothing than to do the right thing.
When Americans look to Washington and wonder why it so often disappoints, it is not because there are too few people who know what is right. It is not because we lack the intellect, or the capacity, or the talent. It is instead because there are too few people who are willing to do what it takes to do the right thing—to sacrifice the popularity, flattery, comfort, and security that are the costs of principle.
It is because too few of us reflect on and reflect the courage and commitment of that final sentence of the Declaration. And, so many seem to have forgotten what others have sacrificed so that this nation exists and endures.
I will state this more poignantly: Do any of us have what it took our young soldiers to storm Normandy Beach, to fight Guadalcanal or later at Chosin Reservoir? If we can’t say we have the courage of these young men in battle to defend our founding principles, then how do we preserve them and this republic?
Until we find a devotion that matches the courage of those who made this country possible, I doubt any amount of study or development of insights about our Constitution will make much of a difference.
There is a world of difference between what it takes to score academic points and what it takes to protect and defend the Constitution as we are sworn to do.
I have faced this struggle myself. About 43 years ago, in the early spring of 1983, I was at the lowest point in my life. I had just buried both of my grandparents, the man and woman who raised me and the two greatest people that I had ever known. I was broke. I was living in, and nearly evicted from, a cockroach-infested apartment.
I could not pay my credit card bills on time. I would soon sell my only car to pay for my son’s tuition. I was being constantly attacked by the media and Congress because, as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I did not bow to the prevailing orthodoxy on race.
At this point, I asked myself a simple question: what are your principles worth to you? The answer I gave then is the same I would give today. It is worth life itself.
What are those principles? They are the same principles in the Declaration. They were bequeathed to me by my grandparents and reinforced by my nuns and my faith.
In God’s eyes we are equal. We are all equally created in the image and likeness of God. We are all endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Our rights and our dignity are inherent.
They do not come from others and that they do not come from the Government. And, our Government derives its legitimacy and authority from our consent; we do not get ours from it.
The primacy of our rights in relation to our government is crucial in reconciling the immortal words of the Declaration with our Constitution and our history. None of our rights come from the government; all of the government’s authority comes from our consent.
And, the structure and limited role of government is to assure that it does not exceed the authority to which we have consented or intrude on our natural rights.
The Constitution is the means of government; it is the Declaration that announces the ends of government. The Constitution achieves this purpose by protecting our natural rights and liberties from concentrated power and excessive democracy.
Our Constitution creates a separation of powers and federalism – truly for the first time in modern history – to prevent the government from becoming so strong that it threatens our natural rights.
Federalist No. 10 proposed the idea that the great threat to our rights comes from majority faction. Human history teaches us, alas, that numerical majorities frequently seek to control government, and use the state to violate the rights of the minority.
Because man is fallen and the desire for power was, as James Madison described it, “sown in the nature of man,” government had to be limited. For, as Madison said, “if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
But men are not angels. The slaveholders used the power of government to deny the fundamental natural rights of the slaves; the segregationists used the state to oppress the freed men and women – including my ancestors.
As we meet here today, it is unclear whether these principles will endure.
At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream. The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominently among them the 28th President, Woodrow Wilson, called it progressivism.
Since Wilson’s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads in our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.
Progressivism was not native to America. Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it from Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, whose state-centric society they admired.
Progressives like Wilson argued that America needed to leave behind the principles of the Founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated people of Europe.
Wilson called Germany’s system of relatively unimpeded state power “nearly perfected.” He acknowledged that it was “a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principle,” which “offers none but what are to our minds alien ideas.”
He thus described America, still stuck with its original system of government, as “slow to see” the superiority of the European system.
Progressivism was the first mainstream American political movement—with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War—to openly oppose the principles of the Declaration.
Progressives strove to undo the Declaration’s commitment to equality and natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident. To Wilson, the inalienable rights of the individual were “a lot of nonsense.”
Wilson redefined “liberty” not as a natural right antecedent to the government, but as “the right of those who are governed to adjust government to their own needs and interests.” In other words, liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God, but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government.
The government, as Wilson reconceived of it, would be “beneficent and indispensable.” Progressives such as John Dewey attacked the Framers for believing that “their ideas [were] immutable truth good at all times and places,” when instead they were “historically conditioned, and relevant only to their own time.” Now, Dewey and the progressives argued, those ideas were to be repealed.
Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from the Government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.
You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people.
Before he entered politics, Wilson would describe the American people as “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn,” and “foolish.” He lamented that we “do too much by vote” and too little by expert rule. He proposed that the people be ruled by administrators who use them as “tools.” He once again aspired to be like Germany, where the people, he said admiringly, were “docile and acquiescent.”
The century of progressivism did not go well. The European system that Wilson and the progressives scolded Americans for not adopting, which he called nearly perfect, led to the governments that caused the most awful century that the world has ever seen.
Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao all were intertwined with the rise of progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our Declaration was based. Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people.
It was a terrible mistake to adopt Progressivism’s rejection of the Declaration’s vision of universal, inalienable natural rights. Wilson’s claim that natural rights must give way to historical progress could justify the greatest mistakes in our history.
In Plessy v. Ferguson, my Court upheld Louisiana’s system of racial segregation because “separate but equal,” it observed, was reasonable in light of “the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order.”
It comes as no surprise that the Progressives embraced eugenics. Progressives believed that Darwinian science – the idea of ever advancing progress written into biology itself – had proven the inherent superiority and inferiority of the races. I
t was only a small step for Wilson to resegregate the federal workforce. It was only another step for the government to launch sterilization programs on those deemed by the experts of the day to be unfit to reproduce – upheld by my Court in Buck v. Bell in an opinion written by no less a figure than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
We can argue over whether you believe in immutable, absolute natural rights or the Wilsonian idea of ever-progressing history. Indeed, your School of Civic Leadership was created to host such arguments. But let me ask you to consider the consequences.
European thinkers have long criticized America for remaining trapped in a Lockean world, with its weak decentralized government and strong individual rights.
They say our 18th-century Declaration has prevented us from progressing to higher forms of government.
Why has America never had a socialist party, one German sociologist famously asked. But we were fortunate not to trade our Lockean bounds for the supposedly enlightened world of Hegel, Marx, and their followers. Fascism – which, after all, was a national socialism – triggered wars in Europe and Asia that killed tens of millions.
The socialism of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China proceeded to kill more tens of millions of their own people. This is what happens when natural rights give way to the higher good of notions of history, progress, or, as Thomas Sowell has written, the “vision of the anointed.”
None of this, of course, was an improvement on the principles of the Declaration.
Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is largely about how America owed its superiority over Europe to its conscious decision to reject central planning and administrative rule root and branch.
Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive. As Calvin Coolidge said on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration:
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.
If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.
When Abraham Lincoln addressed the assembled crowd at Gettysburg, they had gathered to memorialize the past. But Lincoln’s address urged them to not do so with complacency. Instead, Lincoln said, they would look to the past as inspiration to take them to greater heights in the future.
“It is rather for us,” Lincoln said: "to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion.
"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that this government, of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
As we are gathered to celebrate this 250th anniversary of the Declaration, it may be tempting to do so as if we are passive spectators.
It may be tempting to get out our tea and crumpets, treat the Declaration like a shiny object or a keepsake, and listen to the sound of our own voices.
We could get into debates over whose conception of the Founding is better, over how we were so much better than the Founders, over what we would do differently. We could be careful to not do anything that exposes us to criticism, costs us friends, or hurts our career prospects.
What we must turn our attention to today is finding in ourselves the same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration had, so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs.
Each of you will have opportunities to be courageous every day, whether your calling in life is as a day laborer, a stay-at-home mom, a small business owner, an educator, an office worker, a judge, or a Senator.
It may mean speaking up in class tomorrow when everyone around you expects you to live by lies. It may mean confronting today’s fashionable bigotries such as anti-semitism. It may mean standing up for your religion when it is mocked and disparaged by your professors.
It may mean not budging on your principles when it will mean losing friends or being ostracized. It may mean running for your school board when you see that they are teaching your children to hate your values and our country.
It may mean turning down a job offer that requires you to make moral compromises. One thing I know to be true: It will mean waking up every day with the resolve to withstand unfair criticism and attacks.
These are the choices that will confront you, and you must decide whether to respond with timidity or with courage, as the signers of the Declaration did. It will, of course, not be easy. It never is.
But, if, like me, you need a greater source of strength than yourselves, you will need to rely on your faith to guide and sustain you through it. You will disappoint people you thought were friends and endure personal attacks as well as attacks on those you care about.
But, if you stand, you will find that courage, like cowardice, can be habit-forming – a part of your life and who you are. And, I may dare say, it is liberating. You will also be a living example for others to emulate.
So by all means, celebrate the Declaration of Independence. It is the most important act in American history, the foundation of our Constitution and, as Lincoln said, “the sheet anchor” of our republic.
But, I implore you to celebrate it by standing up for it, by defending it, and by recommitting yourselves to living up to its ideals.
Channel the courage of the men who faced down a king and signed it and, or of a President who led the nation in a Civil War rather than permit this house to be divided by the great contradiction of slavery.
Take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion.
And, “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence…[let us] mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
Thank you, and may God continue to bless this great nation. ##
This is a lightly edited transcript of a speech delivered by Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, at the University of Texas at Austin on April 15, 2026.
President Davis, Provost Inboden, Dean Dyer, faculty, and students, thank you for the invitation to visit the University of Texas at Austin. It is an honor to be here at one of the nation’s finest universities to celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
I am pleased to join you all today. I hope that my will help in some small way to inaugurate another great initiative, the State of Texas’s plan to restore the teaching of civics and Western civilization to a central place in its flagship university.
Your plans could not come at a more important moment for our nation, when, as we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the very values announced in it have fallen out of favor.
It is my sincere hope that your work to revitalize the teaching and research of Western civilization and the American constitutional tradition will lead the way in the reform of our nation’s colleges and universities.
And I hope that your example will help to rejuvenate our fellow citizens’ commitment to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
One of the features of this state that stands out is the way that Texans talk about it. What comes through is the sustained and sustaining affection that they have for their home state. That reverential feeling for and attachment to Texas is to be respected, admired, and, if possible, emulated.
This affection is similar to the attachment that I grew to have for my home state of Georgia and certainly for our country, despite the indelible mark of segregation and its companion evils.
I was proud to say that I was American by birth and Georgian by the grace of God. And, it was not uncommon to hear others proclaim their allegiance to “God and country” or, as Superman was wont to say, “Truth, justice, and the American way.”
At our grammar school, St. Benedict’s, we started each school day by lining up two by two and class by class in the school yard to watch the raising of the American flag and to say the pledge of allegiance before silently marching to our respective classrooms.
Even as so much of our God-given and Constitutional rights were denied us, we still faithfully said the pledge of allegiance, memorized the preamble to our Constitution, and yearned for the fulfillment of its promised ideals.
Sadly, these sentiments are not as widely shared among our fellow citizens today. And, they certainly do not seem to have that sustaining strength that they had back then.
In fact, all too often the sentiments tend toward cynicism, rejection, hostility, and animus toward our country and its ideals. With the foregoing in mind, I would like to begin by addressing my first encounter with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It is perhaps not what you would immediately think.
The second paragraph of the Declaration proclaims: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….”
Throughout my youth, these truths were articles of faith that were impervious to bigotry or discrimination.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “self-evident” as “obviously true, and requiring no proof, argument, or explanation.” Whether they had a divine source, or a worldly one, they were never questioned. They were the Holy Grail, the North Star, the rock – immovable and unquestioned.
Despite the multiplicity of laws and customs that reeked of bigotry, it was universally believed among those blacks with whom I lived and who had very little or no formal education, that “in God’s eyes and under our Constitution, we are equal.”
This was also the case with my nuns, most of whom were Irish immigrants. At home, at school, and at Church, we were taught that we are inherently equal; that equality came from God; and that it could not be diminished by man.
We were made in the image and likeness of God. That proposition was not debatable and was beyond the power of man to alter. Others, with power and animus, could treat us as unequal, but they lacked the divine power to make us so.
Somehow, without formal education, the older people knew that these God-given or natural rights preceded and transcended governmental power or authority.
When you lived in a segregated world with palpable discrimination, and the governments nearest to you enforced laws and customs that promoted unequal treatment, it was obvious that you did not get your rights or your dignity from those governments, but from God.
Though not a literate man, my grandfather often spoke of our rights and obligations coming from God, not from the architects of segregation and discrimination.
Men were not angels. They were subject to the constraints of antecedent rights. And, we were not subject to them even as we were subjected to their whims. We knew that life, liberty, and property were sacrosanct.
These truths were self-evident to the adults in our lives and were taught to us as undeniable truths. Those around us could endure with dignity the insults of segregation because they knew that, in God’s eyes, they were equal.
All too often, there is an unfortunate tendency, when discussing the Declaration, to make these self-evident truths and first principles of government obscure.
Intellectuals want you to believe that our founding principles are matters of esoteric philosophy or sophisticated debate. Even those who support them too often talk about them as if they were academic playthings. They over-complicate them, take the spirit out of them, and discuss them in a manner that puts us to sleep.
But the principles of the Declaration of Independence, as I encountered them, are a way of life. They are not an abstract theory that you learn in college or law school, but the basic premises of our Constitution and government that you learn from the people all around you.
When Alexis de Tocqueville visited early America from France, he was struck that there was “no country in the civilized world where they are less occupied with philosophy than the United States.”
But there was likewise no country where the principles of the Declaration were more deeply ingrained or more fiercely defended than those same United States.
That is the sense in which I knew the principles of the Declaration in my childhood; that is the only sense in which those principles can sustain our country; and that is the sense in which I will speak to you about those principles today.
I still believe now, as I did then, that the Declaration of 1776 provides us with the principles to guide us as citizens of our great Republic.
Even in this time of questioning and criticism of our founding, we should not forget that the Declaration established the principles that produced – despite all of our imperfections, miscues, and tragic mistakes – the freest, wealthiest, and most powerful nation in the history of the world.
It provided the moral principles by which Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. could criticize the institutions of slavery and segregation.
The Declaration is, in fact, along with the Gospels, one of the greatest antislavery documents in the history of Western civilization. It did not establish a form of government – that was the job of the Constitution that followed – but it stated the purpose of government.
The Declaration made clear in clear prose that the purpose of government is to protect our God-given inalienable rights, rights that all individuals equally possess.
As Abraham Lincoln declared in 1858, in the midst of his great debate with Stephen Douglas, “drop every paltry and insignificant thought for any man’s success. It is nothing; I am nothing; Judge Douglas is nothing. But do not destroy that immortal emblem of Humanity – the Declaration of American Independence.”
The ideas of the Declaration were so powerful that our nation could not coexist with the contradiction created by the great evil of slavery.
Those principles were so powerful that hundreds of thousands of Americans fought and died in the Civil War to make men free.
Those ideas have been so powerful that they convinced our nation to finally end segregation. They continue to be so powerful today that they have inspired people throughout the world to throw off the shackles of their oppressors.
And, it all began with our Founders declaring in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
We should also not forget the important sentence that follows: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The principle of consent follows from the principle of equality. We the people can never legitimately consent to the violation of our God-given equality.
However, when I encounter the Declaration of Independence anew today, I am most struck by the final sentence. It can be easy to forget, 250 years later, the courage it took for those 56 men to sign the Declaration.
Arguably, these men committed treason against the King, risking death at the hands of an empire far mightier than the newborn United States.
They thus concluded with the memorable final sentence: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor.”
I will say that again: “we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
Recently, I came across a definition of “courage” that is attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt:
“Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the assessment that something else is more important than fear.” In essence, the signers of the Declaration were saying that they were willing to die for the principles they were asserting, the supreme act of courage.
Nothing in the Declaration of Independence, I now realize, matters without that final sentence. Without that sentence, the rest of the Declaration is but mere words on parchment paper. Nice words, but, nonetheless, just words.
What changed the world was not the words, but the commitment and spirit of the people who were willing to labor, sacrifice, and even give their lives—what Lincoln at Gettysburg called “the last full measure of devotion”—for the Declaration’s principles.
It is that devotion to which we owe our rich inheritance. It was that devotion that sustained the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army as they fought and won the Revolutionary War, braved the winter at Valley Forge, crossed the Delaware, and defeated an army many times their number and firepower to win their freedom.
It was that devotion that Nathan Hale expressed when, before being executed by the British, he reportedly stated: “I only regret that I have but one life to give for this country.”
It was that devotion that Patrick Henry invoked when he stood before the Virginia Convention and asked, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
That devotion has driven the great achievements and heroism of Americans in the 250 years since. Think of the frontiersmen who settled the West. Think of the families who built little towns on the prairies.
Think of the women who raised their boys to love God and country and sent them off to war. Think of the soldiers on the battlefields of the Civil War, who sang together “as he died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.”
Think of the innovators and laborers and engineers who, Tocqueville observed, were so infused with patriotism that they felt every triumph for their country as a triumph in their personal lives. Think of how that devotion carried us from Independence Hall to the Alamo to Flanders Field and the beaches of Normandy.
Think of the memorable scene in Band of Brothers when the American soldiers arrived at the concentration camp, saw the suffering, emaciated, desperate prisoners, unlocked the gates, and gave them food and blankets and warm embraces.
The soldiers looked around and knew in their hearts, as the episode is titled, “Why We Fight.” Think of the passengers of Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on 9/11, or the young men and women whom we send into harm’s way, even as we sit here today.
Think of my grandparents who heroically, quietly, without fanfare sat my brother and me down at the kitchen table in August of 1955, and committed the rest of their lives to us so that we would have a chance.
They said: “We didn’t have no education and no chance but you boys are going to have a chance. But, we goin’ to devote the rest of our lives to you boys.”
It was their devotion, their love, their dedication to raising us right that has made the difference — not the words — though the words expressed as best they could what they intended to do.
Similarly, it is the devotion expressed in the final sentence of the Declaration, the willingness to do anything for our principles that has, throughout American history, been most indispensable.
It is that devotion that we are missing today, and that we must find in our hearts if this nation is to endure.
I arrived in Washington, D.C., 47 years ago. I arrived as a staffer for Senator Jack Danforth in 1979, telling myself that the job on Capitol Hill would be a short stop on my way home to Savannah.
I then joined the executive branch during the Reagan Administration, served in two federal agencies for nearly a decade, served as a judge on a federal court of appeals, and have, for the past 34 years, served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.
Since the day that I arrived in Washington, there was never a shortage of people espousing noble purposes. All around me, there have always been people, full of promises, claiming a commitment to some righteous cause—to traditional morality, to national defense, to free enterprise, to religious piety, or to the original meaning of the Constitution.
These people can be just as high-minded as the men who signed the Declaration. They can mouth the words of the Declaration and parrot its principles. They can write essays and talk at conferences about the Declaration with the best of them.
All too often, however, this was but lip service camouflaged by grand theories in the tall grass of big words and eloquent phrases.
What seemed to be lacking, however, was the devotion. People come to Washington and you learn who they really are. To paraphrase something I recently read, combat strips us down to our essentials. But once in the spotlight, in that combat, many people fall prey to the lures that are set up to turn them away from their previously untested principles.
They become controlled by criticism, so fearful of negative attention that they find ways to avoid doing the right thing. Or, they fall prey to the enchanting siren songs of flattery and become so bewitched by praise that they will desperately seek to conform accordingly. They are enticed by access to things that were previously unavailable to them.
They get so swept up in the euphoria of acclamation and acceptance that they put aside their convictions. They water down their message, negotiate against themselves, vote against their principles, and hide in the tall grass.
They recast themselves as institutionalists, pragmatists, or thoughtful moderates, all as a way of justifying their failures to themselves, their consciences, and their country.
It did not take me long in Washington to stop wondering why the Supreme Court took sixty years to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 decision that endorsed government racial segregation and validated the Jim Crow South that I grew up in.
It could not have taken my Court sixty years to know that Plessy was a hideous wrong and that racial segregation was grossly incompatible with our colorblind Constitution. The Justices must have known it all along.
The right thing to do, as Justice Harlan spelled out his lone dissent at the time, was obvious, as it so often is. What stood in the way was cowardice. The Justices were afraid of the societal consequences. They were afraid of coming under political fire. They were afraid of losing their social standing. They were afraid of bad press.
They were afraid that, if they began to enforce a colorblind Constitution, they would have to address interracial marriage next. So, for sixty disgraceful years, they made American children like me grow up in a racial caste system because it was easier to do nothing than to do the right thing.
When Americans look to Washington and wonder why it so often disappoints, it is not because there are too few people who know what is right. It is not because we lack the intellect, or the capacity, or the talent. It is instead because there are too few people who are willing to do what it takes to do the right thing—to sacrifice the popularity, flattery, comfort, and security that are the costs of principle.
It is because too few of us reflect on and reflect the courage and commitment of that final sentence of the Declaration. And, so many seem to have forgotten what others have sacrificed so that this nation exists and endures.
I will state this more poignantly: Do any of us have what it took our young soldiers to storm Normandy Beach, to fight Guadalcanal or later at Chosin Reservoir? If we can’t say we have the courage of these young men in battle to defend our founding principles, then how do we preserve them and this republic?
Until we find a devotion that matches the courage of those who made this country possible, I doubt any amount of study or development of insights about our Constitution will make much of a difference.
There is a world of difference between what it takes to score academic points and what it takes to protect and defend the Constitution as we are sworn to do.
I have faced this struggle myself. About 43 years ago, in the early spring of 1983, I was at the lowest point in my life. I had just buried both of my grandparents, the man and woman who raised me and the two greatest people that I had ever known. I was broke. I was living in, and nearly evicted from, a cockroach-infested apartment.
I could not pay my credit card bills on time. I would soon sell my only car to pay for my son’s tuition. I was being constantly attacked by the media and Congress because, as Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I did not bow to the prevailing orthodoxy on race.
At this point, I asked myself a simple question: what are your principles worth to you? The answer I gave then is the same I would give today. It is worth life itself.
What are those principles? They are the same principles in the Declaration. They were bequeathed to me by my grandparents and reinforced by my nuns and my faith.
In God’s eyes we are equal. We are all equally created in the image and likeness of God. We are all endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Our rights and our dignity are inherent.
They do not come from others and that they do not come from the Government. And, our Government derives its legitimacy and authority from our consent; we do not get ours from it.
The primacy of our rights in relation to our government is crucial in reconciling the immortal words of the Declaration with our Constitution and our history. None of our rights come from the government; all of the government’s authority comes from our consent.
And, the structure and limited role of government is to assure that it does not exceed the authority to which we have consented or intrude on our natural rights.
The Constitution is the means of government; it is the Declaration that announces the ends of government. The Constitution achieves this purpose by protecting our natural rights and liberties from concentrated power and excessive democracy.
Our Constitution creates a separation of powers and federalism – truly for the first time in modern history – to prevent the government from becoming so strong that it threatens our natural rights.
Federalist No. 10 proposed the idea that the great threat to our rights comes from majority faction. Human history teaches us, alas, that numerical majorities frequently seek to control government, and use the state to violate the rights of the minority.
Because man is fallen and the desire for power was, as James Madison described it, “sown in the nature of man,” government had to be limited. For, as Madison said, “if men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
But men are not angels. The slaveholders used the power of government to deny the fundamental natural rights of the slaves; the segregationists used the state to oppress the freed men and women – including my ancestors.
As we meet here today, it is unclear whether these principles will endure.
At the beginning of the 20th century, a new set of first principles of government was introduced into the American mainstream. The proponents of this new set of first principles, most prominently among them the 28th President, Woodrow Wilson, called it progressivism.
Since Wilson’s presidency, progressivism has made many inroads in our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.
Progressivism was not native to America. Wilson and the progressives candidly admitted that they took it from Otto von Bismarck’s Germany, whose state-centric society they admired.
Progressives like Wilson argued that America needed to leave behind the principles of the Founding and catch up with the more advanced and sophisticated people of Europe.
Wilson called Germany’s system of relatively unimpeded state power “nearly perfected.” He acknowledged that it was “a foreign science, speaking very little of the language of English or American principle,” which “offers none but what are to our minds alien ideas.”
He thus described America, still stuck with its original system of government, as “slow to see” the superiority of the European system.
Progressivism was the first mainstream American political movement—with the possible exception of the pro-slavery reactionaries on the eve of the Civil War—to openly oppose the principles of the Declaration.
Progressives strove to undo the Declaration’s commitment to equality and natural rights, both of which they denied were self-evident. To Wilson, the inalienable rights of the individual were “a lot of nonsense.”
Wilson redefined “liberty” not as a natural right antecedent to the government, but as “the right of those who are governed to adjust government to their own needs and interests.” In other words, liberty no longer preceded the government as a gift from God, but was to be enjoyed at the grace of the government.
The government, as Wilson reconceived of it, would be “beneficent and indispensable.” Progressives such as John Dewey attacked the Framers for believing that “their ideas [were] immutable truth good at all times and places,” when instead they were “historically conditioned, and relevant only to their own time.” Now, Dewey and the progressives argued, those ideas were to be repealed.
Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from the Government. It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a Constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights.
You will not be surprised to learn that the progressives had a great deal of contempt for us, the American people.
Before he entered politics, Wilson would describe the American people as “selfish, ignorant, timid, stubborn,” and “foolish.” He lamented that we “do too much by vote” and too little by expert rule. He proposed that the people be ruled by administrators who use them as “tools.” He once again aspired to be like Germany, where the people, he said admiringly, were “docile and acquiescent.”
The century of progressivism did not go well. The European system that Wilson and the progressives scolded Americans for not adopting, which he called nearly perfect, led to the governments that caused the most awful century that the world has ever seen.
Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and Mao all were intertwined with the rise of progressivism, and all were opposed to the natural rights on which our Declaration was based. Many progressives expressed admiration for each of them shortly before their governments killed tens of millions of people.
It was a terrible mistake to adopt Progressivism’s rejection of the Declaration’s vision of universal, inalienable natural rights. Wilson’s claim that natural rights must give way to historical progress could justify the greatest mistakes in our history.
In Plessy v. Ferguson, my Court upheld Louisiana’s system of racial segregation because “separate but equal,” it observed, was reasonable in light of “the established usages, customs, and traditions of the people, and with a view to the promotion of their comfort, and the preservation of the public peace and good order.”
It comes as no surprise that the Progressives embraced eugenics. Progressives believed that Darwinian science – the idea of ever advancing progress written into biology itself – had proven the inherent superiority and inferiority of the races. I
t was only a small step for Wilson to resegregate the federal workforce. It was only another step for the government to launch sterilization programs on those deemed by the experts of the day to be unfit to reproduce – upheld by my Court in Buck v. Bell in an opinion written by no less a figure than Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
We can argue over whether you believe in immutable, absolute natural rights or the Wilsonian idea of ever-progressing history. Indeed, your School of Civic Leadership was created to host such arguments. But let me ask you to consider the consequences.
European thinkers have long criticized America for remaining trapped in a Lockean world, with its weak decentralized government and strong individual rights.
They say our 18th-century Declaration has prevented us from progressing to higher forms of government.
Why has America never had a socialist party, one German sociologist famously asked. But we were fortunate not to trade our Lockean bounds for the supposedly enlightened world of Hegel, Marx, and their followers. Fascism – which, after all, was a national socialism – triggered wars in Europe and Asia that killed tens of millions.
The socialism of the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China proceeded to kill more tens of millions of their own people. This is what happens when natural rights give way to the higher good of notions of history, progress, or, as Thomas Sowell has written, the “vision of the anointed.”
None of this, of course, was an improvement on the principles of the Declaration.
Tocqueville’s Democracy in America is largely about how America owed its superiority over Europe to its conscious decision to reject central planning and administrative rule root and branch.
Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive. As Calvin Coolidge said on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration:
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.
If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.
When Abraham Lincoln addressed the assembled crowd at Gettysburg, they had gathered to memorialize the past. But Lincoln’s address urged them to not do so with complacency. Instead, Lincoln said, they would look to the past as inspiration to take them to greater heights in the future.
“It is rather for us,” Lincoln said: "to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion.
"That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that this government, of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
As we are gathered to celebrate this 250th anniversary of the Declaration, it may be tempting to do so as if we are passive spectators.
It may be tempting to get out our tea and crumpets, treat the Declaration like a shiny object or a keepsake, and listen to the sound of our own voices.
We could get into debates over whose conception of the Founding is better, over how we were so much better than the Founders, over what we would do differently. We could be careful to not do anything that exposes us to criticism, costs us friends, or hurts our career prospects.
What we must turn our attention to today is finding in ourselves the same level of courage that the signers of the Declaration had, so that we can do for our future what they did for theirs.
Each of you will have opportunities to be courageous every day, whether your calling in life is as a day laborer, a stay-at-home mom, a small business owner, an educator, an office worker, a judge, or a Senator.
It may mean speaking up in class tomorrow when everyone around you expects you to live by lies. It may mean confronting today’s fashionable bigotries such as anti-semitism. It may mean standing up for your religion when it is mocked and disparaged by your professors.
It may mean not budging on your principles when it will mean losing friends or being ostracized. It may mean running for your school board when you see that they are teaching your children to hate your values and our country.
It may mean turning down a job offer that requires you to make moral compromises. One thing I know to be true: It will mean waking up every day with the resolve to withstand unfair criticism and attacks.
These are the choices that will confront you, and you must decide whether to respond with timidity or with courage, as the signers of the Declaration did. It will, of course, not be easy. It never is.
But, if, like me, you need a greater source of strength than yourselves, you will need to rely on your faith to guide and sustain you through it. You will disappoint people you thought were friends and endure personal attacks as well as attacks on those you care about.
But, if you stand, you will find that courage, like cowardice, can be habit-forming – a part of your life and who you are. And, I may dare say, it is liberating. You will also be a living example for others to emulate.
So by all means, celebrate the Declaration of Independence. It is the most important act in American history, the foundation of our Constitution and, as Lincoln said, “the sheet anchor” of our republic.
But, I implore you to celebrate it by standing up for it, by defending it, and by recommitting yourselves to living up to its ideals.
Channel the courage of the men who faced down a king and signed it and, or of a President who led the nation in a Civil War rather than permit this house to be divided by the great contradiction of slavery.
Take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave their last full measure of devotion.
And, “…with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence…[let us] mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”
Thank you, and may God continue to bless this great nation. ##
____________________________
Woodrow Wilson’s War Against the Constitution
Woodrow Wilson rejected the Founders’ constitutional order, replacing it with expert-driven administration that still defines American government.
By Jon Fleischman
for 'American Greatness'
June 8, 2026
Recently, Justice Clarence Thomas used a speech at the University of Texas at Austin to remind Americans why Woodrow Wilson still matters in the fight for constitutional government. “
Since Wilson’s presidency,” Thomas warned, “progressivism has made many inroads into our system of government and our way of life. It has coexisted uneasily with the principles of the Declaration. Because it is opposed to those principles, it is not possible for the two to coexist forever.”
That is the right frame. Wilson did not merely fail the Constitution. He rejected its central premises—and helped build the machinery that continues to threaten the Founders’ vision of limited constitutional government.
When I survey the long parade of presidents who led this country, from giants like Washington and Lincoln to the mediocrities and failures, one man stands apart as uniquely destructive: Woodrow Wilson.
When he entered the White House in 1913, he brought unusual credentials: a doctorate from Johns Hopkins, a scholarly reputation, and experience leading Princeton University. Americans thought they were getting their first true scholar-president.
What they got instead was the worst president in American history, a man whose toxic blend of intellectual arrogance, racial prejudice, and authoritarian instincts inflicted wounds on this country that we are still trying to heal.
The Classroom Meets the Real World
Wilson’s academic background shaped everything in his presidency, sometimes for better, often for worse. He approached governing like a professor addressing a stubborn class, convinced that if he explained things clearly enough, everyone would eventually see the wisdom of his vision.
That worked in lecture halls. It failed spectacularly in the messy world of politics.
Wilson believed the Constitution’s system of checks and balances was holding America back. He saw it as machinery from a bygone era. “Newtonian,” he called it dismissively, when what the country needed, in his view, was something flexible and responsive, something organic rather than mechanical, something “enlightened men” could shape rather than something the people themselves could control.
His aim was not to preserve the Constitution’s jealous division of power, but to make government more energetic, adaptive, and directed by capable hands. I
In practice that meant a stronger executive and a larger role for trained administrators who could act with less interference from the slow, messy give-and-take of democratic politics.
It is easy to see the appeal of that thinking, especially to someone who had spent his life surrounded by people who hung on his every word.
But Wilson’s “living Constitution” approach opened doors that future presidents would walk through with less noble intentions.
The Birth of the Administrative State
Those ideas became the intellectual foundation for a dramatic transformation of American government.
Before entering politics, Wilson argued that the system designed by the Founders was outdated. In his 1887 essay “The Study of Administration,” he contended that modern government required something different from the limited structure the Founders had created.
The separation of powers, he believed, was inefficient and belonged to an earlier age.
Wilson proposed a new model: government run by professional administrators and policy experts operating at a distance from politics. Elected officials would set broad goals, but the real work of governing would be carried out by trained specialists inside bureaucracies.
Wilson himself wrote that administration should be “removed from the hurry and strife of politics.” His arrogance and impatience left no room for what he would have regarded as the inefficiencies of a democratic republic.
This reflected Wilson’s impatience with Congress and with any deliberative process that required compromise, a dirty word to him.
It was a radical break from the Founders’ view that government existed primarily to protect individual rights and that power should always be divided and restrained.
Wilson instead envisioned a government that would evolve and expand as society “progressed,” guided by experts rather than limited by constitutional barriers.
Much of what Americans now call the administrative state traces directly back to those ideas.
Wilson did not merely expand government during his presidency. He helped lay the intellectual groundwork for moving America away from a government of, by, and for the people and toward one increasingly run by a narrow class of unelected experts.
In theory, these administrators were supposed to serve the public good with greater skill and efficiency. In reality, human nature got in the way.
The system helped create an expert class that, over time, became invested in protecting its own power, priorities, and permanence. That shift, from constitutional restraint and democratic accountability to bureaucratic rule by insulated elites, still shapes American government today.
The Tragedy of a Southern Gentleman
One of the most damaging aspects of Wilson’s presidency was how his Southern upbringing warped his views and policies on race. This was not just about prejudice, though Wilson certainly had plenty of that. It was about how those prejudices became federal policy.
But Wilson’s racism was not shaped only by the culture of the South. It was also reinforced by the intellectual world he inhabited as a scholar.
Wilson was influenced by nineteenth-century German political philosophy, which treated the state as an organic force guiding society and often spoke in terms of historical “peoples” or races. I
n that climate, hierarchy was frequently treated as a natural feature of development. Wilson’s racism was not just inherited from the South. It was reinforced by the same worldview that placed enlightened rulers above older American ideas of equality and fixed human rights.
Wilson grew up in Virginia and Georgia during Reconstruction, in a world that told him the old South had been noble and wronged. When he became president, he brought those assumptions with him to Washington.
The result was a federal government that actively rolled back civil rights progress.
Under Wilson, departments that had been integrated since the Civil War were segregated again. Black federal employees found themselves eating in separate cafeterias, using separate bathrooms, and facing barriers to promotion that had not existed for decades.
When civil-rights leaders confronted him, Wilson defended segregation as being good for Black Americans, a position that now reads as breathtakingly condescending.
The personal became policy in other ways too. Wilson screened The Birth of a Nation at the White House, a film that portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as heroic.
His academic writings also praised what he called “Aryan” civilization and reflected the eugenic thinking popular among many Progressives of his era.
When Crisis Reveals Character
World War I stripped away whatever restraints Wilson might have felt about expanding government power. Faced with an emergency, he created a propaganda machine and backed laws that made criticism of the war effort a federal crime.
The Espionage and Sedition Acts were not abstract policy. They put people in prison for expressing unpopular opinions.
Socialist leader Eugene Debs was sentenced to 10 years for giving an antiwar speech. Suffragettes were jailed for protesting outside the White House. German Americans faced harassment and persecution sanctioned by federal policy.
Wilson’s administration temporarily nationalized the railroads, monitored mail, and used federal investigators and intelligence agencies to track opponents.
These were not the actions of a man reluctantly assuming emergency powers. Wilson seemed to relish the chance to silence dissent and impose his will.
The Price of Good Intentions
Many of Wilson’s domestic policies were sold as reforms that would help Americans. The Federal Reserve was supposed to prevent financial panics. The income tax was meant to make the wealthy pay their fair share. The Federal Trade Commission would protect consumers from abusive business practices.
But each of these changes also gave the federal government new ways to reach into Americans’ daily lives.
The income tax, which began as a modest levy on the wealthy, became the government’s primary funding mechanism and a continuing source of anxiety for working families.
The Federal Reserve, designed to stabilize the economy, gave a small group of appointees enormous influence over everyone’s financial future.
Wilson’s supporters saw these as steps toward a more just society. His critics saw something more dangerous: the concentration of power in Washington in the hands of people who were certain they knew what was best for everyone else.
The real danger lay not just in that certainty, but in how few checks remained if they got it wrong.
Wilson did not stop there. He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court, helping ensure that his vision would outlast his presidency.
One of them, Louis Brandeis, championed federal regulatory power and helped advance the idea that the Constitution should evolve alongside progressive social policy. Wilson’s academic theories were making their way into constitutional law.
The 'World Stage' Disaster
Wilson’s failures at home were matched by his failures on the world stage. His handling of the peace negotiations after World War I helped set the stage for an even more devastating war two decades later.
His Fourteen Points outlined a vision for international cooperation that might have helped prevent future conflicts. But his unwillingness to compromise, the same trait that had served him well as an academic, made him a poor negotiator when the stakes were highest.
When the Senate balked at his League of Nations proposal, Wilson could have worked with senators to find a version that might have passed.
Instead, he took his case on a national speaking tour to go over their heads and appeal directly to the American people.
The tour ended with Wilson suffering a stroke that left him partially incapacitated for the rest of his presidency, and the League died in the Senate.
What We Can Learn
Wilson’s presidency offers a lesson about the gap between good intentions and good governance. He was intelligent, committed to improving the country, and willing to take on powerful interests when he believed it necessary.
But intelligence without humility becomes dangerous when paired with presidential power, especially when Congress fails to check it.
In that respect, Wilson’s presidency proved the Founders’ point: even gifted leaders must be drawn into conversation, disagreement, and compromise through a system of separated powers.
Wilson’s certainty that he knew what was best for America, for black Americans, and for the world led him to make decisions that caused enormous harm.
His expansion of federal power might have been forgivable if it had been temporary, if emergency measures had receded once the crisis passed.
Instead, Wilson’s precedents became permanent features of American government, creating institutions and expectations that future presidents would build upon.
His racial policies set back civil rights progress for decades. His wartime authoritarianism established precedents that would be invoked again in future crises. The bureaucracy he helped legitimize never returned to its pre-Wilson size or scope.
A Warning, Not Just History
Looking back at Wilson’s presidency, it is tempting to treat him as a relic of another era, a man whose prejudices and blind spots reflected the limitations of his time.
But Wilson’s real legacy is not found mainly in his specific policies, many of which have since been modified or abandoned. It lies in the model of presidential and administrative power he advanced, the belief that smart, well-intentioned people in Washington can and should reshape American society from the top down. I
n that sense, Wilson was not just a man of his time. He helped create the governing philosophy that still shapes modern progressivism:
faith in experts, impatience with constitutional limits, and a tendency to treat executive action as a substitute for the hard work of persuasion and compromise.
Wilson did not merely fail within the American system. He helped teach generations of leaders how to govern against its premises.
His presidency reminds us that good intentions, impressive credentials, and intelligence are not enough to make someone a good president. Paired with arrogance and unchecked power, they can make one deeply dangerous.
That is why Woodrow Wilson stands, in my judgment, as the worst president in American history. ##
Jon Fleischman is a longtime California political strategist, analyst, and author. Jon writes at www.SoDoesItMatter.com.
____________________________
‘God & Country’ vs. ‘Secularism & State’ - What's the Difference?
The American Revolution declared rights come from God, not government—and today’s Left seeks to reverse that creed in favor of secular state supremacy.
By Thaddeus G. McCotter, for 'American Greatness'
May 30, 2026 -- I have long been an avid reader of the columns of Mr. Jarrett Stepman, who regularly appears over at the Daily Signal. I cannot recommend him highly enough.
Recently Mr. Stepman wrote about how a stupefied MS NOW anchor, Katy Tur, pooh-poohed the idea that Americans possess God-given, unalienable rights:
“What about this passage from [House Speaker] Mike Johnson declaring that our rights do not derive from government; they come from our Creator and Heavenly Father? Is this him putting God over the Declaration of Independence?”
Mr. Stepman kindly reminded this on-screen epitome of the “smart party” that “the concept that God is ‘above’ the Declaration of Independence is . . . in the Declaration of Independence.”
He elaborated on the point as follows:
“God’s law supersedes man’s law. Governments that deprive citizens of rights endowed by their Creator without due process are bad governments and are possibly illegitimate. That’s the whole point of the thing, right?”
Indeed it is. This is why most Americans acknowledge and celebrate the fact that they possess rights that no legitimate government can curtail or quash.
This is also why the Left loathes the concept of God-given, unalienable rights - seeing the concept as a superstitious, archaic obstacle to be overcome as, in their hubris, they seek—by any means necessary—to remake humanity into the utopia they’ve conjured out of their secular, soulless, socialist ideology.
Thus, we live in a time when the Left daily assails the traditional bipartisan belief that Americans possess God-given, unalienable rights that are beyond the reach of a government limited to enumerated powers requiring the consent of the governed.
Aptly, Mr. Stepman cites this example:
In 2024, the now former Politico journalist Heidi Przybyla went on the network and said that the only people who believe in “God-given rights” that don’t come from the government are “Christian Nationalists,” whom she distinguished from other “Christians.” At least Przybyla later sort of apologized for these remarks. . . .
Yet, these are not isolated instances of ignorance, though ignorance certainly plays its part.
Rather, they are part of a deliberate campaign to stigmatize Americans who, like generations before them, correctly believe their rights are God-given and unalienable.
By branding such citizens “Christian Nationalists,” the Left portrays them as a menace to 'our democracy' and as potential domestic terrorists liable to violence at any moment.
The fact that “Christian Nationalist”—which is just another way of saying someone believes in “God and country”—is treated as a slur reveals the Left’s larger project.
The Left wants to strip away Americans’ God-given, unalienable rights and replace them with a secular, socialist state that rules without limits and without the consent of the governed.
In this vision, majority rule is merely a temporary mechanism for consolidating permanent power—a waypoint on the road to subservience under an ever-expanding administrative state.
As Mr. Stepman trenchantly observes:
The concept of God-given rights was essential to the Founders’ justification for the American Revolution. The Framers designed our government not so that it would give rights but so that it could protect them as best as could be done in the imperfect world we live in.
But if the standard for free speech is simply a matter of who has the most governmental or institutional power, then I find it doubtful that anyone will have freedom of any kind at the end of our country’s next 250 years of existence, or that we’ll even have a country.
Put bluntly, the Left seeks to replace the virtuous verity of a belief in “God and Country” with submission to “Secularism and State.”
As such, the “progressive” movement is actually regressive, reactionary, and counterrevolutionary. It is nothing less than an attempt to end America’s revolutionary experiment in self-government and replace it with the rule of an elitist, “expert” class—that is, the secular and socialist administrative state.
Somewhere, King George III is smiling.
The battle between an individual’s God-given rights and an omnipotent state is an ancient one; and it is one the American Revolution firmly decided in favor of the individual, not the emperor, in favor of the citizen over the state.
Responding at the time to Mr. Stepman’s article, I posted on X a quotation from a famous “Christian Nationalist”:
“The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”
It is not hard to imagine what President John F. Kennedy would think knowing that, even after the Soviet Union entered the dustbin of history, America’s revolutionary belief in God-given rights is now embattled here at home. ##
An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) served Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003 to 2012. He served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee and as a member of the Financial Services, Joint Economic, Budget, Small Business, and International Relations Committees. Not a lobbyist, he is also a contributor to Chronicles, a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars, and a cohost of The John Batchelor Show, among sundry media appearances.
The American Revolution declared rights come from God, not government—and today’s Left seeks to reverse that creed in favor of secular state supremacy.
By Thaddeus G. McCotter, for 'American Greatness'
May 30, 2026 -- I have long been an avid reader of the columns of Mr. Jarrett Stepman, who regularly appears over at the Daily Signal. I cannot recommend him highly enough.
Recently Mr. Stepman wrote about how a stupefied MS NOW anchor, Katy Tur, pooh-poohed the idea that Americans possess God-given, unalienable rights:
“What about this passage from [House Speaker] Mike Johnson declaring that our rights do not derive from government; they come from our Creator and Heavenly Father? Is this him putting God over the Declaration of Independence?”
Mr. Stepman kindly reminded this on-screen epitome of the “smart party” that “the concept that God is ‘above’ the Declaration of Independence is . . . in the Declaration of Independence.”
He elaborated on the point as follows:
“God’s law supersedes man’s law. Governments that deprive citizens of rights endowed by their Creator without due process are bad governments and are possibly illegitimate. That’s the whole point of the thing, right?”
Indeed it is. This is why most Americans acknowledge and celebrate the fact that they possess rights that no legitimate government can curtail or quash.
This is also why the Left loathes the concept of God-given, unalienable rights - seeing the concept as a superstitious, archaic obstacle to be overcome as, in their hubris, they seek—by any means necessary—to remake humanity into the utopia they’ve conjured out of their secular, soulless, socialist ideology.
Thus, we live in a time when the Left daily assails the traditional bipartisan belief that Americans possess God-given, unalienable rights that are beyond the reach of a government limited to enumerated powers requiring the consent of the governed.
Aptly, Mr. Stepman cites this example:
In 2024, the now former Politico journalist Heidi Przybyla went on the network and said that the only people who believe in “God-given rights” that don’t come from the government are “Christian Nationalists,” whom she distinguished from other “Christians.” At least Przybyla later sort of apologized for these remarks. . . .
Yet, these are not isolated instances of ignorance, though ignorance certainly plays its part.
Rather, they are part of a deliberate campaign to stigmatize Americans who, like generations before them, correctly believe their rights are God-given and unalienable.
By branding such citizens “Christian Nationalists,” the Left portrays them as a menace to 'our democracy' and as potential domestic terrorists liable to violence at any moment.
The fact that “Christian Nationalist”—which is just another way of saying someone believes in “God and country”—is treated as a slur reveals the Left’s larger project.
The Left wants to strip away Americans’ God-given, unalienable rights and replace them with a secular, socialist state that rules without limits and without the consent of the governed.
In this vision, majority rule is merely a temporary mechanism for consolidating permanent power—a waypoint on the road to subservience under an ever-expanding administrative state.
As Mr. Stepman trenchantly observes:
The concept of God-given rights was essential to the Founders’ justification for the American Revolution. The Framers designed our government not so that it would give rights but so that it could protect them as best as could be done in the imperfect world we live in.
But if the standard for free speech is simply a matter of who has the most governmental or institutional power, then I find it doubtful that anyone will have freedom of any kind at the end of our country’s next 250 years of existence, or that we’ll even have a country.
Put bluntly, the Left seeks to replace the virtuous verity of a belief in “God and Country” with submission to “Secularism and State.”
As such, the “progressive” movement is actually regressive, reactionary, and counterrevolutionary. It is nothing less than an attempt to end America’s revolutionary experiment in self-government and replace it with the rule of an elitist, “expert” class—that is, the secular and socialist administrative state.
Somewhere, King George III is smiling.
The battle between an individual’s God-given rights and an omnipotent state is an ancient one; and it is one the American Revolution firmly decided in favor of the individual, not the emperor, in favor of the citizen over the state.
Responding at the time to Mr. Stepman’s article, I posted on X a quotation from a famous “Christian Nationalist”:
“The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.”
It is not hard to imagine what President John F. Kennedy would think knowing that, even after the Soviet Union entered the dustbin of history, America’s revolutionary belief in God-given rights is now embattled here at home. ##
An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) served Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003 to 2012. He served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee and as a member of the Financial Services, Joint Economic, Budget, Small Business, and International Relations Committees. Not a lobbyist, he is also a contributor to Chronicles, a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars, and a cohost of The John Batchelor Show, among sundry media appearances.
____________________________
Congress Should Back Trump’s Push to Keep AM Radio in Cars - Don't Let Them Take it Away!
By Clay Travis, Opinion Contributor, 'The Hill' - 03/17/26
By Clay Travis, Opinion Contributor, 'The Hill' - 03/17/26
A display screen inside a vehicle shows various radio options, including AM radio, Monday, March 11, 2024, in Bow, N.H. Politicians are closing in on the required number of votes needed to pass federal legislation that requires AM radios in every new car. The prevalence of AM broadcast radio has dipped in recent decades as more listeners turn to options such as satellite radio and podcasts while driving, but a large, bipartisan group of lawmakers believes saving the AM dial is critical to public safety, especially in rural America, and they want to ensure access to it via car radios. (AP Photo/Holly Ramer)
Free speech is finally back at the center of federal policy.
This month, President Trump has aggressively probed biases in news aggregators’ article curation and enforced equal-time rules to ensure every Americans’ voice is heard.
But there’s another free speech fight the administration is waging that hasn’t gotten nearly enough attention — and it’s just as important.
President Trump is fighting to save AM radio in America’s cars.
As DJT recently told Hugh Hewitt, this is “a very big deal,” and his administration “will be doing something on that.”
As usual, the president is spot on.
Millions of Americans depend on AM radio to receive news, opinion, and viewpoints you won’t hear anywhere else. My radio show with Buck Sexton is listened to by millions of people each week on AM stations all across the country.
But AM radio is not just for political news and talk radio. It is critical to everyday Americans across all political, ethnic and economic demographics.
Farmers and their trade associations have told Congress they depend on AM radio for weather reports, crop prices and emergency alerts.
Civil rights organizations have said that their members rely on AM to get their breaking news. Churches use AM radio to carry services and expand their ministries.
Most importantly, emergency management professionals have said AM is a critical public safety device as it stays operational during extreme weather events when every other communications device is prone to outages.
Yet, many automakers are ripping AM radio out of new vehicles.
Why?
Because they want to replace it with closed “infotainment systems” — systems that track you, collect your data, and generate revenue for the manufacturer.
It’s not about helping their customers. It’s about making more money off them.
Using industry sales data, WIRED tested 10 of the most popular cars in America and analyzed their data-collection practices. The result? Modern cars can generate up to 25 gigabytes of data per hour.
Let that sink in.
For many Americans, 25 gigabytes is an entire monthly mobile data plan. Your car can burn through that in one hour — collecting information about your location, your habits, your contacts, even your driving behavior.
And most Americans don’t even know it’s happening.
Infotainment systems aren’t inherently evil. If consumers understand the risks and have other choices, fine. But if automakers get their way, there soon might not be any other choice.
Automakers, which have been subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of billions, are quietly removing AM radio altogether. If left unchecked, you may very well be forced onto platforms that monitor you.
That’s bad for free speech, it’s bad for privacy, and it’s bad for public safety. That’s why a coalition of 11 attorneys general, led by then–Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, have urged that AM radio be protected.
“AM radio stations are vital to disseminating information in times of crisis,” Moody said. “AM radio signals reach farther and remain functional even when phone lines, electricity, and cellphones are inoperable.”
She’s right.
It’s also why Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced the bipartisan AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act. This legislation would require automakers to keep AM radio in new cars.
The bill is supported by huge majorities in both the House and Senate. It passed the relevant House and Senate committees months ago, and Vice President JD Vance, a former co-sponsor, remains a strong supporter of the legislation.
The only thing left is for Congressional leadership to bring it to the floor. ##
Clay Travis, co-host of “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show” on WOR-AM in New York is a writer, lawyer, television analyst and founder of OutKick.
This month, President Trump has aggressively probed biases in news aggregators’ article curation and enforced equal-time rules to ensure every Americans’ voice is heard.
But there’s another free speech fight the administration is waging that hasn’t gotten nearly enough attention — and it’s just as important.
President Trump is fighting to save AM radio in America’s cars.
As DJT recently told Hugh Hewitt, this is “a very big deal,” and his administration “will be doing something on that.”
As usual, the president is spot on.
Millions of Americans depend on AM radio to receive news, opinion, and viewpoints you won’t hear anywhere else. My radio show with Buck Sexton is listened to by millions of people each week on AM stations all across the country.
But AM radio is not just for political news and talk radio. It is critical to everyday Americans across all political, ethnic and economic demographics.
Farmers and their trade associations have told Congress they depend on AM radio for weather reports, crop prices and emergency alerts.
Civil rights organizations have said that their members rely on AM to get their breaking news. Churches use AM radio to carry services and expand their ministries.
Most importantly, emergency management professionals have said AM is a critical public safety device as it stays operational during extreme weather events when every other communications device is prone to outages.
Yet, many automakers are ripping AM radio out of new vehicles.
Why?
Because they want to replace it with closed “infotainment systems” — systems that track you, collect your data, and generate revenue for the manufacturer.
It’s not about helping their customers. It’s about making more money off them.
Using industry sales data, WIRED tested 10 of the most popular cars in America and analyzed their data-collection practices. The result? Modern cars can generate up to 25 gigabytes of data per hour.
Let that sink in.
For many Americans, 25 gigabytes is an entire monthly mobile data plan. Your car can burn through that in one hour — collecting information about your location, your habits, your contacts, even your driving behavior.
And most Americans don’t even know it’s happening.
Infotainment systems aren’t inherently evil. If consumers understand the risks and have other choices, fine. But if automakers get their way, there soon might not be any other choice.
Automakers, which have been subsidized by taxpayers to the tune of billions, are quietly removing AM radio altogether. If left unchecked, you may very well be forced onto platforms that monitor you.
That’s bad for free speech, it’s bad for privacy, and it’s bad for public safety. That’s why a coalition of 11 attorneys general, led by then–Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, have urged that AM radio be protected.
“AM radio stations are vital to disseminating information in times of crisis,” Moody said. “AM radio signals reach farther and remain functional even when phone lines, electricity, and cellphones are inoperable.”
She’s right.
It’s also why Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced the bipartisan AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act. This legislation would require automakers to keep AM radio in new cars.
The bill is supported by huge majorities in both the House and Senate. It passed the relevant House and Senate committees months ago, and Vice President JD Vance, a former co-sponsor, remains a strong supporter of the legislation.
The only thing left is for Congressional leadership to bring it to the floor. ##
Clay Travis, co-host of “The Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Show” on WOR-AM in New York is a writer, lawyer, television analyst and founder of OutKick.
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
This Passover, call me a Zionist —and I’ll wear it as a badge of honor
By Kenneth L. Marcus, Published April 1, 2026
By Kenneth L. Marcus, Published April 1, 2026
A man hangs Israeli flags near the scene following a missile attack by Iran, amid the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, in Givatayim near Tel Aviv, Israel March 6, 2026. REUTERS
Zionism has become a scarlet letter — a catch-all accusation hurled at protests, in classrooms and online to discredit rather than describe.
There’s no better time than this week to reflect on why.
During Passover, we celebrate Jews’ liberation from hundreds of years of enslavement in Egypt, followed by 40 years wandering in the desert.
That’s when the Jewish tribes adopted a political structure and received religious laws — acting as a nation even before they entered the Promised Land, today’s Israel.
It’s been the Jews’ ancestral home ever since, with roots going back more than 3,000 years, sustained by generations of Jewish life and pilgrimages to the Temple, the holiest site for Jews across the globe.
Celebrating Passover is an early expression of the Jewish attachment to a homeland that Zionism later formalized.
But in recent years the word has been transformed — bastardized into something hateful or violent.
Today, the label “Zionist” comes with a price.
And as a civil-rights advocate who works to combat antisemitism and protect the rights of Jewish people, I’ve been repeatedly asked whether I wish to deny that I am one.
Until now I’ve declined to say anything in response, for the same reason that some straight people decline to deny that they’re gay.
Because there’s nothing wrong with that, and why make it seem like there is?
But there’s another reason: It’s because I am a Zionist.
I’m a Zionist in a minimalist sense.
To some, Zionism is nothing more than the belief that Israel deserves to exist and defend itself.
It’s not a particularly inspiring sense of the term, but if that’s all it means, then it’s difficult to see why it’s controversial.
I’m a Zionist in a euphemistic sense.
To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., the term “Zionist” is sometimes used as a stand-in for “Jew.”
I am a Jew, proudly, and pleased to be called a Zionist by those to whom the two terms are synonymous.
I’m a Zionist in a pejorative sense.
Increasingly, opponents on the far left deploy Zionism as a blanket condemnation.
If that’s how you use the term, count me in.
I’m a Zionist in a religious sense.
Drawing from the Mizrachi movement, I view the flourishing of Israel as part of Jewish spirituality.
The return to Zion fulfills a promise, enables fuller performance of good deeds tied to the land, and positions the Jewish people to live out prophetic ideals of justice and holiness in a sovereign nation.
I’m a Zionist in a cultural sense.
Following the great philosopher Ahad Ha’am, I see the Jewish return to the ancestral homeland as essential to reviving and sustaining a vibrant, secular Jewish culture, rooted in Hebrew language, literature, history and ethical tradition.
Without a living center in Israel, Jewish identity faced pressures of dilution and assimilation in the diaspora.
I’m a Zionist in a political sense.
In the tradition of Theodor Herzl, I believe Jews, facing persistent antisemitism and exclusion, require sovereignty in their historic homeland to secure normal national existence, dignity and self-determination.
Herzl’s vision was a pragmatic response to persecution, a publicly recognized home where Jews could live as equals, not supplicants.
I’m a Zionist because I’m an American.
According to John Winthrop’s famous sermon, Americans aspire to be “as a city upon a hill.”
Winthrop called the new Massachusetts Bay Colony to be a moral exemplar, a model of charity and justice that would inspire the world — or, if it failed, become a cautionary tale.
In that sense, both the United States and Israel share an aspiration, however imperfectly realized, to model a society grounded in moral purpose.
So call me a Zionist.
Do so as an insult if you must, or as a euphemism if you need, or as a cultural or religious observation.
Or call me a Zionist because we are Americans seeking the best for our nation.
Regardless of your reasoning, I will wear the title proudly.
Because what is being labeled “Zionism” today is not simply a set of views about Israel; it is increasingly a way of singling out Jews themselves.
We are repeatedly told that Jews cynically conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism — even as synagogues in the United States are attacked, Jewish communities in the United Kingdom are surveilled and intimidated, and Jewish volunteer ambulance services are firebombed.
The same voices that insist “it’s not antisemitism, just anti-Zionism” are often the ones directing hostility at Jews in their own countries over Israel.
This is not merely a misunderstanding, it is a contradiction.
Don’t fall for it: Join me.
Next year in Jerusalem.
Kenneth L. Marcus is chairman and CEO of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.
There’s no better time than this week to reflect on why.
During Passover, we celebrate Jews’ liberation from hundreds of years of enslavement in Egypt, followed by 40 years wandering in the desert.
That’s when the Jewish tribes adopted a political structure and received religious laws — acting as a nation even before they entered the Promised Land, today’s Israel.
It’s been the Jews’ ancestral home ever since, with roots going back more than 3,000 years, sustained by generations of Jewish life and pilgrimages to the Temple, the holiest site for Jews across the globe.
Celebrating Passover is an early expression of the Jewish attachment to a homeland that Zionism later formalized.
But in recent years the word has been transformed — bastardized into something hateful or violent.
Today, the label “Zionist” comes with a price.
And as a civil-rights advocate who works to combat antisemitism and protect the rights of Jewish people, I’ve been repeatedly asked whether I wish to deny that I am one.
Until now I’ve declined to say anything in response, for the same reason that some straight people decline to deny that they’re gay.
Because there’s nothing wrong with that, and why make it seem like there is?
But there’s another reason: It’s because I am a Zionist.
I’m a Zionist in a minimalist sense.
To some, Zionism is nothing more than the belief that Israel deserves to exist and defend itself.
It’s not a particularly inspiring sense of the term, but if that’s all it means, then it’s difficult to see why it’s controversial.
I’m a Zionist in a euphemistic sense.
To paraphrase Martin Luther King Jr., the term “Zionist” is sometimes used as a stand-in for “Jew.”
I am a Jew, proudly, and pleased to be called a Zionist by those to whom the two terms are synonymous.
I’m a Zionist in a pejorative sense.
Increasingly, opponents on the far left deploy Zionism as a blanket condemnation.
If that’s how you use the term, count me in.
I’m a Zionist in a religious sense.
Drawing from the Mizrachi movement, I view the flourishing of Israel as part of Jewish spirituality.
The return to Zion fulfills a promise, enables fuller performance of good deeds tied to the land, and positions the Jewish people to live out prophetic ideals of justice and holiness in a sovereign nation.
I’m a Zionist in a cultural sense.
Following the great philosopher Ahad Ha’am, I see the Jewish return to the ancestral homeland as essential to reviving and sustaining a vibrant, secular Jewish culture, rooted in Hebrew language, literature, history and ethical tradition.
Without a living center in Israel, Jewish identity faced pressures of dilution and assimilation in the diaspora.
I’m a Zionist in a political sense.
In the tradition of Theodor Herzl, I believe Jews, facing persistent antisemitism and exclusion, require sovereignty in their historic homeland to secure normal national existence, dignity and self-determination.
Herzl’s vision was a pragmatic response to persecution, a publicly recognized home where Jews could live as equals, not supplicants.
I’m a Zionist because I’m an American.
According to John Winthrop’s famous sermon, Americans aspire to be “as a city upon a hill.”
Winthrop called the new Massachusetts Bay Colony to be a moral exemplar, a model of charity and justice that would inspire the world — or, if it failed, become a cautionary tale.
In that sense, both the United States and Israel share an aspiration, however imperfectly realized, to model a society grounded in moral purpose.
So call me a Zionist.
Do so as an insult if you must, or as a euphemism if you need, or as a cultural or religious observation.
Or call me a Zionist because we are Americans seeking the best for our nation.
Regardless of your reasoning, I will wear the title proudly.
Because what is being labeled “Zionism” today is not simply a set of views about Israel; it is increasingly a way of singling out Jews themselves.
We are repeatedly told that Jews cynically conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism — even as synagogues in the United States are attacked, Jewish communities in the United Kingdom are surveilled and intimidated, and Jewish volunteer ambulance services are firebombed.
The same voices that insist “it’s not antisemitism, just anti-Zionism” are often the ones directing hostility at Jews in their own countries over Israel.
This is not merely a misunderstanding, it is a contradiction.
Don’t fall for it: Join me.
Next year in Jerusalem.
Kenneth L. Marcus is chairman and CEO of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.
____________________________
RINO AMNESTY IS SOFT...AND SMELLY:
Amid Furor of Iran Conflict, Many are Missing the Quiet Battle Brewing over Soft Amnesty
Op-Ed by Summer Lane, RSB Network, April 9, 2026
Amid Furor of Iran Conflict, Many are Missing the Quiet Battle Brewing over Soft Amnesty
Op-Ed by Summer Lane, RSB Network, April 9, 2026
All eyes have been on the Middle East for the past several weeks, and as the world focuses on whether the Strait of Hormuz can remain safely open, many Americans are unaware of another, equally important battle brewing on the home front: amnesty.
While Republicans in the U.S. Senate have been unable to pass critical election integrity reform measures in the SAVE America Act, Congressman Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., has been lobbying for a supposedly bipartisan piece of legislation that reads like soft amnesty rather than immigration enforcement.
Lawler is a co-sponsor of the “Dignity Act” (also called the “DIGNIDAD Act”), a bill that grants legal status to a “segment of the illegal population” who meet specific requirements.
During a recent interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Lawler laid out his argument in defense of the bill, stating that the immigration system under the current Department of Homeland Security is nonfunctional.
“This system is fundamentally broken,” he said. “I know it because my wife is an immigrant and I’ve been through it. So, my perspective on this is very simple: number one, the border was the biggest problem. President Trump ran and won on that issue…we want to codify President Trump’s policies into law.”
He said the Dignity Act would “deal with the undocumented that are in this country. Get them out of the shadows. You are talking about tens of millions of people.”
Lawler is right that there are tens of millions of illegal individuals living in the United States – many of whom recently entered under Joe Biden’s catastrophic open border policies.
In a July 2025 press release, key points of the proposed legislation, to Lawler’s credit, included codifying Trump agenda items, such as continued border security, asylum reforms (such as ending catch-and-release), and mandatory E-Verify requirements to crack down on illegal hiring practices.
However, it also included “Dreamer Protections,” which “grants legal status and a path to permanent residency” as well as a seven-year legal status program that allows illegals in the country to live and work if they display good behavior and contribute restitution in American society. These items have understandably drawn intense criticism from proponents of common-sense immigration policy.
During Ms. Ingraham’s show this week, she suggests that, under the current proposed legislation, illegals’ potentially criminal behavior, like gang affiliation, is a status that could simply be “waived” to allow them to stay in the country rather than face deportation.
“You have to do a full background check, inclusive of criminal history; gang affiliation is not waived,” Lawler said. “What it is saying is, the presence of somebody in a database does not automatically assume that they are part of a gang.”
“How about multiple DUIs?” Ingraham asked.
“That should be included,” he responded.
Lawler may be correct in that illegals, under this bill, could be asked to comply with a certain standard of good behavior in exchange for legal residency, but what it comes down to is whether such standards will actually be enforced. It also begs the question: Is it a good idea to offer amnesty of any kind to millions of people who violated sovereign immigration law and now live in America?
In February, Lawler argued on X that under the Dignity Act, legal status would be granted to those illegal migrants who had not committed a crime in the United States or their country of origin. He ignores the obvious truth that entering the country illegally is, in fact, a federal crime.
What about those illegals whose presence predates Biden’s border disaster? Those who have been here for decades, and who have family members who were born on American soil? “They would qualify if they have not committed a crime, they paid back taxes, they pay a fine, they have a job, and they do not collect government status,” Lawler said in a separate interview with Fox News.
To be clear, Lawler is arguing for legal residency, not citizenship, for these current undocumented individuals. Under this definition, proponents of the Dignity Act argue that it is technically not amnesty. However, it achieves the same ends: tens of millions of illegal migrants would remain in America at the end of the day and not face deportation.
Lawler’s lobbying for this bill, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Maria Salazar, R-Fla., and Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, is alarming, because while it may include several items from President Trump’s immigration agenda, it also glaringly promotes this “soft” form of amnesty – an unacceptable option for many Americans who supported the president’s campaign.
Rep. Salazar claims that the bill is not amnesty, but the legislation itself contradicts her argument.
Last summer, chatter emerged in political spheres that President Trump was feeling increasing pressure from “Big Ag” and the donor class to allow some kind of amnesty in exchange for mass deportations.
The late Charlie Kirk, a very wise and astute political strategist, argued, “If you want to break our coalition, go and push amnesty. That right there would be a complete collapse of everything that we have worked for, everything.”
This came just after President Trump remarked during a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, that his administration was going to “work with the farmers and people that have hotels and leisure properties” to ensure illegal workers didn’t get thrown out of the country.
“Now, serious radical right people, who I also happen to like a lot, they may not be quite as happy, but they’ll understand, won’t they? Do you think so?” the president said.
This received quite a bit of pushback and led the administration to walk back that kind of talk. Vice President Vance said last summer, amid swirling discussions, “What the president has said is number one – we’re not going to do amnesty. We’re actually NOT going to tell people who have come into this country illegally that they’re allowed to break our laws and be rewarded for it.”
Since then, the topic of amnesty has been somewhat forgotten, but amid a harsh and distracting conflict with Iran, it has slyly reemerged in the fog of war.
And lest Lawler be seen as a mere loose cannon in the Republican Party, remember that the New York congressman was endorsed by President Trump last spring.
“What’s most infuriating?” remarked TPUSA Spokesman Andrew Kolvet on X. “We have to keep fighting off pro-amnesty Republicans instead of pushing the Save America Act, advancing mass deportations, affordable housing for Gen Z, and abolishing sanctuary cities. The agenda is very simple, and yet big business refuses to learn.”
In response to a trepidatious claim from POLITICO noting Republicans’ decreasing odds of keeping seats in the midterms this year, conservative commentator Mike Cernovich observed, “There’s time to turn it around. But all day and Trump has not come out agains[t] the amnesty act being pushed by Mike Lawler and other American Last’ers.”
Any whisper of amnesty legislation, no matter how big or small, should be immediately refuted. Amnesty would be a death knell for America First and a win for criminality. Americans must remain vigilant on this topic and not allow the Middle East conflict to distract them from important domestic issues being battled here at home.
While Republicans in the U.S. Senate have been unable to pass critical election integrity reform measures in the SAVE America Act, Congressman Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., has been lobbying for a supposedly bipartisan piece of legislation that reads like soft amnesty rather than immigration enforcement.
Lawler is a co-sponsor of the “Dignity Act” (also called the “DIGNIDAD Act”), a bill that grants legal status to a “segment of the illegal population” who meet specific requirements.
During a recent interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Lawler laid out his argument in defense of the bill, stating that the immigration system under the current Department of Homeland Security is nonfunctional.
“This system is fundamentally broken,” he said. “I know it because my wife is an immigrant and I’ve been through it. So, my perspective on this is very simple: number one, the border was the biggest problem. President Trump ran and won on that issue…we want to codify President Trump’s policies into law.”
He said the Dignity Act would “deal with the undocumented that are in this country. Get them out of the shadows. You are talking about tens of millions of people.”
Lawler is right that there are tens of millions of illegal individuals living in the United States – many of whom recently entered under Joe Biden’s catastrophic open border policies.
In a July 2025 press release, key points of the proposed legislation, to Lawler’s credit, included codifying Trump agenda items, such as continued border security, asylum reforms (such as ending catch-and-release), and mandatory E-Verify requirements to crack down on illegal hiring practices.
However, it also included “Dreamer Protections,” which “grants legal status and a path to permanent residency” as well as a seven-year legal status program that allows illegals in the country to live and work if they display good behavior and contribute restitution in American society. These items have understandably drawn intense criticism from proponents of common-sense immigration policy.
During Ms. Ingraham’s show this week, she suggests that, under the current proposed legislation, illegals’ potentially criminal behavior, like gang affiliation, is a status that could simply be “waived” to allow them to stay in the country rather than face deportation.
“You have to do a full background check, inclusive of criminal history; gang affiliation is not waived,” Lawler said. “What it is saying is, the presence of somebody in a database does not automatically assume that they are part of a gang.”
“How about multiple DUIs?” Ingraham asked.
“That should be included,” he responded.
Lawler may be correct in that illegals, under this bill, could be asked to comply with a certain standard of good behavior in exchange for legal residency, but what it comes down to is whether such standards will actually be enforced. It also begs the question: Is it a good idea to offer amnesty of any kind to millions of people who violated sovereign immigration law and now live in America?
In February, Lawler argued on X that under the Dignity Act, legal status would be granted to those illegal migrants who had not committed a crime in the United States or their country of origin. He ignores the obvious truth that entering the country illegally is, in fact, a federal crime.
What about those illegals whose presence predates Biden’s border disaster? Those who have been here for decades, and who have family members who were born on American soil? “They would qualify if they have not committed a crime, they paid back taxes, they pay a fine, they have a job, and they do not collect government status,” Lawler said in a separate interview with Fox News.
To be clear, Lawler is arguing for legal residency, not citizenship, for these current undocumented individuals. Under this definition, proponents of the Dignity Act argue that it is technically not amnesty. However, it achieves the same ends: tens of millions of illegal migrants would remain in America at the end of the day and not face deportation.
Lawler’s lobbying for this bill, which is co-sponsored by Rep. Maria Salazar, R-Fla., and Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, is alarming, because while it may include several items from President Trump’s immigration agenda, it also glaringly promotes this “soft” form of amnesty – an unacceptable option for many Americans who supported the president’s campaign.
Rep. Salazar claims that the bill is not amnesty, but the legislation itself contradicts her argument.
Last summer, chatter emerged in political spheres that President Trump was feeling increasing pressure from “Big Ag” and the donor class to allow some kind of amnesty in exchange for mass deportations.
The late Charlie Kirk, a very wise and astute political strategist, argued, “If you want to break our coalition, go and push amnesty. That right there would be a complete collapse of everything that we have worked for, everything.”
This came just after President Trump remarked during a rally in Des Moines, Iowa, that his administration was going to “work with the farmers and people that have hotels and leisure properties” to ensure illegal workers didn’t get thrown out of the country.
“Now, serious radical right people, who I also happen to like a lot, they may not be quite as happy, but they’ll understand, won’t they? Do you think so?” the president said.
This received quite a bit of pushback and led the administration to walk back that kind of talk. Vice President Vance said last summer, amid swirling discussions, “What the president has said is number one – we’re not going to do amnesty. We’re actually NOT going to tell people who have come into this country illegally that they’re allowed to break our laws and be rewarded for it.”
Since then, the topic of amnesty has been somewhat forgotten, but amid a harsh and distracting conflict with Iran, it has slyly reemerged in the fog of war.
And lest Lawler be seen as a mere loose cannon in the Republican Party, remember that the New York congressman was endorsed by President Trump last spring.
“What’s most infuriating?” remarked TPUSA Spokesman Andrew Kolvet on X. “We have to keep fighting off pro-amnesty Republicans instead of pushing the Save America Act, advancing mass deportations, affordable housing for Gen Z, and abolishing sanctuary cities. The agenda is very simple, and yet big business refuses to learn.”
In response to a trepidatious claim from POLITICO noting Republicans’ decreasing odds of keeping seats in the midterms this year, conservative commentator Mike Cernovich observed, “There’s time to turn it around. But all day and Trump has not come out agains[t] the amnesty act being pushed by Mike Lawler and other American Last’ers.”
Any whisper of amnesty legislation, no matter how big or small, should be immediately refuted. Amnesty would be a death knell for America First and a win for criminality. Americans must remain vigilant on this topic and not allow the Middle East conflict to distract them from important domestic issues being battled here at home.
____________________________
Eric W. Schoen
Keep Term Limits Alive in Yonkers
This too is Yonkers– by Eric W. Schoen
And here we go again. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle in Yonkers are looking for ways to change the laws to allow elected officials in Yonkers to serve more than 2 terms. Their logic? Things are going great in Yonkers and ‘our city needs us.’
Things are going great? Believe that and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Have we ever had a budget cycle without chaos and threats of job layoffs and turmoil. Only to be solved with our elected officials joining union leaders and parents and workers marching up to Albany, tin cups in hand begging for a bailout.
Mayor Mike Spano assured me earlier this year that he would not be supporting ending term limits. He said to me ‘do you realize how difficult this job is and the hours one must spend to do the job right. Eight years is plenty of time. I am not looking for any more time as Mayor, even though I enjoy this job very much.’
The rumor is that the powers that be might want to do a one time term limit extension to ‘keep the good things going.’ This is the same charade former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg did in New York City. A city more complex than Yonkers that doesn’t do the ‘budget tango’ threatening layoffs every year upsetting city workers and their families. People in New York City to this day regret their decision to overturn term limits even if it was just for one cycle.
How can term limits be changed to allow for one more term for those in power or permanently eliminated. The Mayor or City Council can appoint a Charter Revision Commission to place a referendum on the ballot for Yonkers voters to decide. The City Council can change the charter, usually in the middle of the night when no one is watching to eliminate term limits. There are probably other sneaky ways to do it. Folks stay up late at night trying to figure them out.
Now, other than their belief that everything in Yonkers is perfect, Why would our elected officials want to change term limits to allow another 4 year term? It all has to do with pension eligibility and health insurance eligibility.
The pension tier our newest elected officials are in require them to have 10 years of service before they can collect pensions. They are also required to have 10 years of service in order for them to have health insurance for life paid for by the city of Yonkers. In other words ‘We, The People.’
The current eight year maximum years of service doesn’t allow our newest elected officials to get these generous benefits. Good reason why some elected officials want an extension allowing them to serve 4 more years. (Note that with his service in the State Assembly And the fact he is in a different pension tier even though he will have served only 8 years as Mayor, Mike Spano qualifies for a pension and lifetime taxpayer funded health benefits.)
So friends, that in a nutshell is what we have before us. In I hope easy and clear terms that you can understand. Some elected officials have gotten around this by at the end of their eight years of service getting appointed to a government job for At least 2 years so they can qualify for the goodies. And some of these jobs over the years have been not ‘no show’ but ‘low show’ jobs not requiring them to do all that much.
Low show jobs in a city with a budget crisis every year? Does it make sense? There are 200,000 people in Yonkers. I am sure we can find 8 people among us to run the affairs of our great city. Hey, at least 8 people that want to run around town having their pictures taken literally at the hammering of a nail in the wall! We have that now!
Hot Topics:
Dunkin’ Donuts is taking the ‘Donuts’ out of their name later this year to reflect the fact that coffee and beverages are more important than donuts in their profitability margins. I am a Starbucks fan, so it won’t mean anything to me. Everyone is either a Dunkin’ Fan or Starbucks fan. Never the twain shall meet!
Halloween growing up meant your parents checked all your treats for razor blades, pins, etc. I remember going to a neighbor’s house, she had just come home from the store with a four pack of apples. She gave us apples right out of the package. We threw the perfectly good apples away out of fear of razor blades. What a waste of good food. So now the fear is that candies we eat (I.e. Gummy bears) will be laced with marijuana or other drugs cooked into them and given to trick or treaters. What’s next?
I remember going to a wine tasting in New York City and when I told one of the wine representatives pouring samples that I lived in Yonkers he told me how fortunate I was for price and selection to be near Stew Leonards. Now we hear Total Wine, a spirits discounter is requesting a license to move to Central Avenue. Small, old time Liquor stores are worried about Total Wine putting them out of business. You might pay a little more but if you want good customer service with someone who knows their spirits you will go to the small old time store to make your purchase. They are your neighbors and friends.
Weather outside has been frightful. No one chalks it up to global warming. What’s causing these crazy weather patterns flooding our roadways?
Can you believe people Lease animals? That should be outlawed. So many beautiful pets up for adoption in Yonkers, New Rochelle and other local animal shelters!
The other day we heard Trump at United Nations state that the United States will only give aid to countries who support us. Whether you like him or loathe him, what’s wrong with that?
Reach Eric Schoen at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @ericyonkers. Listen to Eric Schoen and Dan Murphy on the Westchester Rising Radio Show Thursday’s from 10-11 a.m. On WVOX 1460 AM or download the SIMPLE RADIO app for free from the APP STORE.
This too is Yonkers– by Eric W. Schoen
And here we go again. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle in Yonkers are looking for ways to change the laws to allow elected officials in Yonkers to serve more than 2 terms. Their logic? Things are going great in Yonkers and ‘our city needs us.’
Things are going great? Believe that and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Have we ever had a budget cycle without chaos and threats of job layoffs and turmoil. Only to be solved with our elected officials joining union leaders and parents and workers marching up to Albany, tin cups in hand begging for a bailout.
Mayor Mike Spano assured me earlier this year that he would not be supporting ending term limits. He said to me ‘do you realize how difficult this job is and the hours one must spend to do the job right. Eight years is plenty of time. I am not looking for any more time as Mayor, even though I enjoy this job very much.’
The rumor is that the powers that be might want to do a one time term limit extension to ‘keep the good things going.’ This is the same charade former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg did in New York City. A city more complex than Yonkers that doesn’t do the ‘budget tango’ threatening layoffs every year upsetting city workers and their families. People in New York City to this day regret their decision to overturn term limits even if it was just for one cycle.
How can term limits be changed to allow for one more term for those in power or permanently eliminated. The Mayor or City Council can appoint a Charter Revision Commission to place a referendum on the ballot for Yonkers voters to decide. The City Council can change the charter, usually in the middle of the night when no one is watching to eliminate term limits. There are probably other sneaky ways to do it. Folks stay up late at night trying to figure them out.
Now, other than their belief that everything in Yonkers is perfect, Why would our elected officials want to change term limits to allow another 4 year term? It all has to do with pension eligibility and health insurance eligibility.
The pension tier our newest elected officials are in require them to have 10 years of service before they can collect pensions. They are also required to have 10 years of service in order for them to have health insurance for life paid for by the city of Yonkers. In other words ‘We, The People.’
The current eight year maximum years of service doesn’t allow our newest elected officials to get these generous benefits. Good reason why some elected officials want an extension allowing them to serve 4 more years. (Note that with his service in the State Assembly And the fact he is in a different pension tier even though he will have served only 8 years as Mayor, Mike Spano qualifies for a pension and lifetime taxpayer funded health benefits.)
So friends, that in a nutshell is what we have before us. In I hope easy and clear terms that you can understand. Some elected officials have gotten around this by at the end of their eight years of service getting appointed to a government job for At least 2 years so they can qualify for the goodies. And some of these jobs over the years have been not ‘no show’ but ‘low show’ jobs not requiring them to do all that much.
Low show jobs in a city with a budget crisis every year? Does it make sense? There are 200,000 people in Yonkers. I am sure we can find 8 people among us to run the affairs of our great city. Hey, at least 8 people that want to run around town having their pictures taken literally at the hammering of a nail in the wall! We have that now!
Hot Topics:
Dunkin’ Donuts is taking the ‘Donuts’ out of their name later this year to reflect the fact that coffee and beverages are more important than donuts in their profitability margins. I am a Starbucks fan, so it won’t mean anything to me. Everyone is either a Dunkin’ Fan or Starbucks fan. Never the twain shall meet!
Halloween growing up meant your parents checked all your treats for razor blades, pins, etc. I remember going to a neighbor’s house, she had just come home from the store with a four pack of apples. She gave us apples right out of the package. We threw the perfectly good apples away out of fear of razor blades. What a waste of good food. So now the fear is that candies we eat (I.e. Gummy bears) will be laced with marijuana or other drugs cooked into them and given to trick or treaters. What’s next?
I remember going to a wine tasting in New York City and when I told one of the wine representatives pouring samples that I lived in Yonkers he told me how fortunate I was for price and selection to be near Stew Leonards. Now we hear Total Wine, a spirits discounter is requesting a license to move to Central Avenue. Small, old time Liquor stores are worried about Total Wine putting them out of business. You might pay a little more but if you want good customer service with someone who knows their spirits you will go to the small old time store to make your purchase. They are your neighbors and friends.
Weather outside has been frightful. No one chalks it up to global warming. What’s causing these crazy weather patterns flooding our roadways?
Can you believe people Lease animals? That should be outlawed. So many beautiful pets up for adoption in Yonkers, New Rochelle and other local animal shelters!
The other day we heard Trump at United Nations state that the United States will only give aid to countries who support us. Whether you like him or loathe him, what’s wrong with that?
Reach Eric Schoen at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter @ericyonkers. Listen to Eric Schoen and Dan Murphy on the Westchester Rising Radio Show Thursday’s from 10-11 a.m. On WVOX 1460 AM or download the SIMPLE RADIO app for free from the APP STORE.
____________________________
Jim Cavanaugh, former Yonkers Deputy Mayor
In Defense of the Domino Sugar Rezoning
Jim Cavanaugh, The Yonkers Ledger
Phil Zisman’s recent articles criticizing the City Council’s rezoning of the Domino Sugar property in the downtown waterfront area suggest that instead the Council should have flipped the zoning process on its head.
Mr. Zisman, who usually provides thoughtful analysis, in this case suggests the Council should have delayed any rezoning until after a developer emerged with a plan for the now-shuttered 25 acre site.
But good zoning steers future development, rather than reacts to it as Mr. Zisman proposes.
The DMX zone was created years ago after an extended planning process and was designed to facilitate growth of the City’s downtown, and especially the former industrial brownfields along the waterfront. It has successfully facilitated the development of thousands of new housing units and a public linear park that opened the waterfront to the public for the first time in many generations.
Domino Sugars understandably opposed any rezoning of its own property, which would have become a non-conforming industrial use. But now that it is closed, it is logical to extend the immediately adjacent DMX zone to now include it.
Far from abandon its responsibility as Mr. Zisman claims, the City Council decided to extend the DMX classification to its logical next step.
What this means is that potential developers know exactly what they can build – how much, how high, and how dense. It provides certainty for both the City and potential developers. Yonkers is more likely to attract well-funded and able developers by providing this certainty than it would have by leaving the process unclear and subject to the vagaries of political agendas.
Even so, any development will still be subject to SEQRA and the City’s planning review process. The public will have multiple chances to weigh in. The City will undoubtedly require significant public open space along the river along with other amenities.
And, since in the last decade well over 20 percent of all new housing built in Yonkers has been classed as affordable, it wouldn’t be surprising if the 10 percent minimum threshold is exceeded here as well.
Not everyone loves the DMX zone. Some people are happy with the downtown’s growth while others want nothing but low rise. That’s a legitimate argument to have. But the City Council has decided the DMX zone works. That’s providing leadership and making a decision, not stepping aside as Mr. Zisman claims.
Jim Cavanaugh is a retired City of Yonkers official who served as Deputy Mayor (2017–2021), President & CEO of the Yonkers Industrial Development Agency, and Acting Commissioner of Planning & Development. He previously served as Town Supervisor of Eastchester and President of the Battery Park City Authority.
Jim Cavanaugh, The Yonkers Ledger
Phil Zisman’s recent articles criticizing the City Council’s rezoning of the Domino Sugar property in the downtown waterfront area suggest that instead the Council should have flipped the zoning process on its head.
Mr. Zisman, who usually provides thoughtful analysis, in this case suggests the Council should have delayed any rezoning until after a developer emerged with a plan for the now-shuttered 25 acre site.
But good zoning steers future development, rather than reacts to it as Mr. Zisman proposes.
The DMX zone was created years ago after an extended planning process and was designed to facilitate growth of the City’s downtown, and especially the former industrial brownfields along the waterfront. It has successfully facilitated the development of thousands of new housing units and a public linear park that opened the waterfront to the public for the first time in many generations.
Domino Sugars understandably opposed any rezoning of its own property, which would have become a non-conforming industrial use. But now that it is closed, it is logical to extend the immediately adjacent DMX zone to now include it.
Far from abandon its responsibility as Mr. Zisman claims, the City Council decided to extend the DMX classification to its logical next step.
What this means is that potential developers know exactly what they can build – how much, how high, and how dense. It provides certainty for both the City and potential developers. Yonkers is more likely to attract well-funded and able developers by providing this certainty than it would have by leaving the process unclear and subject to the vagaries of political agendas.
Even so, any development will still be subject to SEQRA and the City’s planning review process. The public will have multiple chances to weigh in. The City will undoubtedly require significant public open space along the river along with other amenities.
And, since in the last decade well over 20 percent of all new housing built in Yonkers has been classed as affordable, it wouldn’t be surprising if the 10 percent minimum threshold is exceeded here as well.
Not everyone loves the DMX zone. Some people are happy with the downtown’s growth while others want nothing but low rise. That’s a legitimate argument to have. But the City Council has decided the DMX zone works. That’s providing leadership and making a decision, not stepping aside as Mr. Zisman claims.
Jim Cavanaugh is a retired City of Yonkers official who served as Deputy Mayor (2017–2021), President & CEO of the Yonkers Industrial Development Agency, and Acting Commissioner of Planning & Development. He previously served as Town Supervisor of Eastchester and President of the Battery Park City Authority.
____________________________
Letitia James is Still, Confoundingly, Fighting for Youth Gender Care — Not Realizing the War is Over
By Kirsten Fleming, New York Post, Published March 4, 2026, 7:08 p.m.
Letitia James seems to think we’re still living in 2021.
Last week, the New York Attorney General sent a strongly worded warning to NYU Langone Hospital, which recently axed its “transgender youth health program” after President Trump threatened to pull funding late last year.
In the letter, she demanded that hospital reinstate services within 10 days or face “further action.”
“NYU Langone appears to be suddenly and indefinitely cancelling transgender children’s future appointments thereby jeopardizing access to medically necessary healthcare for some of the most vulnerable New Yorkers,” the missive read.
James is like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting for decades after the end of WWII, not realizing the battle was over.
Maybe five years ago a politician’s strongly worded letter would frighten institutions into complying with a twisted mandate of messing with kids’ physical health.
But lunatic activists — who not only advocated to medicalize confused children but also zealously shut down any dissent against the practice — don’t want to admit their once almighty potency has seriously atrophied.
In 2026, we’re back to dealing with sanity. Pumping hormones or puberty blockers into minors is not “medically necessary healthcare.”
Just in the last few months, there have been many seismic changes, both culturally and in the medical profession, to support a ban.
In early February, the American Society for Plastic Surgeons came out against “gender-related breast/chest, genital and facial surgery” for anyone under 19, citing “growing uncertainty about the benefits of medical and surgical interventions.”
They added that a “substantial proportion” of kids grow out of their gender distress once they reach adulthood.
Just a day later, the American Medical Association put out their own statement: “In the absence of clear evidence, the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”
Dr. Ira Savetsky, a plastic surgeon who trained at NYU Langone Health, wrote in The Post last month about having publicly “apologized for not speaking out during my years as a trainee, when I assisted in transgender surgeries involving youth patients.”
He also noted that the culture “created conditions in which silence felt safer than inquiry.”
In January, Fox Varian, a 22-year-old detransitioner from Westchester, won a $2 million medical malpractice lawsuit against her psychologist and surgeon — the first of its kind in the nation to go to trial and win.
At 16, Varian had been identifying as male for less than a year when, she has said, the doctors pressured her to have a double mastectomy.
Such a large jury reward has surely given some doctors and hospitals pause.
And late last year, a peer-reviewed study commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services, reported that the evidence used to back practices such as hormone therapy for kids are flimsy at best.
Let’s not forget that, years earlier, many European countries pumped the brakes on giving kids puberty blockers.
The whole youth gender industrial complex is crumbling — and revealed to be built on a deck of cards.
However, here in New York, our leaders don’t seem to care.
James is still demanding hospitals perform experimental medicine on minors. Mayor Mamdani hasn’t commented on the AG’s letter, but during his campaign he promised to pump $65 million into trans healthcare, including for minors.
He also pledged to work with James to “investigate and hold public hearings on hospitals that deny trans youth their rightful healthcare and hold them accountable to the law.”
They’re buttressed by advocates like “And Just Like That” actress Cynthia Nixon, whose 29-year-old daughter now lives as a man named Samuel. Last year, Nixon spoke at a DSA rally after Trump signed an executive order promising to withhold funding from hospitals medicalizing minors.
Nixon said her child had their breasts removed at NYU “a number of years ago,” adding that other kids not having access to the same “highest care” … “sickens me to my core.”
James said this week that the hospital’s new policy violates New York’s anti-discrimination law. But her letter violates common sense and a growing medical consensus.
Maybe she’s doing this to boost her anti-Trump bona fides — and even her campaign donations from progressives — as she faces down a November election.
Note, NYU isn’t turning away kids struggling with gender issues. They are being treated how they should always have been: with a check-up from the neck up.
“We are committed to helping patients in our care manage this change. This does not impact our pediatric mental health care programs, which will continue,” the hospital said in a February statement.
Minors should be treated with therapy to understand their feelings. Not affirmed and medicalized in a way that does irreversible harm to their precious bodies.
By Kirsten Fleming, New York Post, Published March 4, 2026, 7:08 p.m.
Letitia James seems to think we’re still living in 2021.
Last week, the New York Attorney General sent a strongly worded warning to NYU Langone Hospital, which recently axed its “transgender youth health program” after President Trump threatened to pull funding late last year.
In the letter, she demanded that hospital reinstate services within 10 days or face “further action.”
“NYU Langone appears to be suddenly and indefinitely cancelling transgender children’s future appointments thereby jeopardizing access to medically necessary healthcare for some of the most vulnerable New Yorkers,” the missive read.
James is like those Japanese soldiers who kept fighting for decades after the end of WWII, not realizing the battle was over.
Maybe five years ago a politician’s strongly worded letter would frighten institutions into complying with a twisted mandate of messing with kids’ physical health.
But lunatic activists — who not only advocated to medicalize confused children but also zealously shut down any dissent against the practice — don’t want to admit their once almighty potency has seriously atrophied.
In 2026, we’re back to dealing with sanity. Pumping hormones or puberty blockers into minors is not “medically necessary healthcare.”
Just in the last few months, there have been many seismic changes, both culturally and in the medical profession, to support a ban.
In early February, the American Society for Plastic Surgeons came out against “gender-related breast/chest, genital and facial surgery” for anyone under 19, citing “growing uncertainty about the benefits of medical and surgical interventions.”
They added that a “substantial proportion” of kids grow out of their gender distress once they reach adulthood.
Just a day later, the American Medical Association put out their own statement: “In the absence of clear evidence, the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”
Dr. Ira Savetsky, a plastic surgeon who trained at NYU Langone Health, wrote in The Post last month about having publicly “apologized for not speaking out during my years as a trainee, when I assisted in transgender surgeries involving youth patients.”
He also noted that the culture “created conditions in which silence felt safer than inquiry.”
In January, Fox Varian, a 22-year-old detransitioner from Westchester, won a $2 million medical malpractice lawsuit against her psychologist and surgeon — the first of its kind in the nation to go to trial and win.
At 16, Varian had been identifying as male for less than a year when, she has said, the doctors pressured her to have a double mastectomy.
Such a large jury reward has surely given some doctors and hospitals pause.
And late last year, a peer-reviewed study commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services, reported that the evidence used to back practices such as hormone therapy for kids are flimsy at best.
Let’s not forget that, years earlier, many European countries pumped the brakes on giving kids puberty blockers.
The whole youth gender industrial complex is crumbling — and revealed to be built on a deck of cards.
However, here in New York, our leaders don’t seem to care.
James is still demanding hospitals perform experimental medicine on minors. Mayor Mamdani hasn’t commented on the AG’s letter, but during his campaign he promised to pump $65 million into trans healthcare, including for minors.
He also pledged to work with James to “investigate and hold public hearings on hospitals that deny trans youth their rightful healthcare and hold them accountable to the law.”
They’re buttressed by advocates like “And Just Like That” actress Cynthia Nixon, whose 29-year-old daughter now lives as a man named Samuel. Last year, Nixon spoke at a DSA rally after Trump signed an executive order promising to withhold funding from hospitals medicalizing minors.
Nixon said her child had their breasts removed at NYU “a number of years ago,” adding that other kids not having access to the same “highest care” … “sickens me to my core.”
James said this week that the hospital’s new policy violates New York’s anti-discrimination law. But her letter violates common sense and a growing medical consensus.
Maybe she’s doing this to boost her anti-Trump bona fides — and even her campaign donations from progressives — as she faces down a November election.
Note, NYU isn’t turning away kids struggling with gender issues. They are being treated how they should always have been: with a check-up from the neck up.
“We are committed to helping patients in our care manage this change. This does not impact our pediatric mental health care programs, which will continue,” the hospital said in a February statement.
Minors should be treated with therapy to understand their feelings. Not affirmed and medicalized in a way that does irreversible harm to their precious bodies.
____________________________
Here’s the REAL Reason the Left Favors a Wide-Open Southern US Border
By Victor Davis Hanson, New York Post, Published Feb. 22, 2026, Updated Feb. 23, 2026, 6:53 a.m. ET
Why would any president destroy the US southern border?
The left typically “pounces” on anyone daring to suggest the Biden administration green-lighted illegal immigration to gain new constituents for agendas that otherwise were without public support.
The left smears critics of open borders as racist conspiracists spreading the “Great Replacement Theory.”
Yet for years Democrats and leftists themselves had written triumphalist books with titles like “The Emerging Democratic Majority.”
And often they crowed that “demography is destiny.”
A few left-wing globalists even boasted of a new borderless world in which anyone could live anywhere they wished.
Not too long ago, Texas state Rep. Gene Wum, chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, jumped the shark to say out loud what is usually left unsaid about the Democratic agenda:
“The day the Latino, African American, Asian and other communities realize that they share the same oppressor is the day we start winning, because we are the majority in this country now. We have the ability to take over this country and to do what is needed for everyone.”
The same unapologetic left-wing weaponization of illegal immigration is occurring in Europe.
Sheer numbers there have already radically changed the demography — and political constituencies — of the continent.
Recently the former Spanish “minister of equality,” an energized Irene Montero, offered an unambiguous rant: “I hope for ‘replacement theory,’ I hope we can sweep this country of fascists and racists with immigrants. Whatever their skin color, whether ‘Chinese, black or brown.'”
The climax of the new hubris in the United States was the Biden administration’s destruction of the southern border and even rudimentary enforcement of federal immigration law.
On some days, the Biden influx exceeded anyone’s wildest imagination, at a rate of 10,000 illegal entrants per day.
Homeland “Security” Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, in Baghdad Bob style, occasionally pontificated that the border was “secure” — as thousands illegally swarmed the border, without health or even basic background checks.
The left’s political agenda for illegal immigration was to be realized either immediately through compromised ballot integrity, or soon enough by warping the Census-based reapportionment of House districts.
No wonder there is now near-hysterical Democratic opposition to even basic national requirements of a photo ID to vote.
Yet traditionally liberal polls like Gallup and Pew show that 83% to 84% of Americans support mandatory presentation of a voter photo ID.
Usually the left fawns over European protocols. But it now grows quiet when reminded that 46 of 47 European nations, even those governed by the left, require IDs to vote.
Apparently, Democrats assumed that once 10 million more of the world’s poorest had illegally crashed the southern border, without audit or English proficiency, they would filter throughout American society and become impossible to repatriate.
Soon open borders would flip more states blue, as well as increase their congressional seats. Illegals were to be redefined as mere “residents,” and often recipients of mail-in ballots.
The reality that millions of new poor would grow the welfare state, expand government at all levels, require far more taxes and fuel the DEI binary of oppressed/oppressors were added benefits.
The nexus between the $9 billion Somali welfare fraud and Minnesota Democratic officials offers a sharp reminder of how the immigration/welfare/DEI exemption industry was created and protected by authorities.
President Joe Biden’s new 10 million unlawful entrants may have increased the existing pool of illegal aliens (20 million?) to 30 million.
That total in turn radically grew the existing group of 20 million legal foreign-born citizens and legal residents of various categories.
So when President Trump took office in January 2025, the US had admitted a record high of foreign-born residents. They now make up some 16% of the population and perhaps 53 million in actual numbers.
The influxes came at a time when too often the melting-pot tradition of integration, assimilation and acculturation were reviled, and to be superseded by salad-bowl ethnic chauvinism and separatism.
Yet the triumphant left never imagined a Trump re-election.
Nor could it grasp fully Trump’s counterrevolutionary effort to secure the border and undo the Biden nihilism.
Even more surreal to Democrats were Trump’s efforts to reinstate the integrity and supremacy of federal immigration law.
No one really believed Trump would seek to find and deport millions who had filtered through 50 states.
Most were enjoying de facto immunity via hundreds of left-wing district court judges and blue-state officials of the Tim Walz/Gavin Newsom sort.
But if any of its immigrant constituencies in the future — such as the 55% of Hispanic males who voted for Trump in 2024 — dared to vote on criteria other than federal entitlements, ethnic solidarity and Democratic coercion, the left would close the border quickly. ##
Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
By Victor Davis Hanson, New York Post, Published Feb. 22, 2026, Updated Feb. 23, 2026, 6:53 a.m. ET
Why would any president destroy the US southern border?
The left typically “pounces” on anyone daring to suggest the Biden administration green-lighted illegal immigration to gain new constituents for agendas that otherwise were without public support.
The left smears critics of open borders as racist conspiracists spreading the “Great Replacement Theory.”
Yet for years Democrats and leftists themselves had written triumphalist books with titles like “The Emerging Democratic Majority.”
And often they crowed that “demography is destiny.”
A few left-wing globalists even boasted of a new borderless world in which anyone could live anywhere they wished.
Not too long ago, Texas state Rep. Gene Wum, chair of the Texas House Democratic Caucus, jumped the shark to say out loud what is usually left unsaid about the Democratic agenda:
“The day the Latino, African American, Asian and other communities realize that they share the same oppressor is the day we start winning, because we are the majority in this country now. We have the ability to take over this country and to do what is needed for everyone.”
The same unapologetic left-wing weaponization of illegal immigration is occurring in Europe.
Sheer numbers there have already radically changed the demography — and political constituencies — of the continent.
Recently the former Spanish “minister of equality,” an energized Irene Montero, offered an unambiguous rant: “I hope for ‘replacement theory,’ I hope we can sweep this country of fascists and racists with immigrants. Whatever their skin color, whether ‘Chinese, black or brown.'”
The climax of the new hubris in the United States was the Biden administration’s destruction of the southern border and even rudimentary enforcement of federal immigration law.
On some days, the Biden influx exceeded anyone’s wildest imagination, at a rate of 10,000 illegal entrants per day.
Homeland “Security” Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, in Baghdad Bob style, occasionally pontificated that the border was “secure” — as thousands illegally swarmed the border, without health or even basic background checks.
The left’s political agenda for illegal immigration was to be realized either immediately through compromised ballot integrity, or soon enough by warping the Census-based reapportionment of House districts.
No wonder there is now near-hysterical Democratic opposition to even basic national requirements of a photo ID to vote.
Yet traditionally liberal polls like Gallup and Pew show that 83% to 84% of Americans support mandatory presentation of a voter photo ID.
Usually the left fawns over European protocols. But it now grows quiet when reminded that 46 of 47 European nations, even those governed by the left, require IDs to vote.
Apparently, Democrats assumed that once 10 million more of the world’s poorest had illegally crashed the southern border, without audit or English proficiency, they would filter throughout American society and become impossible to repatriate.
Soon open borders would flip more states blue, as well as increase their congressional seats. Illegals were to be redefined as mere “residents,” and often recipients of mail-in ballots.
The reality that millions of new poor would grow the welfare state, expand government at all levels, require far more taxes and fuel the DEI binary of oppressed/oppressors were added benefits.
The nexus between the $9 billion Somali welfare fraud and Minnesota Democratic officials offers a sharp reminder of how the immigration/welfare/DEI exemption industry was created and protected by authorities.
President Joe Biden’s new 10 million unlawful entrants may have increased the existing pool of illegal aliens (20 million?) to 30 million.
That total in turn radically grew the existing group of 20 million legal foreign-born citizens and legal residents of various categories.
So when President Trump took office in January 2025, the US had admitted a record high of foreign-born residents. They now make up some 16% of the population and perhaps 53 million in actual numbers.
The influxes came at a time when too often the melting-pot tradition of integration, assimilation and acculturation were reviled, and to be superseded by salad-bowl ethnic chauvinism and separatism.
Yet the triumphant left never imagined a Trump re-election.
Nor could it grasp fully Trump’s counterrevolutionary effort to secure the border and undo the Biden nihilism.
Even more surreal to Democrats were Trump’s efforts to reinstate the integrity and supremacy of federal immigration law.
No one really believed Trump would seek to find and deport millions who had filtered through 50 states.
Most were enjoying de facto immunity via hundreds of left-wing district court judges and blue-state officials of the Tim Walz/Gavin Newsom sort.
But if any of its immigrant constituencies in the future — such as the 55% of Hispanic males who voted for Trump in 2024 — dared to vote on criteria other than federal entitlements, ethnic solidarity and Democratic coercion, the left would close the border quickly. ##
Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
____________________________
LOCAL: Exploring a Return to a Twelve-Ward System Under a City Manager Form of Government - PART 2
By Joseph Berger, John P. O’Leary Northwest Yonkers Republican Club co-founder & member, February 17, 2026.
When taxpayers pay more but continue to experience uneven delivery of basic city services, it is appropriate to examine not just policies, but the structure of government itself.
Yonkers currently operates under a system of six City Council districts and a City Council President, a structure that emerged from court-ordered changes in the 1980s. Prior to those changes, Yonkers had a twelve-ward City Council, with each ward electing its own representative.
At the time, concerns were raised that the ward-based system did not provide sufficient minority representation on the Council as demographic changes were occurring unevenly across the city.
In response to those concerns, the twelve wards were consolidated into six larger City Council districts to increase minority voting strength within individual districts. Elections proceeded under this new structure.
When it was later determined that these changes were still insufficient, litigation followed, and additional court-ordered modifications were made to redraw district lines across traditional ward boundaries to further enhance minority representation.
These changes were made with a legitimate and necessary goal: ensuring fair and representative government during a period of demographic transition in Yonkers.
Today, Yonkers is a far more diverse, integrated, and complex city than it was forty years ago. Minority representation is now well established across neighborhoods and throughout city government. Given these changes, it is reasonable and responsible to re-examine whether the current six-district system remains the best model for representation, or whether a return to a twelve-ward structure—paired with a modern City Manager form of government—can once again strengthen neighborhood democracy while fully reflecting the city’s diversity.
As part of a broader restructuring under a City Manager form of government, Yonkers should explore returning to a twelve-ward City Council system similar to the model that previously existed. A twelve-ward system would enhance local representation while also delivering meaningful cost savings, improved accountability, and better overall government performance.
GOVERNANCE AND REPRESENTATION:
• A twelve-member City Council, with each member elected from a single ward
• Two-year staggered terms for City Council members to ensure continuity and frequent voter accountability
• A citywide elected Mayor serving a three-year term, replacing the current City Council President as the city’s political and ceremonial leader
• A professionally appointed City Manager responsible for daily operations, fiscal discipline, and performance management
COST-SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCY MEASURES:
• Smaller, ward-based districts reduce campaign costs, encouraging grassroots candidates and limiting the influence of special interests
• Reduced staffing levels in Council offices to eliminate duplication and lower payroll expenses
• City vehicles limited to the Mayor, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader, reducing fleet, fuel, and maintenance costs
• A streamlined Mayor’s office with clearly defined responsibilities and reduced administrative support
• A clear separation of policymaking and administration under the City Manager model, eliminating overlapping political functions
ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEGISLATIVE PRODUCTIVITY:
• Committee Chairs may receive additional compensation based on workload, time commitment, and the advancement of substantive legislation
• Compensation tied to measurable performance, not titles alone
• The mayor serves as an automatic member of each Council committee, with compensation tied to committee attendance and participation
CONCLUSION:
This restructuring reflects the realities of Yonkers today—not the Yonkers of 40 years ago. It modernizes city government, lowers long-term costs to taxpayers, restores neighborhood-level representation, and ensures professional, non-partisan management of city operations while maintaining strong democratic accountabilities for all residents. ##
By Joseph Berger, John P. O’Leary Northwest Yonkers Republican Club co-founder & member, February 17, 2026.
When taxpayers pay more but continue to experience uneven delivery of basic city services, it is appropriate to examine not just policies, but the structure of government itself.
Yonkers currently operates under a system of six City Council districts and a City Council President, a structure that emerged from court-ordered changes in the 1980s. Prior to those changes, Yonkers had a twelve-ward City Council, with each ward electing its own representative.
At the time, concerns were raised that the ward-based system did not provide sufficient minority representation on the Council as demographic changes were occurring unevenly across the city.
In response to those concerns, the twelve wards were consolidated into six larger City Council districts to increase minority voting strength within individual districts. Elections proceeded under this new structure.
When it was later determined that these changes were still insufficient, litigation followed, and additional court-ordered modifications were made to redraw district lines across traditional ward boundaries to further enhance minority representation.
These changes were made with a legitimate and necessary goal: ensuring fair and representative government during a period of demographic transition in Yonkers.
Today, Yonkers is a far more diverse, integrated, and complex city than it was forty years ago. Minority representation is now well established across neighborhoods and throughout city government. Given these changes, it is reasonable and responsible to re-examine whether the current six-district system remains the best model for representation, or whether a return to a twelve-ward structure—paired with a modern City Manager form of government—can once again strengthen neighborhood democracy while fully reflecting the city’s diversity.
As part of a broader restructuring under a City Manager form of government, Yonkers should explore returning to a twelve-ward City Council system similar to the model that previously existed. A twelve-ward system would enhance local representation while also delivering meaningful cost savings, improved accountability, and better overall government performance.
GOVERNANCE AND REPRESENTATION:
• A twelve-member City Council, with each member elected from a single ward
• Two-year staggered terms for City Council members to ensure continuity and frequent voter accountability
• A citywide elected Mayor serving a three-year term, replacing the current City Council President as the city’s political and ceremonial leader
• A professionally appointed City Manager responsible for daily operations, fiscal discipline, and performance management
COST-SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCY MEASURES:
• Smaller, ward-based districts reduce campaign costs, encouraging grassroots candidates and limiting the influence of special interests
• Reduced staffing levels in Council offices to eliminate duplication and lower payroll expenses
• City vehicles limited to the Mayor, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader, reducing fleet, fuel, and maintenance costs
• A streamlined Mayor’s office with clearly defined responsibilities and reduced administrative support
• A clear separation of policymaking and administration under the City Manager model, eliminating overlapping political functions
ACCOUNTABILITY AND LEGISLATIVE PRODUCTIVITY:
• Committee Chairs may receive additional compensation based on workload, time commitment, and the advancement of substantive legislation
• Compensation tied to measurable performance, not titles alone
• The mayor serves as an automatic member of each Council committee, with compensation tied to committee attendance and participation
CONCLUSION:
This restructuring reflects the realities of Yonkers today—not the Yonkers of 40 years ago. It modernizes city government, lowers long-term costs to taxpayers, restores neighborhood-level representation, and ensures professional, non-partisan management of city operations while maintaining strong democratic accountabilities for all residents. ##
____________________________
LOCAL: When Taxpayers Pay More but Receive Less in Basic City Services: It’s Time to Examine How Our City Is Governed - PART 1
By Joseph Berger, Co-Founder: The John P. O’Leary Northwest Yonkers Republican Club & Member, February 3, 2026
Yonkers currently operates under a Strong Mayor form of government, where executive authority is concentrated in a single political office. For taxpayers, this means major decisions about hiring, city services, and operations are largely controlled at the top, with limited independent oversight.
While this structure can provide clear leadership, it also carries risks when accountability is weak—cost overruns, inefficient service delivery, and decisions driven by political loyalty rather than results all ultimately fall on taxpayers.
An alternative used in many well-run cities is the City Manager form of government, which separates politics from day-to-day management. Under this model, the mayor and City Council set policy and represent residents, while a professionally trained, non-partisan manager is hired to run city operations efficiently and transparently.
For taxpayers, this approach emphasizes merit-based hiring, measurable performance, and reliable delivery of basic services—such as timely snow removal, infrastructure maintenance, and public safety coordination.
The following plan outlines how this model could bring greater accountability, better value for tax dollars, and restore trust in Yonkers government.
COMPARISONS: Strong Mayor vs. City Manager Forms of Government
1. Strong Mayor Form of Government
(Current system in Yonkers, New York)
DEFINITION:
In a Strong Mayor system, the mayor is both the political leader and the chief executive of the city. He/she has significant control over the administration, budget, hiring/firing of department heads, and implementation of policies.
THE PROS:
• Clear accountability: Voters know who is in charge, and the mayor can be held directly responsible for city performance.
• Strong leadership during crises: A Mayor with executive authority can make swift decisions when needed.
• Political visibility: A Strong Mayor can advocate for the city at state or national levels more effectively.
THE CONS:
• High potential for patronage and corruption: As seen in Yonkers, control over hiring often leads to politically motivated appointments, including rewarding party officials, donors, and even opponents in exchange for loyalty.
• Less Council Oversight: The City Council has limited ability to oversee or override administrative decisions or budgetary priorities.
• Political gridlock or favoritism: Decisions may be made to appease certain factions rather than the public.
• Policy swings: Changes in administration often lead to abrupt policy shifts and instability in long-term planning.
COST IMPLICATIONS:
• High salaries for Mayor and top staff.
• Patronage jobs inflate city payrolls.
• Duplicated roles or unqualified hires cost taxpayers without adding
real value.
2. City Manager Form of Government
(System Yonkers previously had)
DEFINITION:
In this system, the City Council hires and appoints a professional City Manager to oversee the day-to-day operations of the city. The Mayor (if one exists) serves more as a ceremonial figure or policy leader with limited executive power.
PROS:
• Professional management: City Managers are typically credentialed and selected based on qualifications, not politics.
• Greater transparency: The City Council retains more control over budgets, contracts, and policy enforcement.
• Reduced patronage: Hiring is done through a more merit-based process, limiting political interference.
• Policy continuity: Managers tend to serve longer than elected mayors, ensuring long-term planning and consistent service delivery.
CONS:
• Less direct accountability to voters: The City Manager is hired by the Council, not directly elected.
• Potential for Council dysfunction: If the Council is divided, hiring/firing a City Manager or managing direction may become politicized.
• Public disconnect: Residents may not understand who at City Hall is truly in charge, reducing civic engagement.
COST IMPLICATIONS:
• City Manager salary is generally comparable to that of a Mayor, but without the layers of patronage hires, overall city payroll may be significantly reduced.
• Professional efficiency: Savings gained via streamlined services, strategic planning, and reduced political waste.
YONKERS CONTEXT & WHY RECONSIDER THE CITY MANAGER SYSTEM:
• Under the Strong Mayor system, Yonkers has experienced a significant rise in political patronage, with tax dollars being used to maintain power structures by rewarding Council Members, party officials (both Democrat and Republican), and allies with jobs and favors.
• This diminishes public trust, inflates the cost of governance and reduces the effectiveness of services.
• Under the City Manager system, the Council had stronger oversight, more influence on budget priorities, and a greater ability to focus on quality-of-life issues like infrastructure, sanitation, and public safety.
CONCLUSION -WHY PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT:
Moving to a City Manager form of government via public referendum could:
• Restore professionalism and fiscal responsibility to City Hall.
• Empower the City Council and, by extension, citizen taxpayers.
• Reduce wasteful spending on political favors.
• Encourage long-term, stable planning free from the political drama of election cycles.
By Joseph Berger, Co-Founder: The John P. O’Leary Northwest Yonkers Republican Club & Member, February 3, 2026
Yonkers currently operates under a Strong Mayor form of government, where executive authority is concentrated in a single political office. For taxpayers, this means major decisions about hiring, city services, and operations are largely controlled at the top, with limited independent oversight.
While this structure can provide clear leadership, it also carries risks when accountability is weak—cost overruns, inefficient service delivery, and decisions driven by political loyalty rather than results all ultimately fall on taxpayers.
An alternative used in many well-run cities is the City Manager form of government, which separates politics from day-to-day management. Under this model, the mayor and City Council set policy and represent residents, while a professionally trained, non-partisan manager is hired to run city operations efficiently and transparently.
For taxpayers, this approach emphasizes merit-based hiring, measurable performance, and reliable delivery of basic services—such as timely snow removal, infrastructure maintenance, and public safety coordination.
The following plan outlines how this model could bring greater accountability, better value for tax dollars, and restore trust in Yonkers government.
COMPARISONS: Strong Mayor vs. City Manager Forms of Government
1. Strong Mayor Form of Government
(Current system in Yonkers, New York)
DEFINITION:
In a Strong Mayor system, the mayor is both the political leader and the chief executive of the city. He/she has significant control over the administration, budget, hiring/firing of department heads, and implementation of policies.
THE PROS:
• Clear accountability: Voters know who is in charge, and the mayor can be held directly responsible for city performance.
• Strong leadership during crises: A Mayor with executive authority can make swift decisions when needed.
• Political visibility: A Strong Mayor can advocate for the city at state or national levels more effectively.
THE CONS:
• High potential for patronage and corruption: As seen in Yonkers, control over hiring often leads to politically motivated appointments, including rewarding party officials, donors, and even opponents in exchange for loyalty.
• Less Council Oversight: The City Council has limited ability to oversee or override administrative decisions or budgetary priorities.
• Political gridlock or favoritism: Decisions may be made to appease certain factions rather than the public.
• Policy swings: Changes in administration often lead to abrupt policy shifts and instability in long-term planning.
COST IMPLICATIONS:
• High salaries for Mayor and top staff.
• Patronage jobs inflate city payrolls.
• Duplicated roles or unqualified hires cost taxpayers without adding
real value.
2. City Manager Form of Government
(System Yonkers previously had)
DEFINITION:
In this system, the City Council hires and appoints a professional City Manager to oversee the day-to-day operations of the city. The Mayor (if one exists) serves more as a ceremonial figure or policy leader with limited executive power.
PROS:
• Professional management: City Managers are typically credentialed and selected based on qualifications, not politics.
• Greater transparency: The City Council retains more control over budgets, contracts, and policy enforcement.
• Reduced patronage: Hiring is done through a more merit-based process, limiting political interference.
• Policy continuity: Managers tend to serve longer than elected mayors, ensuring long-term planning and consistent service delivery.
CONS:
• Less direct accountability to voters: The City Manager is hired by the Council, not directly elected.
• Potential for Council dysfunction: If the Council is divided, hiring/firing a City Manager or managing direction may become politicized.
• Public disconnect: Residents may not understand who at City Hall is truly in charge, reducing civic engagement.
COST IMPLICATIONS:
• City Manager salary is generally comparable to that of a Mayor, but without the layers of patronage hires, overall city payroll may be significantly reduced.
• Professional efficiency: Savings gained via streamlined services, strategic planning, and reduced political waste.
YONKERS CONTEXT & WHY RECONSIDER THE CITY MANAGER SYSTEM:
• Under the Strong Mayor system, Yonkers has experienced a significant rise in political patronage, with tax dollars being used to maintain power structures by rewarding Council Members, party officials (both Democrat and Republican), and allies with jobs and favors.
• This diminishes public trust, inflates the cost of governance and reduces the effectiveness of services.
• Under the City Manager system, the Council had stronger oversight, more influence on budget priorities, and a greater ability to focus on quality-of-life issues like infrastructure, sanitation, and public safety.
CONCLUSION -WHY PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT:
Moving to a City Manager form of government via public referendum could:
• Restore professionalism and fiscal responsibility to City Hall.
• Empower the City Council and, by extension, citizen taxpayers.
• Reduce wasteful spending on political favors.
• Encourage long-term, stable planning free from the political drama of election cycles.
____________________________
Clarity Matters in the Yonkers Budget Debate
By Joseph Berger, John P. O’Leary Northwest Yonkers Republican Club Co-founder
By Joseph Berger, John P. O’Leary Northwest Yonkers Republican Club Co-founder
Local government works best when elected officials clearly explain not just how they vote, but why. In Yonkers, recent budget discussions involving former City Councilmember Anthony Merante highlight how important that clarity is — especially at a time when residents are feeling the impact of higher taxes and rising living costs.
Former Councilmember Merante has consistently voiced concerns about the city’s operating budget, casting a “no” vote based on his belief that the plan places too much burden on homeowners, seniors, and working families.
Those concerns are shared by many residents across the political spectrum. Yonkers is an expensive city to live in, and taxpayers deserve careful scrutiny of every dollar spent.
At the same time, Merante has expressed support for fair compensation for city employees, including sanitation workers represented by the Teamsters, whose contract includes approximately a 10% wage increase over several years. Sanitation workers perform difficult, essential work, and few would argue against treating them with respect and fairness.
Where some residents become confused is how these two positions fit together.
Public-sector wages are a significant part of the city’s operating budget. Supporting employee pay increases while opposing the overall budget that funds them can appear inconsistent unless the distinction is clearly explained. The issue is not whether workers deserve raises — many do — but how those costs are balanced against the city’s broader fiscal responsibilities.
It is possible to hold both views at the same time: to support fair labor agreements while also opposing a budget that relies too heavily on tax increases or lacks long-term financial planning.
However, for that position to resonate with the public, it requires clear and consistent communication about what parts of the budget are acceptable and which are not — and why.
Budget votes are not just symbolic gestures; they are statements of priorities. Residents benefit most when those priorities are spelled out in a way that fosters understanding rather than confusion.
Yonkers faces real challenges in balancing the needs of taxpayers, city employees, and essential services. That balance will only be achieved through open dialogue, thoughtful compromise, and clear explanations from all sides.
In that spirit, the ongoing budget debate should be less about political lines and more about transparency, accountability, and finding solutions that work for the entire Yonkers community.
Former Councilmember Merante has consistently voiced concerns about the city’s operating budget, casting a “no” vote based on his belief that the plan places too much burden on homeowners, seniors, and working families.
Those concerns are shared by many residents across the political spectrum. Yonkers is an expensive city to live in, and taxpayers deserve careful scrutiny of every dollar spent.
At the same time, Merante has expressed support for fair compensation for city employees, including sanitation workers represented by the Teamsters, whose contract includes approximately a 10% wage increase over several years. Sanitation workers perform difficult, essential work, and few would argue against treating them with respect and fairness.
Where some residents become confused is how these two positions fit together.
Public-sector wages are a significant part of the city’s operating budget. Supporting employee pay increases while opposing the overall budget that funds them can appear inconsistent unless the distinction is clearly explained. The issue is not whether workers deserve raises — many do — but how those costs are balanced against the city’s broader fiscal responsibilities.
It is possible to hold both views at the same time: to support fair labor agreements while also opposing a budget that relies too heavily on tax increases or lacks long-term financial planning.
However, for that position to resonate with the public, it requires clear and consistent communication about what parts of the budget are acceptable and which are not — and why.
Budget votes are not just symbolic gestures; they are statements of priorities. Residents benefit most when those priorities are spelled out in a way that fosters understanding rather than confusion.
Yonkers faces real challenges in balancing the needs of taxpayers, city employees, and essential services. That balance will only be achieved through open dialogue, thoughtful compromise, and clear explanations from all sides.
In that spirit, the ongoing budget debate should be less about political lines and more about transparency, accountability, and finding solutions that work for the entire Yonkers community.