What Did Thomas Jefferson Mean by “Hither, Swarms of Officers” in the Declaration of Independence?
The post What Does “Hither, Swarms of Officers” in the Declaration of Independence Mean? appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
This column grimly spent a spring predicting a dark summer of possible chaos and violence, an administration on the move, power grabs at every turn, one preparing for an unpredictable but authoritarian fall season. We would endure a lot of hot weather, late nights, some dangerous dynamics, and Kalshi had odds at 40% that Portland would be ashes by June 15th. This worry followed protests in Minnesota, the fear of troops coming to Chicago, and everything else you surely remember. Well, the heat came to the East Coast. But nothing else, not yet.Indeed, so far, if one had to pick a theme or feel for what's happening, it would be a catchy viral meme about what's not happening. "The summer that wasn't."We are passing through the nation's 250th birthday, the biggest annual summer holiday, made infinitely bigger by the incredible number, and yet it looks like it'll go by largely unnoticed, except for skipping work on Friday, maybe hearing some booms late at night Saturday. One would have expected baited anticipation, pride, and massive celebrations planned everywhere, or at least that would have been the expectation back 10 years ago, "normal America."I went to a big gathering in my city's central park to watch the U.S. play in the World Cup on big screens with a big crowd — nice weather. Yes, people supported the American team, but not with the passion, anticipation, or hypertension otherwise expected. Everyone's support seemed a bit muted, as if we weren't sure "which" America this team represented. They wore white, not red or blue. If one said, "It's actually the whole country's team," most would reply, "Right. But, again, which country?"Everyone knows the cause.Instead of a celebration of the good that this country has done in its years (while acknowledging the horrific), as per usual, the President of the United States made the entire thing, everything official, at least, not about America but about him. Yes, of course, your city park will still have the earnest city band or orchestra playing in the evening and then fireworks. But the tone is set by the institutions functioning as the nation's cerebellum: the White House, Capitol Hill, the Supreme Court, the Mall. Trump took it all over and made it a MAGA rally. About him.Well that will blow a tire for the 60% of the nation that is exhausted by this man, consumed with disdain and fury. Interestingly, though, there's some evidence that even Trump supporters don't like having the Fourth of July a personal celebration of Donald Trump, as if they, too, have actually found a line in the sand upon which even they won't cross. He cannot take over everything. Kinda like if he named every NFL team "Trump," like the Buffalo Trump, the Dallas Trump, Seattle Trump, all of them. That would be too far, guaranteed. Perhaps this is, too.No, no one is fooled. He damn sure can try to take over elections, has taken over the Department of Justice, the military, and planted his face on banners in a Stalinesque way throughout Washington. He can take over most things, and most of those things are the really important ones, as opposed to the "Great National State Fair" that invisibly passed us by and the big celebration planned for the actual Fourth of July — a rally, about him, always, his greatness, a nation relegated to nothing but a stage.Is it possible that even MAGAs never wanted at least this part?There are other factors. Yes, there is the heat. Yes, you better believe gas prices play a role. Lots more. And yet the number of artists who checked out after hearing the agenda, the lagging ticket requests before the weather report, the bizarre claw of the UFC fight on the White House lawn, a "Fair" no one asked for, and the fact that Washington is empty, all point to something deeper. Kind of like the U.S. soccer team, it's possible everyone agreed we'd have official "Safe Spots," areas relied on to rest from politics — a "timeout." Is it possible that people from the furthest left, to the most extreme 15% of MAGA muckers, all just want to eat a cheeseburger in a backyard, enjoy a day off, maybe even read in the AC? Sick of it all? Not sure which America we're celebrating, only knowing it's not Donald Trump personally?Well, something is happening because nothing is happening!It appears that our kids are out of school, mine seems to be home a lot — which normally indicates something "summery." That weirdly fascinating soccer stuff is on television, and we get to see some kinda cool costumes and customs from around the world. Hollywood released a handful of massive budget movies. Most people have Friday off. There is some evidence that it's summer's big holiday and a lot saying it's not supposed to be like this.All of this might be an important development; it is possible it is an important element, and it's certainly better than an extreme alternative. But there's also the chance that we're seeing a delay of the dangers to which this column previously pointed.
Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is warning that Democrats are “taking out their own” by supporting democratic socialist candidates in primary races across the country. Boebert accused the party of “wanting true socialism, which inevitably will be communism” during an interview with NewsNation’s Chris Cuomo on Wednesday evening. “I promise you, this next Congress, they will…
"This is Citizens United 2.0," Representative Greg Casar said Tuesday about the Supreme Court's ruling allowing political party campaign committees to coordinate directly with campaigns without a cap on spending. Republicans praised the decision, while Democrats issued dire warnings about the fate of democracy.
“This is Citizens United 2.0,” Representative Greg Casar said Tuesday about the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing political party campaign committees to coordinate directly with campaigns without a cap on spending. Republicans praised the decision, while Democrats issued dire warnings about the fate of democracy.But behind the partisan divide, there’s an interesting disagreement about what, exactly, the ruling will do: Some analysts say this decision could weaken the power PACs have over elections, making political parties the dominant spending force. Unfortunately for Democrats, though, the decision will probably heighten a fundraising advantage Republicans already have this year. Then-Senator JD Vance, then-Representative Steve Chabot, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, or NRCC, first brought National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission to federal court in 2022. They argued that the court should overrule its 2001 decision restricting the amount of money political parties can spend in coordination with candidates—particularly via committees like the Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee, or House and Senate campaign committees. The petitioners argued that these limits violated the First Amendment.Due to Tuesday’s ruling in favor of Vance and his associates, political parties can now both coordinate with candidates and raise unlimited funds—giving them an advantage over PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but cannot coordinate directly with candidates.Super PACs have become a dominant force in campaign spending since 2010, when the Supreme Court struck down caps on independent spending by corporations in Citizens United. That decision gave corporations immense power to influence elections, but with the important caveat that super PACs aren’t able to coordinate with campaigns. (Campaigns have found creative ways to get around this, namely by putting “red boxes” on their websites that instruct PACs how to spend their money without directly communicating with them.) Super PACs will remain important forces in elections. But after Tuesday’s decision, political parties may once again have an advantage over super PACs.Democrats are concerned about both the short- and long-term impacts of the decision. In the short term, they say, this could deal a blow to vulnerable House and Senate candidates, since the RNC has a major fundraising advantage over the DNC. At the end of May, the RNC reported its highest-ever cash-on-hand total, $125 million. In comparison, the DNC had just $14.4 million on hand and was $18 million in debt.On the Senate side, candidates in competitive races like Mary Peltola in Alaska and Sherrod Brown in Ohio may face better-funded opponents this fall. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “frontline” candidates, incumbents running in swing districts, could face a similar challenge from their Republican opponents. The ruling could throw a wrench into the Democratic Party’s confidence that they will be able to retake the House, and perhaps the Senate, this fall.In a statement, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, or DSCC, Chair Kirsten Gillibrand, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or DCCC, Chair Suzan DelBene, and DNC Chair Ken Martin downplayed the threat to Democratic candidates. “In November, voters will reject Republicans’ toxic agenda and efforts to rig the system and weaken our democracy by electing a Democratic House and Senate majority,” they wrote.In the long term, Democrats say the ruling will make elections more corrupt and flooded with dark money. Casar called the decision an example of the “hyperpartisan donor-purchased Supreme Court” reversing one of the landmark campaign finance wins of the post-Watergate era. “It’s essentially legalizing corruption in our political system,” he said.Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, had a similar view. “Republicans would get laughed out of Congress if they tried to repeal the few remaining guardrails against dark money and special interest influence,” he wrote in a statement. “So instead, Republicans run to their captured Supreme Court to do the democracy-damaging work for them.”
NPR's A Martinez speaks with Brad Lander, Democratic nominee for New York's 10th Congressional District, about the rise of democratic socialists in the Democratic Party.
