The outbreak of war in Iran has resulted in the expected immediate denunciation from Pope Leo.  Hear me out.  Religious leaders, and Popes in particular, constantly preach for peace and love – it’s their job.  And that wouldn’t be a bad thing if they’d just keep their Roman noses out of politics.

On March 1, the day after the war began, Pope Leo told worshipers in Saint Peter’s Square, “I am following with deep concern what is happening in the Middle East and in Iran during this tumultuous time.  Stability and peace are not achieved through mutual threats, nor through the use of weapons, which sow destruction, suffering, and death, but only through reasonable, sincere, and responsible dialogue.”

Wall Street Journal columnist William McGurn touched on this subject this week, in an article entitled, Homilies Won’t Liberate Iran.  In it, Mr. McGurn argues that “unless the Pope steers the Catholic Church back to its own teachings on this fraught topic, [the Pope’s advice] risks being dismissed, even by sympathizers.”  McGurn quotes Catholic theologian George Weigel, who has written, “The net result of the churches concessions to the political left has been to take religious leaders out of serious conversation with policy makers on matters of war and peace, leaving them to lob minatory rhetorical grenades from the bleachers.”

No one is suggesting that Pope Leo doesn’t mean well.  But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, even when those intentions are mouthed by the Roman Pontiff.  As Mr. McGurn points out, history refutes the notion that stability and peace are achieved only through dialogue.  Armies can’t solve every problem, but no unarmed nation ever has been able to talk its way to peace.

Pollyanna Pope Leo certainly must know better.  Dialogue with Adolph Hitler did European leaders little good in the 1930’s.  Neville Chamberlain tried a dialogue with Hitler at Munich in 1938, hoping to appease Hitler with a piece of Czechoslovakia.  It ended his career.  The next year, Czech President Emil Hacha, a former Supreme Court Judge and international lawyer, attempted a dialogue with Hitler.  That talk ended with Hitler seizing the remainder of Czechoslovakia, and Hacha died in a Nazi prison camp.

There’s just no talking to some people.  Even Papal history bears out this point. Pope Leo’s call for “responsible dialogue” is a far cry from earlier Papal policy.  During the early 13th Century, the Church conducted the Albigensian Crusade, against the non-Catholic Cathars in France.  Before what became a massacre at Beziers in 1209, concerned military leaders went to the Crusade commander, Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric, with a problem.  Catholic Frenchmen and Cathars looked alike.  “How,” asked the soldiers, “will we know which of the people are the heretics?”  Amalric, the personal representative of the ironically named Pope Innocent III, didn’t advise dialogue.  He instead provided a simple explanation of Papal policy, “Kill them all, the Lord will know his own.”  Of course, he said this in Latin, “Caedite eos.  Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.”

Indeed the history of the papacy is a story of almost continual warfare by the Papal States.  Between 1081 and 1867, the Papal States, and thus a succession of Popes, conducted 31 different wars with neighbors of the Holy See.   In the early 16th Century, Pope Julius II, became known as “The Warrior Pope,” as he repeatedly swapped his holy vestments for suits of silver armor, to lead his troops on the battlefield.  The only dialogue Julius was having at this time was with Michelangelo.  “When are you going to finish the damned ceiling?”

More recent Popes also have understood that dialogue alone is no substitute for dialogue backed up with force or the threat of force.  Pope Pius XII was a virtual prisoner in the Vatican during World War II, as Nazi armies occupied Italy.  Pius knew all about responsible dialogue, but he also knew better than to open a dialogue with, or to criticize, Hitler.  As a result, Pius never denounced Nazi atrocities, even though he was fully aware of the ongoing Holocaust.

Pope John Paul II understood something that Pope Leo apparently has missed. The distinction between a war of aggression and “a just war.”  John Paul II partnered with Ronald Reagan to bring about the end of the Soviet Union.  He had good reason to do so, as he had experienced Soviet domination in Poland, and been the victim of a Soviet assassination attempt.

The present hostilities in Iran are not the result of a war of aggression.  The U.S. and Israel didn’t decide to shoot first before attempting a dialogue.  There were plenty of talks.  The problem is that it’s impossible to conduct a “reasonable, sincere, and responsible dialogue” with people who have proven themselves to be unreasonable, insincere, and irresponsible.

Il Duce Obama tried to talk and bribe the Iranians into pursuing peace in 2009.  He lifted sanctions, and paid them a $1.6 billion cash ransom, in return for their promises to abandon their nuclear program and to permit international inspections of their nuclear facilities.  The Iranians took the money, continued their pursuit of nuclear weapons, and denied access to the inspectors.

While the Iranians for decades funded Middle East terrorists, and supplied bombs that killed and maimed countless thousands, Papal denunciations of their conduct were sadly missing.  When the Iranian government slaughtered tens of thousands of its own citizens, for the crime of protesting government policy, while it was at the same time engaged in a dialogue with the U.S., Pope Leo did not see fit to intervene.

Yet after the Iranians told our negotiators they would never give up their quest for nuclear bombs, leaving warfare as the only option, and then after the Iranians extended the war by attacking at least 12 other neighboring States, Pope Leo decided to weigh in.  His heart may be in the right place, but his words will have no effect.

Mr. McGurn and Mr. Weigel are right.  A Church that has strayed from even its own policies, and that has taken up every leftist cause in recent years, is in no position to pontificate.  There’s no hope that the Pope can act as a detached mediator to end this dispute.  It’s not Leo’s fault.  The Iranians are at war even with their Muslim brothers.  They’re not about to listen to an infidel Pope.

Sadly, the papacy has lost its moral authority.  Its leftist leanings have made it just another one of the usual leftist suspects.  Recent Popes have turned the Vatican into nothing more than the Italian chapter of the Hollywood crowd.  Its pronouncements full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing.

There’s nothing wrong with praying for peace.  But a good prayer, accompanied by a squadron of bombers and some cruise missiles is a lot more effective.

We woke last Saturday to the news that U.S. and Israeli forces had struck Iran with devastating effect.  Despite the pathetic bleatings of Democrats, this action did not come as a surprise.  We’ve been building up our forces for months, while talks went on trying to find a peaceful solution to the problem of Iran.

As you will recall, lat June the U.S. struck Iranian nuclear facilities, devastating their ability to continue to enrich uranium to be used to manufacture nuclear weapons.  Recent intelligence showed that Iran was trying to rebuild its nuclear facilities.  That was the last straw.

Iran has been a threat to the Middle East and to the world for the past 47 years, during which time, they have been at war with us, while we pretended that we were negotiating with them.  A succession of U.S. presidents has talked tough about Iran, and done little to solve the problem.

When the Shah was deposed in 1979, the militant Iranian Mullahs assumed control.  Since that time, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been the most notorious State sponsor of terrorism in the world.  They have sponsored and financed terrorist groups such as Hezzbollah, which have carried out terrorist attacks that have killed thousands worldwide.

Iran was the supplier of the IEDs and other roadside bombs that killed nearly a thousand Americans and maimed countless others.  Despite these facts, our presidents have done little to stop them.

The Ayatollah Komeini came to power under Jimmy Carter.  His supporters attacked and seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, taking 52 hostages, who were not released for 444 days.  But for an abortive rescue mission that ended in failure, Cater did nothing to stop them.

Under Ronald Reagan, Iran began calling the U.S. the Big Satan, and Israel, the Little Satan.  Reagan talked tough, but when Iran sponsored Hezzbollah terrorists bombed the Marine Barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans, Reagan pulled our troops out and did nothing.

President George H.W. Bush served as the Iran-Iraq war ended.  Iran was depleted by the war, and it was a time of relative peace.  Bush took no action against Iran.

Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on Iran, calling them “a rogue nation.”  Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan, but took no action to stop Iran, and later apologized for the “rogue nation” label.

President Bush 43 famously included Iran in his “Axis of Evil.”  During his tenure, Iranian President Mahmoud Amadinejad, who coincidentally was killed in this week’s air strikes, began calling for Israel to be “wiped from the map.”  Nice guy.  Too bad he’s dead.  President Bush took no action.

Il Duce Obama had a different method for dealing with Iran.  Bowing down, and paying them off.  Obama, faced with evidence that the Iranians were enriching uranium to weapons grade, decided that bribery was the best course.  In return for Iran’s empty promise not to build nuclear weapons, Obama lifted the sanctions on Iran, delivered some $1.6 billion in cash to them, which they used to further their nuclear program and to support terrorists, and was willing to accept the notion that Iran, which sits atop a sea of oil, only wanted uranium for nuclear power plants.  Obama actually wanted to set up the Iranian terrorists as the leaders of the Middle East.  Iran took the money, and redoubled its efforts to build nukes.

Trump 45 cancelled the idiotic Obama Iranian payoff plan, and killed Iranian supported terrorists Al Baghdadi and Solemani.  In return, Iran dispatched hit squads to America to kill Trump, Mike Pompeo and John Bolton.

Biden tried, and failed, to reimpose Obama’s Iran deal, and otherwise did nothing to stop their activities.  The score was seven U.S. presidents, all of whom acknowledged the threat presented by the Iranian regime, but who did nothing to reduce the threat, and only one who took action.  That random element was Donald Trump.

Democrats like to say stupid shit like calling Trump “TACO,” as in “Trump Always Chickens Out.”  As with most things Democrat, the truth doesn’t count.  If he doesn’t act he’s TACO.  If he acts he’s a warmonger.  There’s really no pleasing these pricks.  Trump cannot be counted among the “all talk and no action presidents.”  If we have learned anything from the last 10 years, it is that, when Trump makes a promise, he follows through.

And the Iranians should have understood that, in Trump, they weren’t dealing with the succession of presidents who were all talk and no action.  Trump did everything possible to avoid war with Iran.  He sent negotiators to Iran to broker a peace deal.  The terms were clearly set out.  Iran was not to get nuclear weapons, was not to have ballistic missiles, and was not to sponsor terrorism.

Even as these talks went on, Iran murdered some 35,000 protestors who challenged the Khamenei regime.  Chief negotiator Steve Witkoff has revealed that, the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has sworn it wants only nuclear power and not nuclear weapons, rejected a U.S. offer to provide reactor fuel free of charge, and boasted that they had enough weapons grade uranium to build eleven atomic bombs.  They told us that they would not stop enriching the uranium needed to make bombs under any circumstances.  There was nothing else to talk about.

Add to this, recently obtained intelligence that suggested that the Chinese were about to provide Iran with hyper-sonic missiles, capable of sinking U.S. warships, and the die was cast.  Iran had it coming, and they got it in spades last Saturday morning.  As Louisiana Senator John Kennedy so aptly put it, “The Ayatollah won the coin toss and elected to receive, and he received more than he bargained for.”

The facts I have outlined herein cried out for immediate action by the U.S.  However, Democrats don’t see it that way.  They call Trump’s actions an illegal war, and are seeking a War Powers Act resolution.  Proving that their only talent is talking, and lying, out of both sides of their mouths, Democrats at once concede that Iran is a bad actor, but claim they presented to imminent threat to the U.S.

They falsely claim that Congress needs to authorize any military action.  Of course, they’re wrong, they’re lying, and they know they’re lying.  However, they also know a compliant media will repeat any lie they tell, and that a significant portion of the public will believe them.

Democrats are relying on the confluence of a deceitful media and a maleducated public, the victims of a “progressive” educational system, that 20 years ago, historian David McCollough complained was producing “generations of historical illiterates.”  Polling suggests that 76% of the public supports the actions taken against Iran.  But if the job takes more than a few weeks, it’s a 50-50 proposition.

This is the result of the fact that we don’t teach history, beyond the Marxist ravings in Howard Zinn’s, A People’s History of America, which paints the U.S. as an oppressor nation.  We don’t teach civics to instill a love of country, and a sense of duty in young people, and we have given them no sense of national pride, much less an appreciation for the need for occasional sacrifice.

Elected Democrats have proven themselves to be no better that latter day Quislings.  For these bastards, the military action in Iran is just another opportunity to bash Trump.  In this, they are shameful and despicable.   Aptly named House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that Trump has embarked on an illegal and endless war, “which is going to end in failure.”

Putting aside the contradiction inherent in predicting the the end result of a war that he first declared to be endless,” this was an anti-American insult to our troops, who are putting their lives on the line to solve a problem that  politicians like him have avoided for 47 years.

Democrats, eager to oppose anything Trump supports, have chosen the side of Islamic terrorists over American troops, and actually are hoping more Americans are killed to bolster their political ends.  This notion, and these Democrats, are despicable.

There’s no telling whether Trump’s actions will result in a more peaceful Middle East.  If he fails, that’s the time to pile on.  in the meantime, all true Americans should be rooting for our troops, who have performed perfectly, so far.  The fact that these pricks can’t restrain their hatred of Trump for even a little while speaks volumes.  They are not to be trusted.

We hear a lot about identity politics, so I thought that this week I would explore what that term means, where it came from, and how it has changed over the years.  According to The Oxford Review, “Identity Politics refers to political and social movements driven by the shared experiences and concerns of particular social groups based on race, gender, sexuality, disability, religion, or other defining characteristics.  These movements advocate for the rights, recognition, and inclusion of marginalized communities within political and institutional frameworks.”  How’s that for an egghead explanation?

Because, as former House Speaker Tip O’Neill was fond of saying, “all politics are local,” the early history of identity politics focused on the various ethnic groups in a given locality.  Local Party bosses tended to the needs of their Irish, Italian, and Jewish constituents.  They were ready with a bucket of coal or a basket of food.  And on election day, they made sure these groups showed their gratitude by voting the right way.

Later on, political catering to ethnic groups was geared more toward tapping into the ethnic pride of the so-called “hyphenated Americans.”  I can remember being in a New Jersey Republican headquarters during the 1972 Nixon campaign, and seeing huge bags filled with buttons proclaiming “Italian-Americans for Nixon,” “Polish-Americans for Nixon,” and the like.  But even then, things were changing.

The agent of change was the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act.  That legislation changed the formula, which had been in place since 1924, and which had restricted the number of people allowed to immigrate from countries other than those in Western and Northern Europe.  The 1924 law was designed to discriminate against immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe (Italians and Jews), Africa, Asia, South America, etc., by imposing low quotas for the admission of such groups.

By 1965 it was clear that a change was necessary.  But, using the tired liberal  cant of the day, they went too far in the other direction.  At the time, liberals always used the pendulum excuse – “the pendulum has swung too far in one direction, so now it is only just that it should swing just as far the other way.”  In other words, “two wrongs are required to make a right.”  This was the same flawed rationale used for affirmative action.

The 1965 Act led to greatly increased immigration form countries previously subject to the discriminatory limitations.  Immigration from Mexico, South America, and the Caribbean swelled.  Yet, as the Democrat Party had not yet lost its mind, the Act also gave priority to immigrants with special skills needed in the U.S., and mandated (how heartless could they have been?) work requirements.  Had the changes ended there, America would have benefited from the new law, but Democrats weren’t done.

The infusion of people from different places was healthy, but liberals were not satisfied with the most important component of U.S. immigration – assimilation.  America had been “a melting pot.”  People came from far and wide, assimilated, and became Americans.  Out of many, one.  It’s on all our money.

That wasn’t good enough for liberals, though.  They changed “the melting pot” to “the salad bowl.”  They said, “come on in, but never change who you are.  In other words, never assimilate, just feed off of Uncle Sucker.  “Don’t learn English.  Americans will just have to accommodate you.”  The Biden Administration’s erasure of our borders, which admitted millions of illegals was the final straw.

Think I’m exaggerating?  This week I saw a YouTube clip of a young female Mexican immigrant.  She spoke perfect English.  Here’s what she said, “We don’t move to America because we think it’s a better country.  We move here because it’s a little less worse than our other country.”  She went on to say her old country had better culture, food, and history than the U.S., but they just move here to make more money.  And yes, she supports rioting against ICE.  I rest my case.

Over the decades, the concept of identity politics changed from looking out for the concerns of different groups to the politics of grievance.  And the saddest part of this scenario is that today’s Democrats have chosen that young woman I quoted above, and millions like her, as the group they most identify with.  In other words, they’re very particular when choosing the identities they will support.

Democrats don’t identify with American identity as a whole, and they’re no longer concerned with entire ethnic groups.  Just the grievance of the month.  On the other end of the spectrum, they’re clearly not concerned with individual identity.  They’re not at all concerned with the identity of voters.  Although about 85% of Americans favor voter ID, Democrats won’t allow it.  It’s Jim Crow 2.0.  Ilhan Omar says it’s racist.  I guess she left Somalia because voter ID is required there.

Omar and the other Democrats can’t park their cars or enter the Capitol without their own ID, and they don’t want you to come near them without ID.  Valid ID is required for almost every aspect of our lives.  But Democrats are immune to the concepts of hypocrisy and irony.  For example, NY Mayor Commie Mamdani opposes voter ID.  But during the recent blizzard, he tried to recruit people to shovel snow at $30 an hour.  However, he required them to produce two forms of ID to get the job.  Nobody showed.  They’re calling it Jim Snow 2.0.

Mamdani explained this anomaly, however.  He said that it’s illegal for the City to pay people without requiring ID from them.  It’s a tax thing I suppose, but that explanation exposed the utter falsity and lunacy of the Democrat position.  The City isn’t permitted to pay legal residents seeking to earn a living who lack ID, but it must pay $5 billion a year to house, feed and educate anonymous illegal aliens, and it disciplines any police officer or other public official who dares to ask them for identification.

Identity politics has evolved from a system that ensured that the needs of distinct groups of Americans would be met, into the current perverted scheme in which Democrats adopt the grievances of chosen groups, and the needs and opinions of the vast majority of Americans be damned.  Reasonable Democrats (a few exist) know this is the road to ruin, but live in fear of the loony nuts who vote in Democrat primaries.

In the past, the assimilation of diverse groups of immigrants made America stronger.  The Democrat Party, as it currently is constituted, seems bent on tearing the country apart.  This fact was brought home quite starkly in Tuesday’s State of the Union address.

President Trump asked Congressmen to  stand if they agreed that “the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.”  If our representatives can’t agree, even on this proposition, where are we headed as a nation?  Republicans rose.  Democrats remained seated.  Voters should remember this distinction come November.

As I have previously noted, Democrats are fond of telling us that elections have consequences.  Remember 2009, when Congressional Republicans tried to have their voices heard by the Obama Administration?  Il Duce Obama told them, “elections have consequences.”  That’s a principle that Democrats embrace, but only after they win.  You see, when Democrats lose an election, as they did in 2016 and 2024, the principle doesn’t apply.  When they lose, Democrats have no regard for public opinion.  They have no regard for the democracy they keep saying is being threatened.  They have to protect their phony baloney jobs.

On these pages, in November and again a few weeks ago, I pointed out that the Democrats’ latest strategy of repeatedly shutting down the government is simply a ploy to undo the November election.  That’s what it’s all about.  The Democrats lost, but now they want a Do Over.  The fact that their Party was soundly defeated, and their policies rejected doesn’t matter.

Last November, Americans went to the polls and overwhelming approved Trump’s plans to secure the border and deport illegal aliens.  The Constitution provides that the federal government is responsible for the enforcement of immigration laws.  Article VI makes the Constitution and laws of the federal government “the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby.”  This means that sanctuary State and City laws designed to prevent ICE from enforcing immigration laws are null and void.

Yet in Minnesota, Oregon, California, and elsewhere, State and local officials have countenanced, and even supported acts of violence aimed at preventing the federal laws pertaining to immigration from being enforced.  And now, for the second time in a few months, Democrats have shut down the government over immigration enforcement.  A large majority of Americans support enforcing the law, but Democrats say you can’t have what you voted for.  They want to undo the 2024 election.

Democrats have issued a set of 10 demands, which they call “reforms” of ICE, but which in reality are a  blatant attempt to undo the election, flaunt the will of the people, and change immigration statutes, and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, that go back more than 130 years.  They can’t get these things the proper way, through Legislative action, so they have resulted to extortion.  They say they won’t vote to fund Homeland Security unless their demands are met.  That means TSA, Secret Service, the Coast Guard, FEMA, and other agencies get no funding, and no paychecks.  Why are they doing this?  I explained last week.  They need millions of illegal aliens to stay in power.

Here are their demands: 1) No arrests on private property without a judicial warrant; 2) No masks or face coverings; 3) Display ID with name and badge number; 4) No enforcement near sensitive locations, including medical facilities, schools, childcare facilities, churches, polling places, courts, etc.;      5) No stops, questioning or searches based on an individual’s presence at certain locations, their job, their spoken language and accent, or their race or ethnicity; 6) Place into law a reasonable use-of-force policy; 7) Let State and local jurisdictions prosecute potential crimes and use-of-excessive-force incidents.  Require the consent of states and localities to conduct large-scale operations outside of targeted immigration enforcement; 8) Allow states to sue the DHS for detention violations.  Prohibit limitations on member visits to ICE facilities; 9) Require use of body-worn cameras; 10) No paramilitary police. Regulate and standardize the type of uniforms and equipment DHS officers employ.

I’ll give them the cameras, because that’s a tool that 99 times out of 100 protects the officers from false complaints.  The rest of the demands are a desperate attempt to force ridiculous changes to immigration enforcement laws.  Many of the demands are foolish, outright illegal, and an unconstitutional invasion on the authority of the federal government.

The demands overlook an important distinction, which is that illegal aliens do not enjoy all the protections afforded to citizens and lawful residents.  Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow, Hans von Spakovsky, has written a treatise on this subject.

The demand for judicial warrants contradicts an 1893 Supreme Court decision.  Deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal.  The Court decided that an alien being removed by the government is not being “deprived of life, liberty, or property” and that “the provisions of the Constitution securing the right to trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments therefore have no application.

The due process rights in civil immigration proceedings are far more limited than those afforded to citizens.  Immigration courts are not judicial, they’re administrative, run by the Justice Department.  By federal regulation, no federal court has the authority to overrule the decision of the executive branch to exclude an alien.  In 1953, the Supreme Court held, “courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.”

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if an inadmissible alien attempts to enter or makes it into the country illegally but is found and detained within two years, that alien can be removed without a hearing or any other proceeding.  “Inadmissible” means, one present in the United States without being admitted or paroled, or who arrives in the United States at any time or place other than as designated by the Attorney General.  For instance, the untold millions let in by Biden.

There’s also an expedited removal proceeding for aliens convicted of one of a specified list of criminal offenses, ranging from misdemeanor shoplifting and theft all the way to felony firearms, drug offenses, domestic violence, stalking, and child abuse as well as terrorism and espionage.  This was what was going on in Minnesota.

Even if the alien has been in country more than two years, due process is limited to an immigration court hearing and appeal.  No District Court judge has jurisdiction to intrude on this process.  The Supreme Court should make this clear to the District Court judges who think they’re running the entire Executive Branch.

Simply put, the Democrat demands are insulting and blatantly illegal.  No enforcement near polling places?  Why, unless Democrats seek to protect the right of aliens to vote?  No masks and name IDs?  They wouldn’t need masks if they and their families weren’t being threatened by violent protestors.  The identity of every agent participating in an ICE operation is a matter of record in official reports.  Anyone with a right to see the reports can tell who was there.  Rioters on the street have no good reason to know.

Demand 5 is illegal and demand 7 is unconstitutional.  Law enforcement is permitted to speak to anyone on the street.  States and localities have illegally barred ICE from public property.  Our new Governor Sherrill issued such an Order last week.  Also restricting private and public places where ICE may not conduct operations is a blatant attempt to end all ICE removal operations.

As for number 7, Democrats should read Article VI of the Constitution.  Federal law is supreme.  Requiring ICE to get approval from States and localities to conduct operations violates Article VI and invalidates federal laws on the books for generations.  The same goes for the attempt to dictate what uniform and equipment ICE may wear and use.  ICE wouldn’t need paramilitary gear if they weren’t under attack by violent morons.

Republicans will not and cannot agree to the Democrat demands.  Democrats will hold out as long as possible to inflict maximum pain on the American people, hoping you will blame Republicans in November.  Don’t take the bait.  Democrats say we need to rein in ICE, and get it back in line.  When you’re standing in line for hours at an airport, or when you or your family are forced to live without a paycheck, remember whose stupid idea this was.

Democrats are fond of telling us they’re looking for “the root cause” of every problem.  For instance, remember when Biden made Kamala the Border Czar?  She then supposedly set off to discover “the root cause” of the ongoing illegal alien invasion.  Kamala dismissed the most obvious reasons, like – Biden erased the borders, invited the invaders to come in, and then welcomed them with new clothes, telephones, welfare, free housing and medical care.  Instead, Kamala decided the root cause was dissatisfaction with conditions in their home countries, which then supposedly entitled them to feed off of Uncle Sucker.  That was simply misdirection.

The true root cause was much simpler.  Democrats require millions of illegal aliens to stay in power.  They have a problem, you see.  The picture you’re presented with by the media – of a nation evenly divided between evil, fascist, right-wing religious fanatics, and benevolent, progressive, socialists, who exist only to ensure the betterment of all mankind – is false.

Try as Democrats might to obscure the truth, American citizens, as a whole, are, and always have been, moderately conservative.  Until recently, even the leaders of the Democrat Party understood this.  After the 1968 election, Richard Scammon and Ben Wattenberg published The Real Majority, which examined the demographics of the American electorate.

They concluded that, although there were extremes, on both the Left and the Right, the vast majority of voters, and thus the voters who swung elections, were in the middle.  They described the average voter as a 46 year old woman from Ohio.  The moral was that the Parties shouldn’t expend energy courting niche voters at the extremes of the spectrum, but rather concentrate on the middle.

That strategy worked, for Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Reagan, Clinton, the Bushes, and even for Obama.  Il Duce Obama ran as a moderate, in favor of a border wall and deporting illegal aliens, and against gay marriage. The answer was populism.  Donald Trump certainly got the message.

But somewhere along the way, the Democrats abandoned the middle strategy for identity politics.  They began to cater to every isolated niche, instead of to the Real Majority.  And even as they did so, they knew it was a mistake.  Remember, they sold Joe Biden to us as a “moderate.”  It was a lie, but they said it.  This past November, Spanberger in Virginia and Sherrill in New Jersey were called “moderates,” the fact that they voted 100% of the time with Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding.  They had to pretend to be moderate.

But now, the national Democrat Party is embracing pure insanity.  They revere Il Duce Obama, who deported millions of illegals, but vilify Trump, for deporting hundreds of thousands.  They support Soros funded prosecutors who refuse to enforce the law.  They increasingly justify resorts to violence, rioting, and open street warfare, in support of policies guaranteed to bankrupt the country, erode public safety, and eradicate personal freedoms.  But why?  What is the root cause of their insanity?

It’s really very simple.  When cornered, a wounded animal will fight desperately for survival.  And that’s where Democrats find themselves.  While their leadership moved hard Left, the electorate did not follow.  For years, they predicted that, “the browning of America,” a population consisting of fewer White voters and more voters from minority groups, would result in a permanent Democrat majority.   They were certain that, anyone with a Spanish surname would automatically and forever become a Democrat voter.  They miscalculated.

For years, Democrats, and many RINO Republicans, took for granted that legal Hispanic immigrants would naturally favor an influx of illegal aliens, and therefore punish any Party that favored controlling the borders.  That turned out to be wrong.  In 2024, Trump ran on a platform of closing the borders to illegals and deporting those who had entered.  A majority of Hispanic Americans supported him.  He even won Texas border counties that had voted Democrat for 100 years.

The Trump drive to deport illegals is a stake in the heart of the Democrat Party, which relies on counting illegal aliens in the census to maintain power in Congress.  That’s the “root cause” of their embrace of illegal immigration.  It also explains why Democrats fight so fiercely against requiring voter ID to vote.

You need an ID to drive, to buy a beer, to ride on a plane, or to register in a hotel.  Want FedEx to ship a package for you?  You better have an ID.  But Democrats say, “you want to choose the next president?  No ID is required.”  Are they advocating for a popular position?  Hardly.  More than 80% of Americans favor requiring ID to vote.  That figure includes 71% of Democrats.  80% of Americans agree on little else.  Republicans are trying to pass legislation to require ID for federal elections, but Democrats are against it.

Why can’t the overwhelming majority of Americans have what they want?  Because 213 Democrat House members and 47 Democrat Senators say no.  They’re desperate to maintain power.  It’s no coincidence that the only States Kamala Harris won in the 2024 election were States without voter ID laws.  As I said, Democrats need a large supply of illegal aliens to stay in power.  The illegals counted in the census help to determine the number of House seats each State gets.

Each member of the House of Representatives represents about 800,000 people.  An influx of 16,000,000 illegals equates to 20 House seats.  Conversely, if 8,000,000 illegals are deported, or choose to voluntarily leave between 2025 and 2030, which could happen, subtract 10 House seats from Democrat districts.  Add to this the population shifts that have occurred, with millions leaving Blue States for Red, and Democrats have a real problem.

Illegal alien removals aside, Blue States are expected to lose about 12 House seats in 2030.  Texas and Florida, each of which have gained 2 million residents, may gain at least three seats each.  Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Utah and Idaho also should gain a seat each.  The big losers?  California, New York, and Illinois.

On top of this, a group of Republican Attorneys General are suing to change the census rules to eliminate counting of illegal aliens.  If successful, that plus the Trump deportation efforts, could intensify Democrat House losses, which correspondingly result in Electoral College losses for Democrats.

That’s why resisting voter ID laws is so important to Democrats.  The detestable Chuck Schumer calls any voter ID requirement “Jim Crow 2.0.”  He should know too, because every Jim Crow law was enacted and enforced by Democrats, who frustrated every attempt to pass civil rights legislation for 100 years.  Nit wit Jamie Raskin is now trying to equate voter ID laws with unconstitutional poll taxes, another tactic perfected by Democrats like himself.

In the end, these new Democrat talking points won’t work.  Georgia voter ID laws were denounced by Democrats, even though, after they were enacted, more Black voters voted than ever before.  The truth is, where voter ID is required, free IDs are widely available, and even without an ID on election day, anyone can still vote, either by provisional ballot, or simply by signing an affidavit attesting that you are a citizen.

But there is a paradox for Democrats.  If they choose the logical long term solution, and allow passage of the voter ID laws that 81% of Americans support, they risk alienating their crazy leftist base that their foray into identity politics has stirred up.  A shift toward sanity would bring losses in the near term, and a temporary loss of power that they refuse to contemplate.

As a result, you can bet on more resistance, more violence, and even more discord.  Much of the tumult is also fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome.  When the Trump devil finally is gone, Democrats may bend to the inevitable and truly moderate.  Until then, however, we’re in for a bumpy ride.