THURSDAY: Is Candidate Talarico a demon?

THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2026

One co-host says yes: Is there any such thing as a demon?

How are we supposed to know? When it comes to the existence of demons, we aren't the right people to ask.

That said, some people do believe in demons (as is their perfect right), "and not in the metaphorical sense." In this new report at The Atlantic, Stephanie McCrummen discusses a woman whose bookstore became the focus of a somewhat unusual fight. Dual headline included:

The Demon Next Door
A growing number of charismatic Christians see themselves as waging a spiritual battle against the forces of Satan. Sometimes those forces are right across the street.  

[...]  

The owner was Lisa Misosky, and she was chatting with customers one afternoon when she found out that people in town were accusing her of demonic activity, and not in a metaphorical way.

Over the course of three decades in Maryville, [Tennessee] Misosky had made Southland Books and Cafe into a local institution, a sprawling maze of old bookcases where people could find a leather-bound Mark Twain, a paperback Charles Bukowski, shelves of military history, and flyers for a local mah-jongg group. Misosky had a bar downstairs where she hosted trivia nights, readings, all-ages punk shows, and fundraisers that sometimes involved drag performances. She occasionally provided space to the local Democratic Party. But none of that had drawn public protest until a new church moved in across the street. 

 “You’re not gonna believe this shit,” a friend texted her, and then sent the first of several videos posted by a man who introduced himself as Mike Brewer, the leader of an “apostolic hub” called the Well. Sitting at a desk, he explained in a calm and methodical manner that the bookstore had been identified as a “regional demonic stronghold.” A high-ranking demon named Lilith was involved, Misosky would learn, and the bookstore was being targeted for something called “strategic-level spiritual warfare,” the goal of which was to “remove the enemy.”   

Misosky had been born and raised in Maryville. She was 58, Catholic, and gay, and told me she was used to living among conservative Christians. Still, demonic came as a surprise. “This is probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard,” she remembered thinking after seeing the first video, not yet realizing that the church was part of the fastest-growing segment of Christianity in the country, or that the language she was hearing in the fall of 2022 was spreading across the Christian right and the wider political landscape. 

McCrummen goes on to discuss this "fastest-growing segment of Christianity," linking by way of background to this report in the Atlantic from June 2025. As she continues, she cites some recent high-profile statements and events:  

[continuing directly]
In the years ahead, Donald Trump would accuse the entire Democratic Party of being demonic. Tucker Carlson would claim that he had been mauled by a demon in his sleep. Steve Bannon would call Lutheran and Catholic activists who help immigrants demonic. A federal emergency-management official would speak of being teleported to a Waffle House 50 miles away, elaborating that he was not sure whether the transporting forces were “good” or “evil.” J. D. Vance would say of UFOs, “I don’t think they’re aliens. I think they’re demons.” And the same apostles and prophets who’d claimed that God had anointed Trump to be president would encourage him to see his war with Iran as a cosmic showdown with a demonic entity known as the Prince of Persia.

We cited Tucker Carlson's vivid report in real time. The recent event involving the Waffle House has gained a fair amount of exposure.  But we were especially struck by McCrummen's report because of a recent assessment Emily Compagno offered on the daily Fox News Channel program, Outnumbered, where she serves as co-host.

At Mediaite, Michael Lucianbo was watching Outnumbered, and then he typed it up. Mediaite's headline says this:  

Fox’s Emily Compagno Unleashes Wild Attack on James Talarico: ‘This Person Is a Demon in Human Skin’  

And yes, that's what Compagno said. 

You can read Luciano's full report by clicking this. Videotape of the discussion is provided, but here's the transcript of the place where the rubber met the road:

COMPAGNO (7/3/26): This is why all of that money should be spent on the GOP’s messaging, because every single voter there needs to understand exactly who they would vote in office, which is an anti-business, anti-commerce, anti-capitalist, anti-Texas Texan. So, if [Republicans] know what's good for them, it’s to permeate that messaging deep into the red state of Texas, so that, "Oh, it’s not just some Democrat. No, no! This person is a demon in human skin.” 

To our ear, that highlighted statement sounds a bit strange, even by Fox News standards.

Aside from her regular spot on Outnumbered, Compagno is a frequent co-host on The Five and a frequent Gutfeld! panelist. The Five is the nation's most-watched "cable news" show. Gutfeld! is the grimiest and the most misogynistic.

To see the full segment on Talarico that day, you can start by clicking here. For the record, there were quite a few misstatements in that longer set of attacks. There's no way to get to all the failings which can be found on the American "cable news" dial.

For all we know, Compagno may be the world's nicest person. We've said before, in other contexts, that we don't think she should be working as a commentator on American "cable news" shows.


LONG ENDURE: Can government "of the people" endure...

THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2026

...when "the people" align in tribes? Of the people? By the people? Can a government like that "long endure?"

Speaking at Gettysburg, President Lincoln understood that some observers around the world weren't especially sure. He closed his brief remarks that day by saying that those present should dedicate themselves to the task of ensuring that government of the people "shall not perish from the earth."   

Today, we're engaged in a great civil war—a tribal war marked by vast clowning. For an example of what we mean, consider what happened on CNN last night.

Midway through the 8 o'clock hour, Anderson Cooper spoke with a three member panel concerning Graham Platner's apparent withdrawal from the Maine Senate race.    

Cooper played substantial chunks of Platner's taped statement. He then threw to Gretchen Carlson, a former Fox News Channel host.

We the people should be grateful to Carlson. The leading authority explains:   

Gretchen Carlson   

Gretchen Elizabeth Carlson (born June 21, 1966) is an American broadcast journalist, writer, and television personality.

Carlson was born and raised in Minnesota. A talented youth violinist, Carlson competed in a number of music contests before becoming a beauty pageant contestant. After winning Miss Minnesota in 1988, Carlson became Miss America for 1989. She attended Stanford University and graduated in 1990. 

[...]   

In July 2016, Carlson filed a lawsuit against then Fox News chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, claiming sexual harassment. Subsequently, dozens of other women also stepped forward to accuse Ailes of harassment, and Ailes resigned under pressure. In September 2016 Carlson and 21st Century Fox settled the lawsuit reportedly for $20 million, and Carlson received a public apology. Carlson was one of the first high-publicity cases of 2016's #MeToo movement.

In 2019 she co-founded Lift Our Voices to work towards a ban on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) and forced arbitration clauses in employment agreements. In February 2022, the U.S. Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, a law championed by Carlson which excludes sexual assault and sexual harassment complaints from arbitration clauses, including retroactively. On March 3, 2022, President Joe Biden signed the bill into law. On December 7, 2022, he also signed the Speak Out Act, another bill backed by Carlson. 

And so on, at length, from there. 

In our view, we the people should be grateful to Carlson. That doesn't mean that she has perfect judgment because, of course, nobody does.   

Last evening, Cooper threw to Carlson first. Below, you see what she said:  

COOPER (7/8/26): Gretchen Carlson, Platner still denies the allegations. How do you think his statement is going to be received? What do you— What are your thoughts right now?

CARLSON: That [videotaped statement] was a disgusting display of hubris that every woman and man in America should be incredibly upset about. Regular people do not abuse women. It's always somebody else to blame. It's typical cry of assaulters.

His own wife turned in text messages that he was having with other women. He posted on Reddit many years ago that he believed that women should be responsible for when bad things happen to them sexually.

Not to mention the Nazi tattoos and a myriad of other things. He is conflating tonight his candidacy of being popular with being an every kind of person [sic], with accusations of rape. 

That—those are two totally different things. And a real man would stand up and take accountability for what has happened here.

This movement has had immense progress over the last ten years and these women are believed. And I don't know what this display was in this video, but I wouldn't want the endorsement of Graham Platner, whoever the Democrat is, running in this race.  

Some of that was hard to follow, but that's what Carlson said. 

Brad Todd, a Republican strategist, was the third panel member to speak. Can the nation expect to long endure? This is what he said: 

TODD: Well, I think, by the way, the race should have gone to this spot a long time ago. I mean, all those things that Gretchen just outlined are exactly true about Graham Platner, and they were true before this weekend.

If you look back at The New York Times on June the 4th, he said that if someone broke in his house, he would rape them to show them he was dominant. So we heard he was physically abusive by a corroborated story from a longtime girlfriend. But Democrats in Washington and in Maine just ignored it.

The Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senator from Rhode Island, said, "Oh, those accusations came from a Republican operator." So he didn't think they were anything to worry about. Graham Platner has been bad all the way from the start. And the only difference was this week—is on this weekend, there were polling numbers came out that showed he might be losing to Susan Collins.

His cardinal sin to get dumped by the Democratic Party is looking like he might lose. And I think that, where this race goes from here—I mean, Maine Democrats are going to pick someone else awful. They're going to pick—they like Graham Platner because he's bad. They'll pick someone else because he's bad.

... I mean, it's really just come down to raw power. Democrats will tolerate anything for raw power in Maine.  

Democrats will tolerate anything, the Republican strategist said. He then made an amazing claim:

Democrats like Platner because he's bad!  Also, they'll pick someone to be his replacement because [that new person] is bad! 

They'll pick the new person because he or she is bad! That seems to be what Todd said. 

Can a government expect to endure in the face of such tribal vehemence? We aren't sure, but there was a blindingly obvious problem with what Todd said—and Democratic Party official Christine Quinn now stepped in to say it:   

COOPER (continuing directly): Christine, what do you think of what Brad said there?

QUINN: You know, first of all, I think on a day where a federal judge ordered President Trump to pay over $5 million to E. Jean Carroll for sexual assault, I just find it rich. 

These Republicans and Republican leaders who are now so concerned about sexual assault and rape, when they have stood by President Trump time and time again when he has been accused of horrible sexual misdeeds.

Maybe this is a moment where everyone will start to come together and hold everyone accountable and say no one is above the law, even if they are president of the United States. But I sincerely doubt that we will see that. I think we will continue to see hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans.   

It's what we mentioned yesterday, speaking about The Five. It's astounding to see people who have swallowed the sitting president's apparent sexual history suddenly expressing shock when Democrats show an inclination to look the other way regarding one of their own.   

Quinn pushed back against the one-way fury of Republican strategist Todd. Yesterday afternoon, on Fox, Jessica Tarlov pushed back against guest host Trace Gallagher in a similar way.   

Gallagher is a reliable (and highly skilled) partisan attack dog. As you can see at this Mediaite report, Tarlov abruptly told him this:

"The Democrats will not be lectured by the party of Donald Trump...about what good behavior is when it comes to how women are treated and questions of abuse. That is a non-starter here."  

Personally, we think the time has come for Tarlov to leave The Five—to stop agreeing to play the role of designated punching bag on that ludicrous imitation of a "cable news" TV program. 

That said, people like Gallagher have disappeared all manner of misconduct, sexual and otherwise, on the part of the sitting president. Their ability to blow past their double standard in this matter is truly astonishing, and Tarlov pushed back quickly and hard.

For what it's worth, we agree with something Todd said on CNN. We thought Senator Whitehouse was remarkably dismissive about earlier claims against Candidate Platner. 

We were amazed and disappointed by the frivolous tone he adopted, on The Last Word, toward the June 4 New York Times report. We think less of him because of the way he reacted, and we're sorry that we do.

That said, we the people now engaged in a great tribal war—a tribal war marked by the astounding true belief performed by many of the most watched stars in this nation's "cable news" industry. That brings us back to Professor Rosen's essay for The Atlantic, which bore this dual headline:  

IDEAS
American Democracy Wasn’t Designed for This
Can our 18th-century institutions survive 21st-century technology?

Even such as it has been, can our democracy expect to survive? Will it long endure?

Our guess:

Not in the face of the fury of Gallagher / Todd and so many others. Also, not in the face of what we'd call Professor Rosen's passivity.

Tomorrow: The constant refusal to speak 


WEDNESDAY: How well are America's schoolkids doing?

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2026

There's no single way to tell: How well are America's children doing? Our 9-year-old students, let's say.  

There's no easy way to answer such a worthwhile question. That said, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tested a national sample of such kids last year.   

How strong are the skills of These Kids Today? Results may see to differ depending on where you start your comparisons, if you choose to approach things that way.   

For today, we'll go back a good long ways. The Long Term Trend version of the NAEP goes back a bit farther than we will, but this is how last year's numbers look as compared to the numbers from 1980 (reading) and 1982 (math):

Average scores, 9-year-old students  
Reading, Long Term Trend NAEP

1980 / 2025

All students: 215.04 / 218.39
Black kids: 189.35 / 204.62
Hispanic kids: 190.22 / 207.59
White kids: 221.34 / 224.79
Asian kids: 224.56 / 242.48
Average scores, 9-year-old students
Math, Long Term Trend NAEP
 
1982 / 2025

All students: 218.98 / 237.67
Black kids: 194.94 / 220.19
Hispanic kids: 204.00 / 226.24
White kids: 223.95 / 245.82
Asian kids: 241.60 / 260.11

Now for the rest of the story:  

Average scores have risen since those early years, especially in math. For the record, we aren't cherry-picking those starting points. Math and reading were tested in separate years back in those earlier days.   

That said, how large are the academic gains suggested by those numbers? On the Main NAEP, it's often said, as a very rough rule of thumb, that 10-11 points on the NAEP scale is roughly equivalent to one academic year.  

You can start applying that (very rough) rule of thumb to the data shown above. At your favorite major news sites, you'll see no one try to inform you in more detail about the meaning of those statistical gains. In fact, no one cares about any of this, and no one ever has or ever will.   

Based upon last year's numbers, 9-year-old students have come a long way since the 1980 / 1982 testing. The Main NAEP shows similar progress when we go back that many years.  

To review the difference between the two different versions of the NAEP, you can just click here. 

For access to all data from the Long Term Trend NAEP, you can start by clicking this. From there, you're on your own


LONG ENDURE: Technologies threaten our cool reflection!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2026

So Rosen wisely says: No one's assessments are unassailable, perfect. But in our view, the inanity never stops at one of our struggling nation's three (3) major "cable news" channels. 

Last night, at 8:06 p.m., that channel's chyron said this:  

EVEN COMMIES WANT PLATNER GONE  

Yes, that's what it said.   

The channel to which we refer was the Fox News Channel. The show was Jesse Watters Primetime, the second most-watched "cable news" show within the American firmament.   

With Watters rumored to be vacationing in the south of France, Charlie Hurt was filling in as the program's host. He came on the air excitedly citing an actual news event:   

WATTERS (7/7/26): Welcome to a special edition of Jesse Watters Primetime. I'm Charlie Hurt, filling in for Jesse. 

We start with a Fox News alert:

Another bombshell scandal just blew up inside the Democrat tent. Graham Platner, who has been accused of outrageous drinking, manhandling women, and sexting outside of his marriage, has just been accused of sexual assault. 

It was an actual news event. Indeed, as Hurt continued, he offered his basic citation:  

[continuing directly] 
Lyndsey Fifield, at the center of last month's New York Times piece, just spoke to CNN, and she is accusing the Democratic Senate candidate from Maine of being hostile and violent towards women. She is speaking out just 24 hours after the first ex-girl friend spoke to CNN. 

A minor bungle is included in that brief overview. But this was an actual news event—a news event the Fox News Channel was able to discuss thanks to reporting provided by CNN. 

Indeed, all three major cable news channels opened their 8 p.m. program last night with this topic. That said, only one hurried to offer the braindead chyron we mentioned above. Let's ponder that chyron again:   

EVEN COMMIES WANT PLATNER GONE  

Yes, that's what the chyron said. You can't get dumber than these mofos are, but they'll surely continue to try.   

Three hours earlier, at 5 p.m., the nation's most-watched "cable news" show opened with the previous day's news about Platner. That news had also been broken by CNN.

The Five opened with that. One of its stars had returned from the south of France, but Jessica Tarlov was gone: 

The Five: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 
Kennedy: former MTV VJ 
Harold Ford: former congressman (D-Tenn.) 
Brian Kilmeade: co-host, Fox & Friends 
Dana Perino: co-host, The Five
Greg Gutfeld: host, Gutfeld!

We noted a type of irony as the four pro-MAGA players took turns saying the very same things, as they typically do.

On this evening, the four were shocked and appalled by the litany of accusations floating around Platner's head. No one mentioned an awkward fact: 

The president they treat as a successor to the sun god Ra has a gruesome record in this area—a record which matches, or even surpasses, that of Platner. But no such facts will ever be mentioned on this astonishing imitation of corporate propaganda messaging vehicle which poses as a news program. 

The four pounded away at Democrats who had supported Platner in spite of his record. They failed to note that they themselves are still adopting the same stance with respect to the record of sexual conduct surrounding Citizen Trump.

We move to a somewhat strange fact:

In his recent essay for The Atlantic, Jeffrey Rosen—he's very sharp—doesn't mention the Fox News Channel. Also, he doesn't mention MS NOW or CNN, or cable news in general.  

That said, he does mention some new technologies which have created, or so he says, a threat to the continued existence of our American democracy, imperfect though our democracy has always been.   

Rosen says it, and we believe it! Here's the heart of the way his essay starts, dual headline included: 

IDEAS
American Democracy Wasn’t Designed for This
Can our 18th-century institutions survive 21st-century technology?

In 1787, after the Founders signed the Constitution in Philadelphia, Alexander Hamilton wrote in “Federalist No. 1” that there was more at stake than the future of a single country. The American experiment would “decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

The Founders were hopeful, in part because the information environment of the late 18th century was favorable to “reflection and choice.” A flourishing newspaper industry kept Americans informed and fostered vigorous debate...And at a time when nothing traveled faster than a horse or ship, the sheer size of the new country meant that news spread slowly, an obstacle to impulsive public decisions....

Today, those advantages have disappeared, thanks to a technological revolution the Founders could never have imagined.... As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the biggest question for our democracy is whether a system designed for the communications technologies of the 18th century can survive those of the 21st.  

Are we the people—we the humans—capable of making the kinds of judgments needed to maintain a "western democracy?" Are we "really capable of establishing good government" through widespread reasoned "reflection?"  

Are we the American people still capable of such acts? Professor Rosen says he isn't entirely sure. 

Quite correctly in our view, he says that certain new technologies are making that outcome much less certain. As his essay begins—in the deletions we have made—he specifically mentions the Internet and social media, with the onset of AI also mentioned.

Later, he specifically mentions podcasts—but he never mentions talk radio, and he doesn't mention cable news. Possibly stretching the term bit, it might be said those are two additional technologies which have transformed, and are continuing to transform, our "information environment." 

There's never been a time when foolishness didn't exist within the human environment. That said, today's technologies have created a world in which chyrons like the one cited above go out to millions of people, and they go out extremely fast.

EVEN COMMIES WANT PLATNER GONE!

That's what the silly/sad chyron sillily said. As we close for today, we'll borrow a word from the Atlantic headlines posted above:

Can our society expect to "survive" the round-the-clock, daily drubbing administered by the technologies now in play? 

Rosen says the answer may be no. We'll suggest that Rosen is giving voice to an extremely important point.

Tomorrow: One month plus three days


LONG ENDURE: "Our democracy wasn’t designed for this?"

TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2026

Who is Jeffrey Rosen? Inevitably, the initial segment on The Five began with the Communist / Commies rant.

The Fourth of July had come and gone. Yesterday, Dana Perino started the show by playing the relevant clips from the president's rain-drenched address:

PERINO (7/6/26): Hello, everyone. It's 5 o'clock in New York City and this is The Five.

President Trump, bringing the fight against Communism to America's 250th birthday celebrations...

PRESIDENT TRUMP (videotape): We don't want Communists in our country.
PRESIDENT TRUMP (videotape):  Communism is a loser and it always will be. The Communist system is the opposite of the American system and the Communist system has never worked. Our warriors did not fight Communism on battlefields across the world only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America. We're not going to let it happen.   

So said the president on July 4, in a rainy-day address. Now, it fell to the stars of The Five to move the agitprop along. 

This being a summer holiday week, several of the program's top stars are off in the south of France. For that reason, a slightly second-string lineup was messaging the public this day:  

The Five: Monday, July 6, 2026 
Kennedy: former MTV VJ 
Jessica Tarlov: resident punching bag 
Joey Johnny Jones: co-host, The Big Weekend Show 
Dana Perino: co-host, The Five
Tom Shillue: comedian

That was yesterday's lineup. After Perino played videotape of the president's statement, something designed to resemble a discussion ensued. 

Before long, Perino threw to Shillue. Inevitably, he took the cake: 

SHILLUE (7/6/26): If you look at the Trump speech, he uses the "Communism" thing a lot, but he goes on several levels.  

So he says, "Oh, the Commies are coming. We beat them. We went to war against the Commies, and we would do it again, but we don't have to."   

And then he would say, "Never worked, never will." See, that's the message that young people need to hear...    

It's great the way he— You know, when he gives a speech, you can see the speech, and then you see the boldface [points]...then he has his asides. So he said his bit about Communism, then he said, "It never worked, it never will," and then he said, "Communism is for losers, we don't want it."    

So it's like working on many different levels.  

We don't understand that either. So many different levels! 

Let's be fair. As best we can tell, no one but Shillue stooped to talking about "the Commies" this day. But the messaging continued through the program's first half hour, with The MAGA Four all issuing C-bombs and with Tarlov being interrupted, as is the norm on this show.   

This is no country for intelligent discourse! Or at least, that's the impression we may get when we watch this top-rated "cable news" TV program. 

The viewership for The Five dwarfs that of corresponding programs on CNN and MS NOW. In our view, this helps explain the salience of Jeffrey Rosen's month-old essay for The Atlantic.

Rosen's essay appears beneath this dual headline. Who the heck is Jeffrey Rosen, and why is he saying these things?

IDEAS
American Democracy Wasn’t Designed for This  
Can our 18th-century institutions survive 21st-century technology?

Can our institutions survive? Who the heck is Jeffrey Rosen, and why is he asking a question like that?  

For today, we'll limit ourselves to your initial question. The leading authority starts its profile as shown:

Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic)  

Jeffrey Rosen (born February 13, 1964) is an American legal scholar, journalist, and author.

Rosen is a law professor at The George Washington University, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the author of nine books, including New York Times bestsellers. He served as the President and CEO of the National Constitution Center from 2013 to 2026, where he is now CEO Emeritus. Rosen is a contributing writer for The Atlantic. He was a longtime legal affairs editor of The New Republic and was a staff writer for The New Yorker. He was also a writer for The New York Times Magazine and many other outlets. 

[...]  

Rosen attended the Dalton School, a private college preparatory school on New York City's Upper East Side, and graduated in 1982 as valedictorian. He then studied English literature and government at Harvard University, graduating in 1986 with a Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude. He was subsequently a Marshall Scholar at Balliol College, Oxford, in philosophy, politics, and economics, from which he received a second bachelor's degree in 1988. He then attended the Yale Law School, where he served as a senior editor of the Yale Law Journal and graduated with a Juris Doctor in 1991.  

He started as one of those "good grades" types, then seemed to mature from there. In our own experience—Attention, C-Span Viewers!—he's presented many worthwhile legal forums during his years at the National Constitution Center.

And now, this month-old essay appears.  

As we noted yesterday, President Lincoln wanted to know if a nation like ours could hope to "long endure." In his essay for the Atlantic, Rosen seems to be saying this:   

Maybe not!

Also, can our institutions survive? As you can guess from his the Atllantic's dual headline, Rosen seems to say the answer might be no.   

Why in the world is he saying such things? And in what way might an agitprop pig-pile like The Five be part of the ongoing story?

We think the gentleman's aim is true. Tomorrow, we'll start to explain.   

Tomorrow: Rosen lays out his key points


MONDAY: As you probably may have guessed...

 MONDAY, JULY 6, 2026

With the exception of this morning's report, the Fourth of July continues.

Tomorrow: Who is Jeffrey Rosen?


LONG ENDURE: Can some such nation long endure?

MONDAY, JULY 6, 2026

Jeffrey Rosen's concern: Yesterday, we tried to click our way through the sitting president's speech.

(You can start by clicking here.)   

We refer to his rain-delayed public address of July 4th of this year. Due to the lightning the gods sent down, he wasn't able to start until 11:16 p.m. local Washington D.C. time. When he finally started to speak, the sometimes-invaluable Rev lets us see that he started by saying this:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (7/4/26): Good evening, America! You think that was easy? It wasn't.  

AUDIENCE: Applause  

The president was referring to the chaos of the rain delay. Then, as he proceeded, he tossed out a number--a number he may have made up:   

PRESIDENT TRUMP (continuing directly):   And I want to thank everybody because they did the right thing...

And they estimated they had 375,000 people before everybody had to leave. And they now have 150,000 people. It's the craziest thing anyone's ever seen. At least!

When the president describes some alleged accomplishment or some event, the accomplishment is routinely said to be something "no one has ever seen before." An invented number will often be present, perhaps to be embellished at some later date.   

The initial number may be replaced by an even larger number! And so it went on this occasion, as Mediaite reports: 

‘422,000 People!’ Trump Makes Wild Claim About Crowd Size at His July 4 Event   

On Sunday, President Donald Trump revised his initial claim that 375,000 people gathered for the America 250 celebration on the National Mall before the crowd was forced to evacuate due to weather.

“We’re here, we’re here, we’re here. There’s no way we can be deterred. They estimated they had 375,000 people before everybody had to leave and they now have 150,000 people. It’s the craziest thing anyone’s ever seen,” Trump said during his speech that began after 11 p.m. Saturday.

Trump revised that [first] number upward on Truth Social Sunday afternoon.  

“The Crowd at 7:05 in the evening was 422,000 people! All were forced to leave because of the weather, the event was cancelled, and everyone was gone because of lightning,” Trump wrote.   

By now, the initial crowd was said to be substantially larger. To peruse the Truth Social post, you can just click here.

Back in real time, back in the actual speech on Saturday night, astounding flattery of us the people quickly began after that. He was flattering us the American people. Here's how the fluffing began:   

PRESIDENT TRUMP (continuing directly from above): And I want to just thank you, and I feel so badly about some people they left, and they couldn't get back. 

But you're very special people, and we have a very special country. Thank you very much.   

Those who stayed were "very special people." That's how the fawning began.   

That might have seemed like a sensible word of thanks directed at loyal followers. But as the president's speech continued, the delusional flattery grew. 

By the time it was 11:18, the president was saying this:  

PRESIDENT TRUMP: For two and a half centuries, our American Republic has stood as the crowning achievement of human history...And we're doing better now than we've ever done before.  

No people have done more good, shown more courage, made more progress, righted more injustice or achieved more greatness than you, the American people.  For 250 years, the United States of America has been the hope, the promise, the light, and the glory among all of the nations of the world. 

All over the world, they try and be like us. Nobody can be like us. And with God's help, we will always be this, or even better.   

Nobody can be [as good as] us, the president had now said. Later, on several occasions, he traveled that road again:   

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Americans must never forget that we are a historic and heroic people with a heroic spirit and a heroic purpose on this beautiful earth of ours.

We are made of the courage and the fire and the flesh and the blood of the best and the bravest people this world has ever produced. We are the bravest and the best.  

Tonight we pledge allegiance to the flag they gave us, and we say, "God bless the immortal patriots of 1776 and long live the cause of independence."  May it reign forever and ever and ever. We will always be on top. We will never let our country fall. We will always be the best. 

"We will always be the best," the president said. As he continued, he turned to this:  

PRESIDENT TRUMP (continuing directly): Our founders not only won our liberty, they secured it with the most righteous political document ever conceived. It's called the Constitution of the United States. Very special.   

And it's because of their genius that we remain the finest people on the planet after 250 years.   

We're the finest people on the planet! So this severely challenged, disordered person now said. 

The people who stayed to watch the speech heard themselves praised in such ways. Much later, the president added the strangest claim he's ever made--the strangest in a fifteen-year public career of extremely strange public assertions:  

PRESIDENT TRUMP: After two and a half centuries, this American republic still stands tall and strong and we love each other.  

Say what? Do we the people love each other? American citizens, please! 

As you can see by clicking this link, we love each other so much that this very same sitting president did this the very next day:   

Trump also posted a doctored picture of ex-President Barack Obama and ex-First Lady Michelle Obama boarding Air Force One; the pic showed “BLM” and Obama’s slogan “Yes We Can” spray painted onto the plane, as well as some Arabic writing. 

Another doctored photo--and how strange! In the rendering posted by the apostle of love, Arabic writing had been spray-painted onto the side of President Obama's Air Force One! 

You can see that post if you click that link. (If you do, you will also read about the latest insults the sitting president has directed at Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister.)

As we've noted, we tried to click our way through the entire July 4 address. Eventually, what we took to be a succession of (tasteless) acts of "stolen valor" persuaded us to stop.    

We thought we were watching extremely tasteless behavior. Presumably, many of our fellow citizens didn't see it that way at all.  

Way back when, President Lincoln almost seemed to wonder if a nation constructed like ours could hope to "long endure." His famous speech started like this:   

PRESIDENT LINCOLN (11/19/1863): Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure...   

That nation has endured, right up to the present day. The population has actually grown, from something like 33 million back then to something like 345 million today.

Lincoln's nation has endured, in the most obvious sense. But in a recent essay for The Atlantic, Jeffrey Rosen suggests the possibility that the nation President Lincoln described may not endure much longer.  

Who the heck is Jeffrey Rosen? And why is he saying such things?  

We think his thesis is very strong. We also think it will be ignored, except right here at this site.   

Tomorrow: Who is Jeffrey Rosen?


SATURDAY: The messaging continued along...

SATURDAY, JULY 4, 2026

...right at the base of Mount Rushmore: In the last two weeks, we've alerted you to the rise of the sudden new messaging. 

Last night, the messaging continued. 

The sitting president was standing there, right at the base of Mount Rushmore. Sixteen minutes into the tapioca, he made an adjustment. 

All of a sudden, out of nowhere, at 9:21 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time, the messaging began:  

PRESIDENT TRUMP (7/3/26): You must love our country. There has never been anything like us anywhere on Earth, and we are not going to let anyone take that away.   

Yet as we approach this magnificent anniversary, we see our American identity under a renewed attack. A generation after we fought and won the Cold War against the menace of Communism, there is now a resurgence of the Communist menace in our land.   

With that, the messaging started. The president moved away from one childish theme—we're the best people who ever lived—directly to another.  

Shawn McCreesh was on the scene for the New York Times. In this morning's news report, he describes the sudden pivot:   

At Mount Rushmore, Trump Veers From Patriotism to ‘Communism’   

Four months before tough midterm elections, President Trump used the backdrop of Mount Rushmore one night before the nation’s 250th birthday to characterize his political opponents as “godless,” “evil” communists.

“We can only lose the midterms if we allow ourselves to lose the midterms, if we are foolish stupid and unwise,” he said...

The larger purpose of the speech wasn’t hard to miss. He was sharpening a line of attack that the White House has started to use to head off a newly insurgent progressive wing of the Democratic Party that appears to be resonating with liberal voters.  

Mr. Trump read from an apocalyptic script as the stony faces of Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln looked on. He said the word “communism” so many times, you might’ve thought the Cold War was still on.   

With respect to those stony faces, observers swore they saw a tear emerge from Mr. Lincoln's eye even as the current president executed two flyovers in his new Qatari jet.   

(Will he use the plane for personal travel if he actually leaves the White House? No one seems to have nailed down the answer, and our news orgs don't much seem to care.)   

Back to the president's address:  

Just exactly how many times did he say the word "Communism?" Moving one step beyond McCreesh, we offer a provisional word count:  

Word count, Mount Rushmore address
"Communist:" 6
"Communism:" 8 

By our preliminary count, that's 14 usages in the six minutes devoted to this part of speech, with one additional "Marxist" thrown in. 

(As best we can tell at this time, he didn't say the word "Commie.")  

For the record, who are the Communists creating the current Communist menace? On what basis was he assessing them to be Communists?

The president didn't say. But as the messaging spreads during the summer and into the fall, you aren't likely to see any serious discussion of that second question. Our national discourse simply doesn't function that way.   

We were struck by one part of the president's description of the Communist menace. No one believes that he's religious, but he stressed this set of claims: 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Communism is the exact opposite of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." It's death, tyranny and the pursuit of evil.

The godless Communist morality states that anything is justified to bring about inhuman visions and to really propose [sic] what's good. They don't love God and they don't want God. They don't love religion and they don't want religion, and they won't have it. But we won't let them win.  

The unnamed foes aren't simply Communists—they're actually godless Communists. 

They don't love God and they don't want God. By prevailing rules of the messaging game, observers are supposed to believe that the sitting president does.   

Presumably, this will be the messaging as we move toward the mid-term elections. It wouldn't hurt for us Blues to recall the various ways, down through the years, that we helped create this mess.


REVERSIONS: Will the Democrats win either House this fall?

FRIDAY, JULY 3, 2026

Can we find a way out of this mess? Karoline Leavitt is back on the job at (what's left of) the White House.

Last evening, she was advancing the messaging which has taken shape since last Tuesday, when the mayor's three candidates won.

Assessed by standard cultural norms, the lady did look fabulous. On the other hand, as she started to speak, here's what the lady said:

LEAVITT (7/2/26): That was quite a monologue...This is not your granddaddy's Democrat [sic] Party. This is not the Democrat [sic] Party of JFK. This is a full-blown Communist revolution that is taking over Capitol Hill right here in D.C.

Let's be fair! In Red America's agitprop circles, it's been against the law to say the actual name of the Democratic Party for at least three decades. The childishness of that conduct is part of basic anthropology, but the refusal to say its name—the refusal to say its actual name—is not a MAGA invention.

That said, the claim that the Democrat Party is a coven of Commies is a piece of messaging which blew up last week when Mamdani's three candidates won. 

As for Leavitt, she was guesting last evening on Jesse Watters Primetime. During the opening monologue to which she referred, the chyrons had assisted with the messaging in the ways you see here:

COMMIES DON'T MAKE GOOD LIFE CHOICES 
COMMIES ARE WELCOME IN THE "BIG TENT"  
COMMIE: THEY'RE AFRAID OF OUR POWER 
TECH CEO: I WARNED YOU COMMIES WERE COMING   
DEMS GO FULL COMMIE BEFORE MIDTERMS 

As Watters delivered his monologue, large visuals behind him had offered additional thoughts:   

COMMUNIST REVOLUTION 
A CUP OF COMMUNISM 
PERV WATCH

No explanation was offered for the PERV WATCH visual. We're guessing that it wasn't meant as a description of Watters himself, but this is the way Red Americans are being messaged in the wake of last Tuesday's primary wins.   

This is no country for nuanced discussion! (Few things could be more clear.) As she continued to speak with Watters, Leavitt was soon saying this: 

LEAVITT: The way that we stop this Communist revolution in its tracks is for great Americans across the country who love America, who are celebrating her and 250 years of our great nation this week, to vote against this Communist revolution, vote against the Democrats. 

There's only one choice. It's President Trump, the Republican Party, and it's common sense. Communism versus common sense.   

"That's a good way to frame it," the thoughtful Watters thoughtfully said. "If the Commies get in, they're going to blow things up."

So it went as the messaging agents pushed the message along. The emphasis is somewhat different this time, but a reversion to the days of Joe McCarthy can almost be discerned at such times.  

That said, are any actual Communists getting nominated in Democratic Party primary elections this year? For example, is New York City Assemblywoman Claire Valdez a Communist?  

Under the circumstances, you're asking a fairly obvious question! That said, consider what happened when Valdez spoke with CNN's Erin Burnett, one day after she was nominated by New York City voters for a seat in the House:   

As we noted yesterday, Burnett mentioned the fact that President Trump was already messaging Communist. But wouldn't you know it? Burnett failed to ask the obvious question:  

Are you now, or have you ever been, a Communist or something like that?  

Burnett didn't ask, and Valdez didn't say. For the full transcript, click here.

That said, even as the interview started, producers posted a list of stances Assemblywoman Valdez was said to support. Six proposals appeared on the screen. This is what viewers saw: 

CLAIRE VALDEZ POLICY PROPOSALS
Universal rent control nationwide  
"Medicare for All"  
Shrink private sector, grow public sector 
Abolish ICE   
End all arms sales to Israel
Support Palestinian statehood  

Has Valdez actually made those proposals? In part because we watched this interview, we can't tell you for sure. 

For the record, three or four of those proposals tend to have majority support in nationwide polling. For starters, we refer to Medicare for All, to the abolition or replacement of ICE, and to support for Palestinian statehood.  

Ending all arms sales to Israel? This recent Economist/YouGov poll found that only 24% of all respondents supported that position. (An additional 17% favored reducing such sales, with 21% of respondents saying they weren't sure.)

That said, ending all arms sales to Israel was favored by 35% of Democrats, and by 47% of liberals. It was the most prevalent of four possible positions among each of those groups. Especially among liberal respondents, it was the dominant stance.   

Is Assemblywoman Valdez simply the equivalent of a liberal / progressive Democrat? Or is she somehow different? Given the current state of our public discourse, there's little chance that you will ever see anyone try to examine that question.  

On the other hand, the cries of Commie started quickly and they continue to come. They came from the giant platform of the sitting president, and from the most powerful organ, by far, in the realm of round-the-clock "cable news."   

That said, we advise you of this:   

Reversions are widely present within our agonized nation. Cries of Commie Communist Commie strike us as a groaning reversion by the right, but human imperfection being what it is, there's no way to stop reversions from taking place wherever we humans may gather. 

 In a new essay for The Atlantic, Jonathan Chait offers what may seem like a peculiar thought:   

Even today, Communists do exist within tour nation's population! Even today, there may be people who are drawn to such ideas, or at least so Chait says.   

That may seem like a surprising claim. Chait's essay appears beneath this double headline:   

IDEAS
There’s Nothing Democratic About These Socialists
The DSA was formed in opposition to the very thing it has become. 

With the weekend drawing on, we don't have time to walk you through Chait's extensive history of Democratic Socialists of America—the DSA. 

His history takes us back to the Michael Harrington era. We'll give you this small taste:  

A tragic irony of history is that the Democratic Socialists of America was formed in opposition to the very thing it has become.

The writer and activist Michael Harrington helped found the DSA in 1982. His goal was to build a socialist movement that would eventually pull the Democratic Party toward more humane domestic and foreign policies. He believed that a commitment to freedom of speech, elections, and other democratic norms was an absolute requirement for any socialist organization. And generations of bitter experience taught Harrington and his allies that socialist organizations had failed because they allowed communists to infiltrate them and take control of their organizing structures. Its founding bylaws accordingly permitted the expulsion of members who were “under the discipline of any self-defined democratic-centralist organization,” a slightly jargonish way of describing communists.   

A decade ago, the excitement generated by the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign on the left and the frightening rise of Donald Trump spurred an influx of tens of thousands of young members. Some of the new recruits were Marxist-Leninist organizers who saw the DSA’s growing membership as fertile ground.   

And so on from there. 

Chait sees the DSA as a source of trouble. We offer a personal note:   

Some of (the parents of) our best friends have been Communists! That was true of the parents of a best friend in high school, but also of the parents of a close friend during our early years in Baltimore.   

There's a (cherished) third example we could cite, but we aren't going to do so. However, also this:  

In the street fighting days of the late 1960s. some of our best friends in college were drawn to the Communist-adjacent ideas of groups like SDS and the PLP. Other people were strongly drawn that way.

The ideas of those groups didn't make much sense to us—but they did to them, and our friends were very good people.  

Full disclosure:

There are no ideas on the face of the earth which won't appeal to some people. Some people may even favor abolishing borders and abolishing police! (Burnett didn't ask about that.)

Chait is afraid of the DSA. We can't swear that he's wrong. 

We can say that the cry of Commies Commies Communists is going to roll down like the waters of that famous mighty stream. The most challenging of the mayor's three nominees has already triggered a tsunami of negative messaging from the warrens of MAGA agitprop, and it isn't going to stop.

Beyond that, exercised Democratic voters may proceed to nominate candidates in certain districts and certain states who won't be able to win. (Or not!) Republican voters have taken that fall in the recent past. We Dems could do that too.

Will Democrats win November's elections? Evrything is possible, of course, but some things don't come to pass.

We don't know who's going to win. Nor are we sure that our struggling, routinely gonzo nation can find a way out of this mess.


THURSDAY: Pride in the nation, plus cable news ratings!

THURSDAY, JULY 2, 2026

It's the semi-stupidity, Stupid: We humans just aren't super-sharp. 

That doesn't mean that we're bad people; it means that we're people people. Still, this shortcoming tends to obtain all the way up the line:

Here's an anecdote from the career of (Lord) Bertrand Russell, IQ roughly three million. It's drawn from Stephen Budianky's 2021 biography of Kurt Gödel:

Journey to the Edge of Reason: The Life of Kurt Gödel

[...]

(page 108): ...Russell's idea had been to establish the soundness of mathematics by showing how it could all be reduced to principles of logic so self-evident as to be beyond doubt. Defining even the simplest operations of arithmetic in terms of what Russell called such "primitive" notions, however, was far from an obvious task. Even the notion of what a number is raised immediate problems. The laboriousness of the methodology and notation was all too evident in the (often remarked) fact that that it took more than seven hundred pages to reach the conclusion, "1 + 1 = 2," a result which Russell and Whitehead described as "occasionally useful."   

As far as we know, that "often remarked" fact is an actual fact. In Budiansky's formulation, Russell and Whitehead performed that act of labor in their giant text, Principia Mathematica.   

(How giant was it? According to Budiansky, Russell and Whitehead's "massive manuscript, with its complex notation which could only be written out laboriously by hand, had to be carted in a four-wheeler cab to the offices of the Cambridge University Press when it was finally done." Years after publication, Russell is quoted as having said this: "I used to know of only six people who had read the later parts of the book." Russell was gifted with a self-effacing sense of humor.)

In the passage we've posted, Budiansky seems to be chuckling about that apparent side trip to the dark side of Neptune on the part of Russell and Whitehead. One page later, he discusses a related, extremely well-known artefact of academic logic—the peculiarity famously known as "Russell's Paradox:"  

(page 109): "Russell's Paradox," as it came to be known, echoed paradoxes that had been around since antiquity. The prototype is the Liar's Paradox, attributed to Epimenides the Cretan, who asserted, "All Cretans are liars." Russell noted that this was akin to the conundrum posed by a piece of paper on which the sentence, "The statement on the other side of this paper is false" is written on one side, and the sentence "The statement on the other side of this paper is true" on the other.

"It seemed unworthy of a grown man to spend his time on such trivialities," Russell later recalled, and "at first, I supposed that I should be able to overcome the contradictions quite easily, and that there was some trivial error in the reasoning." The more he thought about it, the more he realized it was a flaw in the reasoning too deep to be ignored...  

Budiansky seems to be taking this foolishness seriously. We can't tell you why.   

At any rate, so it went as people with the planet's highest IQs ran down famous rabbit holes of their own peculiar making. 

Luckily, CNN's Harry Enten isn't quite that smart! On the other hand, he recently stood in line to join the crowd of observers who are puzzled, or who are willing to say they're puzzled, by this puzzling manifestation: 

...CNN Data Guru Stunned by Democrats’ ‘Nutty’ Lack of Pride in America

CNN’s Harry Enten expressed shock over Democrats’ lack of pride in America during a Tuesday morning segment previewing the country’s 250th birthday celebration.

After being asked, “Who is proud to be an American?” by anchor John Berman, Enten replied:  

"There is such a polarization, partisan split on this issue, the largest that I’ve ever seen. Just take a look at this. This is where it really gets interesting, and I would dare say a little bit nutty..."  

You can continue reading from there. Fox has been pimping this blather quite hard. We stop here to ask a question:  

Is there anyone alive on the planet who doesn't know why liberals, Blues, progressives or Dems might balk at expressing pride in this country at this particular point in time?   

Really? Is anyone really that dumb? You may not agree with, or share, the outlook of those citizens. But is anyone really so dumb that they can't discern at least one obvious reason for this "nutty" manifestation? 

Moving right along, we move to some recent cable news ratings, as reported by Forbes. We start with some of the basic numbers, before a Forbes writer does it again: 

Fox News Beats CBS, NBC And All Of Cable TV In Prime Time   

Fox News Channel ended the second quarter with a strong ratings delivery in June, leading not just every network in cable TV in prime time, but outperforming CBS and NBC as well. In June, Fox had an average weekday prime time audience of 2.63 million viewers, compared to NBC’s 2.42 million viewers and CBS’s 2.05 million viewers.

For the second quarter, Fox News finished first among the cable news networks with 2.5 million viewers in prime time, well ahead of MS NOW (1.06 million viewers) and CNN (716,000 viewers). 

For better or worse, Fox News averaged roughly 30 percent more viewers than MS NOW and CNN combined. Moving right along once again, these were the top-rated programs:  

FNC’s The Five continued its incredible run as the most-watched show in cable news...In the second quarter, The Five finished first with an average total audience of 3.58 million viewers, followed by Jesse Watters Primetime (3.23 million viewers), Gutfeld! (2.84 million viewers), Hannity (2.8 million viewers), and Special Report with Bret Baier (2.72 million viewers)—all airing on Fox News. 

[...] 

In June, The Five was most-watched with 3.39 million total viewers, followed by Jesse Watters Primetime (2.96 million viewers), Gutfeld! (2.64 million viewers), Special Report with Bret Baier (2.55 million viewers), and Hannity (2.41 million viewers).

As a rough rule of thumb, the dumber it gets, the more people watch. By the way, do those numbers include a given evening's rebroadcasts, or are they just the numbers for the initial airings? 

In all our years of checking such numbers, we've never seen anyone say!

Speaking of the stupidity, Stupid, we'll quit with this classic mandated memorized press corps howler:  

The end of CBS’ The Late Show with Stephen Colbert left Fox News with the most-watched show in late night, with Gutfeld! drawing 2.8 million viewers...

There's no way to make them stop doing this! According to every known expert, Gutfeld! airs at 10 p.m. in the east, 7 p.m. on the coast. According to normal parlance, it simply isn't a late-night show, except 1) in Fox News Channel propaganda releases, and 2) inside the brains of the journalists who rush to repeat such claims.  

Russell and Whitehead filled 700 pages. Judged by the norms of the species, they were extremely high-IQ. 

"Why does arithmetic need a foundation," Wittgenstein thoughtfully asked.

Thought question: If Fox let Hannity add an exclamation point, might it outperform Gutfeld!?

REVERSIONS: One nominee has some horrible tweets!

THURSDAY, JULY 2, 2026

The other two nominees don't: On Monday, it only got worse.

No, dear reader! Mayor Mamdani's three nominees aren't all exactly the same. For example, at least as far as we know at this time, only one of the three has generated an awkward situation like this:   

Mamdani-Backed Chevalier Praised North Korea’s Kim in Unearthed Communist-Friendly Tweets  

Deleted tweets from Darializa Avila Chevalier (D)—one of the three [sic] Democratic Socialist candidates who won their Democratic congressional primary in New York City last week—showed the congressional hopeful praising communists like North Korean founder Kim Il Sung and lamenting that books by Joseph Stalin weren’t available.

The tweets were unearthed by CNN’s K-File on Monday. Journalist Andrew Kaczynski reported Chevalier praised Karl Marx as an “essential must-read,” complained public libraries didn’t have enough books by Vladimir Lenin and other Marxist leaders, and was upset a bookstore’s “banned books” display did not include The Complete Works of J. V. Stalin. 

She also showed affection for several brutal communist leaders.

[...] 

The latest batch of unearthed tweets comes after previous deleted posts showed Chevalier describing the U.S. flag as a napkin. She also questioned interracial dating and called for abolishing borders and prisons.  

For starters, let it be said that Mediaite's Sean James opened with an apparent misstatement. In fact, only two of the three nominees are members of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). 

The third nominee--former New York City comptroller Brad Lander--joined DSA as a University of Chicago student, way back in 1991. According to the leading authority on Lander's career, "he split with and left the Democratic Socialists of America in 2023 following the October 7 [Hamas] attacks."   

At present, two of the three are DSA; one of the three is not. But Avila Valdez is generating headlines which seem to belong to her alone--except on venues like The Five, where imitation journalists loudly pretend that behaviors engaged in by one of the three have of course been engaged in by all.   

As in The Sixth Sense, so too here--we Americans have a hard time seeing that we've already become a failed state! That said, are the other claims actually true--the other claims summarized by James? 

We aren't huge fans of Kacynski's overall work for CNN, but his new starts off like this: 

Deleted tweets on Darializa Avila Chevalier’s account had favorable references to communist leaders and Marxism

Darializa Avila Chevalier, the Democratic congressional nominee endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who ousted longtime Rep. Adriano Espaillat in Tuesday’s primary, maintained a since-deleted Twitter account with repeated sympathetic references to communism, Marxist ideology and Soviet figures, including Vladimir Lenin.

Avila Chevalier, a sociology PhD student whose victory sent shockwaves throughout the Democratic establishment, has been under fire for a since-deleted Twitter account, previously reported by CNN, that included phrases such as “seize the means of production,” along with calls to abolish police, prisons and borders. Other controversial tweets include one that said Black and Arab men are both “Fetishizing ugly colonizer women” and another that described wiping her dirty hands on the American flag in lieu of a napkin.

As an undergraduate, Avila Chevalier attended Columbia University, where she organized with Students for Justice in Palestine, and after graduation became involved in pro-Palestinian campus protests over Israel’s war in Gaza. She also attended a controversial October 8, 2023, pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square—one day after Hamas’ attack on Israel—that featured speeches and rhetoric praising the attack.   

There are some slippery accusation swimming around in that prose. We often get the impression, watching Kacynski's interviews, that his thumbs may perhaps be placed on some scales--sometimes in reports criticizing Blue targets, sometimes in alleged exposes of key Red figures.   

On the other hand, has Avila Chevalier issued "calls to abolish police, prisons and borders?" Does she issue such calls today? For the New York Times account of these awkward matters, see yesterday's report. 

(A brief aside: Avila Chevalier's past complaints about "ugly colonizer women” suggest that she might be best suited for a regular spot on the Gutfeld! show, whose host routinely attacks women with whom he disagrees for being too fat, for being too ugly, and for being insufficiently sexually attractive to satisfy his grisly demands.)

Of the three congressional candidates endorsed by Mayor Mamdani, no one has generated awkward copy in the way Avila Chevalier has done. By possible way of contrast, consider what happened when the third nominee, Assemblywoman Claire Valdez, was interviewed by CNN's Erin Burnett on Wednesday, June 24.

Assemblywoman Valdez, age 36 though perhaps looking younger, had won nomination the previous day. The interview started like this:  

BURNETT (6/24/26): Out front now, State Assemblywoman Claire Valdez, and this is her first national interview since her win. And obviously, it's a win that has sent shockwaves through the Democratic Party, through the Republican Party, you name it.

Assemblywoman, you know, what do you -- what do you think? Now, you've had not even 24 hours here. What do you think your victory means?

VALDEZ: I think it means that the movement that elected Zohran Mamdani last year continues, and that the movement that has been fighting for working-class New Yorkers for years before his election continues. We have a lot to win, and when we go to working people, when we say, you know, "This is our platform. We want to fight for you, we want to fight to abolish ICE and win Medicare for All, to make your lives more dignified and affordable, to empower workers," that resonates with people and we win. 

And so, I'm very proud of the campaign.   

That's what the candidate said. In Burnett's next question, the C-bombs were cited. She asked about a reversion:  

BURNETT: [The president is] seizing, as are other Republicans, on your victory and other victories by Democratic Socialists here in New York as a negative. Let me just play some of what they've said.

PRESIDENT TRUMP (video): Well, they're going radical left. They're going really, you know, you talk about the Democrat socialists, you took really -- it's really Communist.

SPEAKER JOHNSON (video): These are the times that Reagan was warning about. He was warning about Communism overseas. Now it is on our own shores.

REP. SCALISE (video): Call it the Bolshevik Revolution of 2026, but the Mamdani takeover of the Democrat Party is official now.

BURNETT: Okay, now, I'm just going through here, and, you know, Trump using the word "Communist." Mike Johnson using the word "Communism." Is that a badge of honor to hear them talk like that?

VALDEZ: You know, I'm a proud Democratic Socialist. And what that means for me is that my union taught me that when we organize together, we can take on bad bosses, we can win good wages, we can win dignified working conditions. And it's funny that they would invoke Reagan, who famously decimated the labor movement, attacked-- after PATCO, really set the tone for what the federal government has done to the labor movement over the last decades.

My goal in running for office is always, "How do we get as many people as possible into unions? How do we pass the PRO Act? How do we stand on the side of working people so that they have the power to fight for themselves and their coworkers and their neighbors?" And that's the movement that I come out of, and I'm very proud to be a part of that.   

Communism, the Communists, and of course the Commies and Bolsheviks! People like President Trump had already swung into action--but is it actually true? Is Assemblywoman Valdez a Communist? 

 Is Assemblywoman Valdez a Communist? Possibly seeking to avoid participation in a reversion, Burnett never asked!  

Along the way, as the interview proceeded, CNN listed the policies Valdez supports. The list of policies appeared on the screen as the interview proceeded.  To watch the full session, click here.

Were we supposed to be shocked by the policies Valdez supports? Tomorrow, we'll show you what those policies were--and we'll show you how they're polling.   

All in all, one nominee has left a trail of awkward, embarrassing, exploitable tweets. As far as we know, the other two nominees haven't. 

On Fox, they're screaming about the Commies.  We regard that as a striking reversion, but there are quite likely others to choose from.

Tomorrow: Chait spots a different reversion


WEDNESDAY: According to a hillbilly's harangue...

WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2026

...the Commies are taking over: Will Democrats be able to gain control of the House in the mid-term elections? Is the Senate a possibility?   We'd say there's no way to know. One thing does seem to be clear:  

With wins by DSA members in Democratic Party primary elections, the GOP's campaign slogan is coming clear. It seems to go like this:   

Communist Communists Commies!   

As the reversion continues, it's much like the good old days!

It isn't just Jesse Watters, who ran up an astounding Commie / Communist / Commie word count during last Friday's Jesse Watters Primetime. It isn't just the sitting president, who has also been throwing the C-bombs around.   

Last evening, Vice President Vance connected himself to the famous old theme. Below, you see the way Laura Ingraham teased his forthcoming appearance on The Ingraham Angle:

INGRAHAM (6/30/26): Coming up, my exclusive interview with Vice President JD Vance. He has a prediction: 

How long will Schumer last in this new socialist Bolshevik Communist surge? Next!   

It isn't just a Communist surge. It's also a Bolshevik surge!

After a commercial break, there was Vice President Vance. After a bit of a birthright exchange, the rubber was hitting the road:

INGRAHAM: You've been following what's going on with the Democrat [sic] Party and the rise of socialism. The president calls it Communism and says this is the biggest threat to the country now, an internal threat... 

So my question to you is, are these DSA types really, in your estimation, going to dominate the entire party?

VANCE: I unfortunately fear that's the direction the Democrats are headed. And it is Communism, Laura. This is not raising taxes a little bit, however much we might disagree with that.  

It is Communism, the Vice President gravely said. This isn't foreigners eating cats and dogs. This is something that's even more primal.

That's the way his answer began. After attributing a set of positions to the Dems, he turned to the C-bomb again:

VANCE (continuing directly): This is abolishing the police. This is let criminals run amok in your cities. This is flood your country with low wage, third world immigrants. And importantly, it’s confiscating wealth, not because we want to make anybody’s life better but purely out of resentment, out of an attack on the people who have that wealth to begin with.

It really is something we haven’t seen in the United States of America in the history of our politics. And Laura, I think that it actually is a consequence of the fact that the Democrat [sic] Party has become run by the universities and by the professors.

This is not working class, union Democrats. This is not socially conservative people who just want a fair shake at life. This is fundamentally a view that the United States is an evil country that must be dismantled from the ground and then built back up.

That’s Communism at its core, and you see more and more momentum in that direction from the Democrat [sic] Party.

In all honesty, there are some problems with Blue America's stances on several social issues—possibly caused by the way the Blue point of view has come from "the universities and [some of] the professors." 

That said:

Friend, how many Democrats have proposed "abolishing the police?" Whatever the number may turn out to be, that’s "Communism at its core!"  

Vance was given one more chance to drive the new message home. The closing Q-and-A went like this: 

INGRAHAM: Yes or no! Do you think Schumer ultimately survives this surge from the radicals?  

VANCE: It depends on how long you're talking about. I think they'll survive for a couple of years, Laura, but in five years, people will look back at Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, as shocking as this might sound, and they are going to say they were the reasonable moderates of this time, and the DSA types, the far left, the Communists, have taken over the party.   

The Communists are on the march, the Vice President said. Within five years, they'll be in control of the Democrat [sic] Party.

Communists Communists Commies! This line has sprung up like a fast summer storm. It's a very old theme in American rhetoric. In the main, one nominee in one Gotham race has helped make this messaging fly. 

Through her endless array of weird remarks, she's been giving these Redbirds their wings. More on this problem tomorrow.


REVERSIONS: "Monsters" and "psychos," the co-host said!

WEDNESDAY, JULY 1, 2026

All in all, Look who's talking: On Election Day in Gotham, Emily Compagno, co-hosting The Five, was visibly upset.    

Mayor Mamdani had endorsed three candidates for the House in that day's Democratic Party primaries. On the "cable news" show which defines the shape of our failed state, Compagno assessed the three candidates thusly:   

COMPAGNO (6/23/26): Yeah, I'm horrified by this. I'm horrified! When did the Democrat [sic] Party normalize monsters like these? 

Compagno linked her use of the term "monsters" to an earlier use of the word by Mamdani himself. But as her assessment unfolded, the excitable co-host blazed a trail to her own linguistic frontier:  

COMPAGNO: There is no gray area here, in my opinion. It's pretty obvious that these candidates are absolutely disqualified to even run. And yet somehow, they're being celebrated, and then endorsed, by our super-smiley, annoying mayor. 

These people are pro-defund the police. Every deportation is an abomination. They are against prison altogether. They are against everything that makes a society run, and they continue to display such juvenile comments and tendencies in policies like [mocking tone] "free buses" and "free houses."  

[...]

This city is going to Hell in a handbasket because of this mayor and I do not understand... why he is bothering to endorse all of these psychopaths instead of saying, "You know what? I'm in the office. I'm going to sit this one out," as he should. 

I hope there's more national leadership that comes out and says all of these people are tragically unqualified and disqualified...

Right there, on primary Election Day, so Compagno said. The three candidates weren't just "monsters." They were also "psychopaths," the horrified co-host said.

(For the record, we have a bunch of free bus lines in Baltimore. For full exposure, click here.) 

More to the point, were the three candidates all just alike? Setting the "psychopath" claim to the side, were all three "tragically unqualified?"   

We're willing to venture a no.

As we noted yesterday, one of the three was Brad Lander, the former comptroller of the city of New York. Before being elected citywide to that position, he'd been elected to three terms on the Gotham City Council, serving from 2010 through 2021. 

In June 2025, the New York Times Opinion Panel (a group of Gotham residents) made him their choice to be the city's next mayor. The Times explained his selection thusly:   

OPINION
Who Should Lead New York City? 
15 New Yorkers assess the candidates for the Democratic mayoral primary

[...]

In the end, a veteran civic leader and elected official, Brad Lander, the city comptroller, emerged as the top overall choice among the panelists, including four who recently shifted away from Mr. Cuomo, Mr. Mamdani and other candidates. Mr. Lander was also cited as best on education, the economy and leadership. Those who favored him cited his experience in city government and his ability to work with others—but, truth be told, he also benefited from lacking the heavy baggage of Mr. Cuomo and the democratic socialist image of Mr. Mamdani. Danny Meyer, the restaurateur, spoke for others in our group when he said of Mr. Lander, “He understands the complexity of how the city works, what our city government does and what it can and cannot do.”

Depending on your policy views, he may not be your cup of tea. No candidate is ever the everyone's choice.

No one is ever everyone's choice! But is Lander "tragically unqualified" even to seek a seat in the House? 

We're going to venture a no. Meanwhile, does Lander hold the beliefs the three "monsters" were said to share?  Is Lander "against prison altogether," to cite one example?

This being The Five, no evidence was ever given in support of Compagno's assertions. Given the way the game is played by reliable messaging agents like Compagno, we know of no reason to place any faith in anything she ever says.    

Further thoughts on Compagno below. Earlier in the segment that day, Jessica Tarlov had offered a saner assessment of the three nominees in question.   

As we've frequently noted, Tarlov is the designated punching bag on this ersatz "cable news" show. Compagno screeches and Greg Gutfeld offers towel-snapping jokes, as he inanely did in this very segment about "a Muslim Santa" flying his sled into the chimneys of houses. 

By way of contrast, Tarlov tends to operate in conventional ways when she co-hosts the show, until she's interrupted and overtalked by guardians of the corporate line like Gutfeld and Jesse Watters.   

Uh-oh! According to Tarlov, the three Mamdani-endorsed nominees actually aren't all alike! Regarding the three alleged psychopaths, the lone liberal co-host said this:   

TARLOV (6/23/26): I think that there is a big difference between, for instance, Claire Valdez, who you played the original clip of, and then Darializa [Avila] Chevalier, who is challenging Espaillat in New York 13. 

I mean, she is dangerous [notable pause] and seems pretty dumb also. And I don't know why Mamdani would waste capital on that.  

Tarlov didn't mention the highly experienced Lander. She said there was a significant difference between Avila Chevalia and Claire Valdez, the other two candidates.    

Avila Chevalier is "dangerous," Tarlov said. Unless she meant dangerous to Democratic Party interests, we don't know why she said that.   

After a pause, she also said that Avila Chevalier "seems pretty dumb." We wouldn't use that term in this context ourselves, but in her June 24 column for the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg sketched the shape of the possible problem:   

Democrats Are Done With Caution

Of the three New York City congressional candidates endorsed by Zohran Mamdani in Tuesday’s primary, Darializa Avila Chevalier was the weakest.

A sociology Ph.D. student and doctrinaire leftist who has never held elected office, she was running against Adriano Espaillat, head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus... 

Last week, in an interview with the New York Editorial Board, a group of veteran journalists who question local political and civic leaders, Avila Chevalier said she opposed all deportations, even those of violent criminals. A prison abolitionist, she either couldn’t or wouldn’t answer repeated questions about whether murderers should be incarcerated...In [several] since-deleted tweets, Avila Chevalier cursed at Kamala Harris, called Joe Biden a “rapist” and derided his support for Ukraine as “bullying Russia.” Her name was notably absent from a get-out-the-vote message that Bernie Sanders posted for other progressives on Tuesday.

But in the end, Avila Chevalier won, carried to a narrow victory by the left-wing tsunami that created landslides for the other congressional candidates Mamdani endorsed, Brad Lander and Claire Valdez. She will almost certainly become the most left-wing member of Congress, and Republicans are sure to try to make her the face of the Democratic Party.   

Like Tarlov, Goldberg said that Mamdani's three nominees simply aren't all alike. 

As she continued, she said "the Democratic version of the Tea Party is here." Avila Chevalier was offered as the poster child for this potentially (politically) dangerous set of unconventional candidates.

Goldberg's assessment was the work of a qualified journalist—of a person who is able to draw the most obvious sorts of distinctions between as many as three different people. Compagno's rather typical rant seemed more like the work of someone who shouldn't be on the nation's most watched "cable news" program—someone who may not be "qualified" to be cast in such a position.    

It flies in the face of American instinct to say that someone is unqualified to offer a political assessment or opinion. Borrowing from President Kennedy in Berlin, we would say this:   

Let the person who feels that way watch some programs on the Fox News Channel! 

That person will see the intellectual squalor which arises when people like Compagno, Watters and Gutfeld are hired by a corporate empire, then are deployed for the purpose of advancing an endless array of corporate propaganda messages.

Within the context of American politics, there seem to be few unlikely statements Avila Chevalier hasn't made. Within the context of American pseudo-journalism, the same could be saif of a person like Compagno—or of an apparent nutcase like Jesse Watters, who still seemed to think, as of June 24, that Mayor Mamdani's three "Commie" nominees were, in fact, all women.    

A nation which tolerates staffing like this may already be a failed state. As in The Sixth Sense, so too here, with us:

It's possible that we the people simply don't know that the American project is already dead.

That said, were Compagno's various claims really true? Do all three "monstera" and "psychopaths" hold the outlandish views she attributed to them in her latest angry rant?  

What do the nominees think and believe? Just how crazy are their beliefs?

Tomorrow, we'll note what happened when Claire Valdez was interviewed by Erin Burnett, right there on CNN.

Tomorrow: Medicare for All—even that!