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!


TUESDAY: Daring to struggle, daring to win?

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2026

The attempt to win seats in the South: No one knows what's going to happen in this year's mid-term elections. That said, a fascinating possibility is lurking in a new report from the Washington Post.   

According to the Post's report, Blue America seems inclined to push back hard against the Supreme Court's recent redistricting decisions. In particular, Black citizens within the Blue American realm are said to be extremely unhappy with what the Court did.

According to the Post report, Black voters have decided to fight back the old-fashioned way against President Trump's redistricting demands and against the Supreme Court's redistricting rulings. Anger has led to the decision to fight back at the polls:

Why resisting Trump has galvanized Black Democrats as the midterms approach

Black voters in South Carolina and other southern states are turning out in defiance of what many see as President Donald Trump’s efforts to suppress their political power, fueling Democratic hopes of clinching upset wins in the region in this fall’s midterm elections.

A surge in Black voter engagement is energizing close Senate races in North Carolina and Georgia, where Democrats go into the summer with leads in many polls. Some Democrats see a chance of long-shot victories in South Carolina, such as ousting longtime incumbent Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) and flipping the congressional seat vacated by Rep. Nancy Mace (R).

“No matter what obstacles are in our way, we’re gonna just walk over those obstacles, and we’re voting,” said Beatrice Brown, 78, a retired public school teacher who drove other Black voters to the polls this month in primaries in the Lowcountry town of St. Stephen. “A voteless people is a hopeless people. And we’re not hopeless.”

Early voting in that round of South Carolina balloting surged to almost presidential-election levels. In the district represented by the state’s lone Black congressman, Rep. James E. Clyburn (D), turnout jumped by more than 50 percent.

Could Democrats score upset wins, especially in House races, as a result of increased turnout fueled by anger against President Trump and against the Court?  

In theory, almost everything is possible. Also, many such things don't work out. 

That said, the notions being pushed in this news report remind us of the complex history of (deliberate) "majority minority" districting in many Southern states in the wake of additions to the Voting Rights Act in 1982. 

Some of those majority Black districts have now been disassembled, moving Black voters into a wider array of districts. If anger at the Court decisions (and at Trump's demands for redistricting) leads to a larger Black turnout, is it possible that Democrats could win more House seats, in the wake of the Court decisions, than they would have won if the safe majority Black / majority Democrat districts were never threatened or actually cracked apart?   

Earlier this year, Rep. Clyburn (D-SC) said Republicans could end up losing three House seats in South Carolina if his own majority Black district was broken up. He said Democrats could win three House races in the state, not just the one race he had always won.

It could be that he didn't mean it, but that's what he said. 

As the Post article notes, a Republican honcho in South Carolina said the GOP could lose two House seats, not just one, if Clyburn's district got broken up and Black voters were spread around more widely.

He too may not have really believed it. But that's what the Republican said.  

In the end, Rep. Clyburn's majority Black district was left intact. But according to the Post report, South Carolina Dems are eyeing Nancy Mace's abandoned House seat as a possible pick-up, in part due to the anger among Black voters about the mid-census redistricting hubbub.

Dare to struggle, dare to win? Is it possible that the president's mid-census redistricting jihad, along with those recent Supreme Court decisions, could produce additional wins by Southern Dems, Black and white together? 

We don't expect any miracle wins, but once they've been disassembled, those safe "majority minority" seats won't be coming back. Can Blue America, Black and white, find ways to win some other seats?

Dare to struggle, dare to win? Given the districting decisions in question, how do Blacks and how do Blues and how do Dems proceed?


REVERSIONS: Two nutcases spotted three godless Communists!

TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 2026

No ridiculous claim left behind: The sitting president was deeply concerned about the return of the Communists.   

Plainly, his fear was well founded. Two members of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) had won the Democratic Party's nomination for seats in the United States House of Representatives. 

A third candidatethe comptroller of the city of New York from 2021 through 2025had also won the Democratic Party's nomination for a seat in the House!  

If the two DSA members win their elections this fall, they will become members of the House. They will be two members, out of a total of 435! 

As we noted yesterday, this led the president to say the following in a public address last Friday. He was speaking about the two nominees who belong to the DSA, along with the one who doesn't:

PRESIDENT TRUMP (6/26/26): These are not Social Democrats. These are hardcore godless Communists. They’re godless Communists. 

All Communists are godless. They don’t believe in God. This is the most serious threat to our country since its existence, in my opinion, 250 years ago. This is a major threat to our country.  

It was the most serious threat in the nation's history, the president thoughtfully said. On Thursday evening, he had already offered this reassuring Truth Social post:   

Truth Details  

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump 
 

The Communists are finally making their move. I’ve been waiting and preparing for this for a long time. It’s easy to be a Communist—All you have to do is say, “I’ll give you everything,” but that means you’re taking it away from others that have earned it. Over thousands of years, that Ideology has not worked once. The game is on. Enjoy watching! President DONALD J. TRUMP   

He's been preparing for a long timepreparing himself for the day when Assemblywoman Claire Valdez (D-NY) might show up in the House of Representatives, scarily sayingamong other thingsthat she supports Medicare for All.  

Who the Joe Hill is Claire Valdez? The leading authority on that subject offers this overview:  

Claire Valdez  

Claire Valdez (born October 12, 1989) is an American politician and union organizer who has served as a member of the New York State Assembly for the 37th District since 2025, representing part of the Borough of Queens. A member of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America, she is the Democratic nominee for New York's 7th congressional district in the 2026 election. 

Originally from Lubbock, Texas, Valdez moved to New York City in 2015 and lives in Ridgewood, Queens...

Valdez received her Bachelor of Fine Arts from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, studying painting and art history. She worked a series of service jobs...before moving to New York City to pursue a career in art.

[...] 

After graduating from college, Valdez worked as a program assistant in the visual arts department at Columbia University before beginning her term as an assembly member. While working at Columbia, she became an active member of United Auto Workers Local 2110 and was elected unit chair in the local.

Such information as that. Meanwhile, whether wisely or not, something in the range of 55-65% of Americans join Valdez in supporting Medicare for All. Polling results seem to turn on the way the survey question is asked.

As to what else Valdez might think, believe or support, we haven't seen anyone make a major attempt to ask. Despite that fact, and as we noted yesterday, her nomination triggered this reaction from the most watched individual in all of "cable news:"  

WATTERS (6/24/26): This is a Third World takeover. This is what happens when you import the Third World. 

Did you know that New York City is 70% nonwhite? 40% foreign-born? 50% of the apartments, they don't even speak English! Not even their first language! 

These three women [sic] who Mamdani endorsed, weren't even born in New York City, weren't even raised in New York City. They're carpetbaggers. Carpetbaggers, Jessica! 

...Communism is going to take over the Democratic Party, and then we're going to have to beat it, because you can't—

You can't do anything else besides beat it to a pulp.   

In a series of agitprop manifestos last week, this corporate messenger boy almost seemed to be getting his brownshirt out. 

"These people want to hurt us," the unusual fellow also said, speaking of Valdez and the two others. "The way we're going to react is going to make Trump look like a kitten."  

(For the record, Watters said these things to Red America only. If you read the New York Timesif you subscribe to The Atlantic; if you watch MS NOWyou will not be told that this remarkable reversion is currently taking place.) 

It may be time to name the (two or) three "godless Communists" who have been cast as such in this marketing play.

Two of the three nominees are members of DSA; the third nominee is not.. Only two of the three are women, though Watters, as you can see in the text above, seemed to think something different.

The three nominees are these: 

Brad Lander. Member, New York City Council, 2010-2022. New York City Comptroller, 2022-2026. 

As noted by the leading authority, "On June 12, 2025, The New York Times Opinion panel chose Lander as its top choice for the Democratic primary for mayor." 

This is one of three godless Communists the president has been warning the nation about.  

Claire Valdez: Member, New York State Assembly, 2025 to present. For more information, see above.

Darializa Avila Chevalier: According to the New York Times, "she is a Ph.D. student and an investigator in a public defender office." 

According to that same profile, Avila Chevalier is "a relative political newcomer who emerged from the world of far-left activism...Some of Ms. Avila Chevalier’s views may be considered too extreme for mainstream politics, and should she be chosen to represent Upper Manhattan in Congress, her views could pose a challenge for the greater Democratic Party." 

Those are the three nominees who have triggered the increasingly fevered remarks by performers on the Fox News Channel and by the sitting president. Ever vigilant, the sitting president has bizarrely said that the nomination of these three candidates constitutes "the most serious threat to our country" in the full sweep of its existence.  

(As best we can tell, you don't know that the president has made that extremely strange claim if you read the New York Times. For whatever reason, the Times is strongly inclined to disappear the president's strangest remarks and posts.)   

Of the three nominees, Lander was the Times editorial board's top choice for mayor! At this time, little is known about Valdez. 

Meanwhile, everyone agrees that there are very few unusual statements which Avila Chevalier hasn't made, at some point, in the past several years. 

We tend to agree with what Jessica Tarlov said about Avila Chevalier last Tuesday, on The Five. As for Assemblywoman Valdez, we saw her interviewed last Wednesday night by CNN's Erin Burnett.

Tomorrow, we'll show you what Tarlov said about Avila Chevalier, and we'll show you what was said when Valdez visited CNN. Also, we'll continue to show you what Watters is saying as he lays his brown shirts out for his mommy to iron.

A major reversion is underway as troupers like Watters keep making their claims. He's been beaming his scripts to Red America. 

Over here, in Blue America, we simply don't get told.   

Tomorrow: No Ridiculous Claim Left Behind


MONDAY: We return to results on last year's Naep!

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2026

On the Long-Term Trend version, that is: Friend, did you know there are two different versions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (the NAEP)?  

The Naep is a widely praised federal testing program in such subjects as reading and math. But did you know that the venerable program comes in two different flavors?

The so-called "Main Naep" is administered to students in Grades 4, 8 and 12, without respect to the age of the various students. This version of the Naep has been given more frequently in recent decades. Results from this version have routinely been reported in the mainstream press over that stretch of time.

That said, please hold on:

There's another version of the Naep called The Long-Term Trend Naep. That version of the Naep is administered to students who are 9, 13 and 17 years old, no matter what grade the students may be in. 

That version of the Naep was administered just last year. It was that version of the Naep to which the New York Times referred in the news report which started this way, headline included:

Younger Students’ Test Scores Bounce Back After the Pandemic   

After years of dire test scores coming out of the pandemic, new national test results released on Wednesday offered a glimmer of hope—at least for younger students.

The nation’s 9-year-olds, who were in preschool when the pandemic hit, have made a significant recovery in reading since 2022, and are now caught up to where 9-year-olds were immediately before the pandemic, according to a key federal exam. They are getting closer to being caught up in math.  

But for American 13-year-olds, whose elementary school years were disrupted by the pandemic, there has been no recovery.

 And so on from there. 

That report appeared on June 10. We told you it would generate zero discussion. If you took that prediction to the betting markets, you're a wealthy person today. 

Attention to such topics has been surrendered to the tsunami of distractions which has constituted the second-term Trump years. But kids continue to go to school, and national samples of such kids continue to participate in this federal testing program.

No, the test items aren't the same on these different versions of the Naep. In effect, the Main Naep and the Long-Term Trend Naep  serve as rough estimates of overall accuracy, the one version paired off against the other.   

There's more to know about the two Naeps. The leading authority on the widely praised program goes on at some length right here.

That said:

How well did 9- and 13-year-old students perform in reading and math last year? Along the way in the next few weeks, we'll provide the basic results the best way we can, thereby filling a void in this Era of Cosmic Distraction.

Having said that, we leave you today with a key observation:   

Assessments of how well the students performed may turn on a basic point. It all depends on how far back you choose to go in making your year-to-year comparisons.   

We'll return to this topic before too long. We'll start our comparisons all the way back around 1980. With that as our starting point, you may be quite impressed with the amount of progress you see...


REVERSIONS: In this dumbest of all possible worlds...

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 2026

...an old war cry was employed: On balance, we're inclined to agree with what Jessica Tarlov said last Tuesday, on the day when the city and the state of New York conducted primary elections.

Mayor Mamdani had endorsed congressional candidates from three different congressional districts. Two were members of the DSAthe Democratic Socialists of America. The third was a former member of that organization.

That very day, each candidate won the Democratic Party's nomination to serve in the House. As a general matter, we're inclined to agree with what Tarlov said that day.

We now jump ahead to Wednesdayto the day after The Mamdani 3 won those nominations:

On Wednesday's episode of The Five, a segment began with videotape of the sitting president calling these candidates Communists. A full reversion was underway within the American discourse. 

The three nominees were Communists, the exercised president said. As the segment began on The Five, the chyron at the bottom of the screen said this:

COMMIE CRUSADERS
MAMDANI ENDORSES SOCIALIST CANDIDATES IN NYC PRIMARIES

Sad! According to producers of The Five, Mayor Mamdani had endorsed a trio of "Commie Crusaders." 

On balance, we agree with what Tarlov had said, the previous day, about the trio of Commies. First, though, you ought to see what Jesse Watters now said.  

On Wednesday's edition of The Five, Watters was plainly upset. Occasionally turning to address Tarlov, he started by saying this:  

WATTERS (6/24/26): This is dangerous. You don't think these people can springboard to become governor, senator, AG? This is how it happens. You guys run your little power centers in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York. All of a sudden, you guys just populated all the higher offices in those states. And you guys are just going to sit back and do nothing with that power? 

You're coming for us. You're coming for our money, you're coming for our people. You're coming for our way of life. 

It's not socialism, guys. This is Communism.

You can't reason with these guys. You have to crush them. And we will, because we're not going to let our greatest city get destroyed. We're not going to let our civilization get destroyed. These people are going to steal from us. These people want to hurt us. 

This isn't like your regular Democrat...One of the ladies said she wants to destroy western civilization. I don't know about you, I take that as a threat. Another woman says she wants to empty prisons. That sounds like a violent threat. 

Abolish ICE. That means you can break into the country, rape, and stay. 

I don't like that. I'm not going to go for it. And no one's going to go for it. And the way we're going to react is going to be a lot tougher than the way Trump is reacting. The way we're going to react is going to make Trump look like a kitten.   

To our ear, it was Watters' assessmentand his pledgewhich sounded a bit like a threat! That said, the gentleman wasn't finished. He continued along, eventually saying this:  

WATTERS: These people don't believe in borders, capitalism, our founding fathers. They're here to steal, punish us, and then throw around welfare. This is a Third World takeover. This is what happens when you import the Third World. 

Did you know that New York City is 70% nonwhite? 40% foreign-born? 50% of the apartments, they don't even speak English! Not even their first language! 

These three women [sic] who Mamdani endorsed, weren't even born in New York City, weren't even raised in New York City. They're carpetbaggers. Carpetbaggers, Jessica! 

...Communism is going to take over the Democratic Party, and then we're going to have to beat it, because you can't

 You can't do anything else besides beat it to a pulp.   

Watters was ready for a fightfor what sounded almost like a street fight. He said his cadre was going to make President Trump look like a kitten. 

He said his cadre was going to beat the Democratic Party to a pulp.

Meanwhile, Watters was, as usual, utterly clueless. He was so clueless that he seemed to think that Mamdani had endorsed three women for the Houseand yes, that's what this cable star said. 

For the record, Watters is the most-watched person in American "cable news," thanks to his dual role as co-host of The Five and host of Jesse Watters Primetime

They're the two most watched shows in the entire realm of American "cable news." Watters is the driving force on each of these ludicrous programs.

Just to establish the record, we'll cite a few basic facts:  

One of the three nominees, Brad Lander, is, in fact, a man. As is perfectly typical, Watters didn't seem to be aware of this remarkably well-known fact.

Lander was elected to citywide office in New Yorkto the office of New York City Comptrollerback in 2021, long before Mamdani was part of the story.  Lander was raised in St. Louis. Of the two women Mamdani did endorse, one was raised in Lubbock, Texas. The other was raised in Florida.

We now move on to this:

As of last week, Watters seemed to be shocked to have recently learned that New York City isn't majority white.  For the record, these were the basic numbers in 2024, according to Census Reporter (Census QuickFacts is down):   

New York City race / ethnicity:   
White:  31%
Hispanic: 29%  
Black: 20% 
Asian: 15%

There's nothing especially new about that. Watters recited his disturbing data on several occasions last week.  

Meanwhile, Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Communist Commies:

A familiar cry was bruited last week as the reversion was on. 

On Friday, President Trump droned about the problem at a Faith and Freedom Coalition event. For Mediaite's report, just click here. But here's part of what the president said about the godless trio in question:  

PRESIDENT TRUMP (6/26/26): As you saw with the Communists elected in New York City recentlythey're Communists, they're not Social Democratsthey want to completely destroy the traditional American way of life...

It’s happening right now in New York and California. But you’ll start living in squalor. You’ll live in squalor. There will be no food. There will be no housing. There will be no military. There will be no law and order. There will be no nothing. There will be no nothing. You will be a third-world inhabitant in every way, and everyone will suffer or die. 

You’ll suffer or die. That’s what happens.

[...]

These are not Social Democrats. These are hardcore godless Communists. They’re godless Communists. 

All Communists are godless. They don’t believe in God. This is the most serious threat to our country since its existence, in my opinion, 250 years ago. This is a major threat to our country.  

People don’t look at that"Three people were elected!" No, no. It's many more than three people. And the other people are being swayed because they don’t have the sense to see what’s happening.   

The nomination of the three candidates in New York City? It constitutes "the most serious threat" in this country's existence, the sitting president actually said.   

For the record, are these three nominees actually Communists? We'll discuss that matter as the week proceeds. For now, we'll offer an obvious no.   

That said, the old battle cry was widely bruited last week. For example, it was bruited by the most-watched person in "cable news" on Friday evening's edition of Jesse Watters Primetime. 

The most-watched person played tape of the president's dire warning at the Faith and Family event. He then launched a lengthy jihad of his own about the greatest threat in history, the threat posed by the three "godless Communists."   

We won't quote the various things our most-watched cable newsperson said. As a substitute, we'll start by offering a word count from that evening's opening segment:

Word count: Jesse Watters Primetime, 6/26/26
"Communist:" 24
"Communism:" 7
"Commie:" 5 

Sad! To borrow from Joyce, the C-words were general over the pseudo-discussion. 

And not only that! As this very strange fellow proceeded, some of the chyrons blared thusly:

Chyrons: Jesse Watters Primetime, 6/26/26
TRUMP DECLARES WAR ON COMMUNISM
COMMUNISTS INFILTRATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
COMMIE PIRATE: HAKEEM IS WEAK
"HARDCORE, GODLESS COMMUNISTS"
DEM: "WE AGREE WITH COMMUNISTS"
COMMIE WAVE CRASHES INTO AMERICA   

You can add those six additional usages onto the prior word count! But a "Commie wave" had crashed into America! Sadly, that's what the chyrons said. 

Now for the rest of the story:   

Fellow citizens, is it true? Godless or otherwise, had Mamdani endorsed three "Communists" to serve in the House of Representatives?   

We'll examine that question as the week proceeds. Be prepared to encounter a "no."

Finally, what did Jessica Tarlov say, on Tuesday's edition of The Five, about the three "monsters" in question? (We're quoting Emily Compagno's choice of words on that same day's program. Inevitably, this star of stage and cable news scream also went with "psychopaths.")

What did Tarlov say about the three "psychopaths" in question? We'll show you that first thing tomorrow--but as a general matter, we'd be inclined to agree with what she said, especially about Darializa Avila Chevalier, one of the three nominees.

Communism Communists but also Commie Crusaders! In this, the dumbest of all possible worlds, an old battle cry was out.

That said, who was actually worse last week as the reversion began? The stars who clowned for Red America, or the stars over here in Blue America who averted their gaze once again?

Tomorrow: We wouldn't have chosen that word