Monday, May 23, 2022

Tyrants Use Patriotism And Religion To Deceive


Americans Oppose Overturning Roe Vs. Wade

The chart above reflects the results of the newest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between May 15th to 17th of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,342 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 2.9 points, and for registered voters is 3.0 points.

GOP Thoughts And Prayers

Political Cartoon is by Michael deAdder in The Washington Post.

The Racist Theory That Can Be Used Against Any Group

The following is by Cynthia Miller-Idriss at

The 18-year-old accused of shooting 13 people, 10 fatally, at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store Saturday was, according to a manifesto he appears to have written, motivated by a global white supremacist extremist conspiracy theory called the “great replacement.” The theory falsely argues that global elites are orchestrating demographic changes via immigration in order to consolidate power and replace white populations with multicultural societies.

Authorities say he researched ZIP codes in his state with a high percentage of Black residents, and officials said he drove hours to Buffalo to execute his plot, which he livestreamed on a gaming platform.

Black shoppers and employees mostly were killed and injuredin the shooting, part of a wave of violence rooted in that same conspiracy theory that has terrorized members of historically marginalized communities globally for over a decade. The attack followed mass shootings targeting Jews, Muslims and Latinos across the country and world that were motivated by a belief in the “great replacement.”

The ease with which this single conspiracy theory has been mobilized against a wide range of victims and targeted groups — Muslims, Jews, Latinos and, now, Black Americans — demonstrates just how many people feel threatened by demographic change and are easily persuaded by manipulative rhetoric about it.

In the U.S., antisemitic and white supremacist claims had long warned of an impending, orchestrated “white genocide” rooted in manipulative rhetoric about low white birth rates, immigration, abortion and false statistics about violence against white people. In Europe, a conspiracy theory called “Eurabia” falsely suggested that Muslim elites were trying to expand the caliphate through immigration and demographic change, warning that Muslims will eventually force Christians to convert or assume subservient roles.

Now together under the overarching framework of the “great replacement,” this unifying conspiracy falsely claims there is a global, elitist plot to eradicate white, Christian civilizations that will lead to whites’ extinction or loss of power. In online spaces, the conspiracy circulates widely in the form of text-based chats, memes, videos and other propaganda, often using scientific racism — which uses false data on issues like IQ or poverty rates to make eugenicist arguments about racial differences or “population quality” — and dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric to call for a violent defense against a dystopian future. In these calls, mass violence is seen not only as means to an end, but a preferred solution. Violent actors who take up the cause are celebrated in white supremacist extremist circles as heroic martyrs who will inspire others to act — to preserve and defend whiteness against an invasion of immigrants, Muslims or Jews who they claim will eradicate or replace white nationals, Christians, Americans or Europeans.

The conspiracy theory is so powerful as a mobilizer of violence in part because it can easily be directed toward any demographic group seen as a threat to white people. I’ve previously written about how the theory has led to killings in Norway, Pittsburgh; Christchurch, New Zealand; Poway, California; and El Paso, Texas. The Buffalo shooting appears to be the latest in a series of such attacks motivated by conspiracy theories falsely arguing that global elites are deliberately replacing white people with racial and ethnic minorities and immigrants.

Make no mistake: The "great replacement" is not a conspiracy theory that lives only in the dark underbelly of the internet. It has been widely shared and touted by mainstream politicians and by personalities such as Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. As I described in a recent column, Carlson alludes to that conspiracy when he says Democrats are orchestrating “demographic replacement” to gain political power. A French presidential candidate and a U.S. member of Congress have also recently publicly referred to replacement.

In the days to come, we will see a lot of finger-pointing: at the shooter’s parents, at law enforcement, at the social media companies that host and amplify hate and propaganda, and at the pundits and politicians who mainstream it. There will be calls for better content moderation on social media, for digital literacy tools to reduce vulnerability to propaganda and disinformation, for better investments in prevention and preparedness.

We need all of this, and more. But none of it will matter if we ignore the racist, dehumanizing and white supremacist belief systems that enable people to embrace “great replacement” conspiracy theories in the first place. Our failure to address the foundational nature of white supremacy here and internationally ensures that the next attack motivated by the “great replacement” is already a foregone conclusion.

The Response

Political Cartoon is by Ed Wexler at

The State


Sunday, May 22, 2022

The Trick


Significant Majority Says Race Relations Are Bad In U.S.


The chart above reflects the results of the latest Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between May 15th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,342 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 2.9 points, and for registered voters is 3.0 points.

Capitol Tour

Political Cartoon is by Clay Jones at

The U.S. Must Own Up To Its White Supremacy Problem

The following is part of an op-ed by Colbert I. King in The Washington Post. He has a valid point! 

President Biden visited Buffalo this week. There he declared, “In America, evil will not win, I promise you. Hate will not prevail. White supremacy will not have the last word.”

Well, Mr. President, as I stand in the autumn years of my life and look around, white supremacy seems to be doing all right for itself.

The racially stratified Buffalo that I occasionally visited during the early ’60s when on leave from my Fort Niagara military post has now taken its place on the listed sites of atrocities in Black American history.

“This is not who we are,” Biden has said many times. Oh, no?

Lest we forget:

  • Colfax, La., where in 1873 more than 60 Black men were killed trying to vote.
  • Aug. 14 to 16, 1908, when a mob of 5,000 descended upon Black people in Springfield, Ill.
  • July 29 and 30, 1910, and the massacre in the small, predominantly Black town of Slocum, Tex.
  • July 19, 1919, when White mobs here in D.C. attacked Black soldiers returning from World War I.

“Not who we are”?

How about the Elaine Massacre of Black farmers in Arkansas on Sept. 30 and Oct. 1, 1919? The Nov. 2, 1920, Ocoee Massacre of Blacks going to vote in Florida?

Remember the May 31 and June 1, 1921, Tulsa Massacre that destroyed a thriving Black community in Oklahoma?

Are we to forget the 1923 Rosewood Massacre, the 1968 Orangeburg Massacre, the 1979 Greensboro Massacre, the 2012 Sikh Temple of Wisconsin Massacre, the deadly hate crimes against Blacks in Kentucky and Jews in Pittsburgh in October 2018?

So no, I’m not moved in the least by Biden’s argument that such attacks are the handiwork of people who “are just deranged, who are susceptible, who are — who are just lost and don’t know what to do, and they’re easily taken — they’re easily sucked in.”

There are too many of them, and all were motivated by one single thing: racial hatred.

Own that reality.

And remember: Racial resentment also prompted the owners of Glen Echo amusement park in Maryland to keep people of color on the outside looking in until 1961.

Disgust with Black faces is what prompted the good White leaders in Ocean City, Md., and other Eastern Shore beaches to enact laws prescribing where Black people couldn’t set foot.

Disdain for Black people produced racially restricted swimming pools, hotels, shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and schools — all part of my upbringing.

White loathing of Black people was at the heart of legal and de facto segregation — including the voter suppression schemes now being crafted in states across this country.

National Urban League president Marc Morial’s plea that Biden use “the bully pulpit and moral power of the presidency” to bring down white supremacy has a nice ring to it. But that burden is not Biden’s alone.

White supremacy is America’s burden. You know it. I know it. Millions more Americans know it, too.

Own up and get on it. Or keep sending ambulances, and building makeshift memorials.

Pyramid Scheme

Political Cartoon is by Gary Huck at

Tyrants Are Active And Ardent


Saturday, May 21, 2022

Status Of Pandemic In U.S. (It Ain't Over!)


Fewer Families Now Identify As Middle Class

 The chart above is from surveys by the Gallup Poll -- the most recent being done between April 1st and 19th of a nationwide sample of 1,018 adults, with a 4 point margin of error.

Between 2002 and 2008 about 61% of Americans said they were in the middle class. Currently, only about 52% say that -- a drop of 9 points. That drop is evident in all demographic groups.

Protective Services

Political Cartoon is by Nick Anderson in Reform Austin News.

The Morality War Between The Left & Right

The following is part of an op-ed by David Brooks in The New York Times. In it, he discusses the moral views of the left and right -- and offers suggestions on how Democrats can win this "morality" war. 

I’m going to try to offer a respectful version of the two rival moral traditions that undergird our morality wars. I’ll try to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of each. I’ll also try to point to the opportunities Democrats now have to create a governing majority on social and cultural matters.

The phrase “moral freedom” captures a prominent progressive moral tradition. It recognizes the individual conscience as the ultimate authority and holds that in a diverse society, each person should have the right to lead her own authentic life and make up her own mind about moral matters. If a woman decides to get an abortion, then we should respect her freedom of choice. If a teenager concludes they are nonbinary, or decides to transition to another gender, then we should celebrate their efforts to live a life that is authentic to who they really are.

In this ethos society would be rich with a great diversity of human types.

This ethos has a pretty clear sense of right and wrong. It is wrong to try to impose your morality or your religious faith on others. Society goes wrong when it prevents gay people from marrying who they want, when it restricts the choices women can make, when it demeans transgender people by restricting where they can go to the bathroom and what sports they can play after school.

This moral freedom ethos has made modern life better in a variety of ways. There are now fewer restrictions that repress and discriminate against people from marginalized groups. Women have more social freedom to craft their own lives and to be respected for the choices they make. People in the L.G.B.T.Q. communities have greater opportunities to lead open and flourishing lives. There’s less conformity. There’s more tolerance for different lifestyles. There’s less repression and more openness about sex. People have more freedom to discover and express their true selves.

However, there are weaknesses. The moral freedom ethos puts tremendous emphasis on individual conscience and freedom of choice. Can a society thrive if there is no shared moral order? The tremendous emphasis on self-fulfillment means that all relationships are voluntary. Marriage is transformed from a permanent covenant to an institution in which two people support each other on their respective journeys to self-fulfillment. What happens when people are free to leave their commitments based on some momentary vision of their own needs?

If people find their moral beliefs by turning inward, the philosopher Charles Taylor warned, they may lose contact with what he called the “horizons of significance,” the standards of truth, beauty and moral excellence that are handed down by tradition, history or God.

A lot of people will revert to what the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre calls “emotivism”: What is morally right is what feels right to me. Emotivism has a tendency to devolve into a bland mediocrity and self-indulgence. If we’re all creating our own moral criteria based on feelings, we’re probably going to grade ourselves on a forgiving curve.

Self-created identities are also fragile. We need to have our identities constantly affirmed by others if we are to feel secure. People who live within this moral ecology are going to be hypersensitive to sleights that they perceive as oppression. Politics devolves into identity wars, as different identities seek recognition over the others.

The critics of moral freedom say that while it opens up lifestyle choices, it also devolves into what Zygmunt Bauman calls “liquid modernity.” When everybody defines his own values, the basic categories of life turn fluid. You wind up in a world in which a Supreme Court nominee like Ketanji Brown Jackson has to dodge the seemingly basic question of what a woman is. I don’t blame her. I don’t know how to answer that question anymore, either.

Under the sway of the moral freedom ethos, the left has generally won the identity wars but lost the cosmology wars. America has moved left on feminist and L.G.B.T.Q. issues and is much more tolerant of diverse lifestyles. But many Americans don’t quite trust Democrats to tend the moral fabric that binds us all together. They worry that the left threatens our national narratives as well as religious institutions and the family, which are the seedbeds of virtue.

The conservative moral tradition has a very different conception of human nature, the world and how the good society is formed. I’ll call it “you are not your own,” after the recent book by the English professor and Christian author Alan Noble.

People who subscribe to this worldview believe that individuals are embedded in a larger and pre-existing moral order in which there is objective moral truth, independent of the knower. As Charles Taylor summarizes the ethos, “independent of my will there is something noble, courageous and hence significant in giving shape to my own life.”

In this ethos, ultimate authority is outside the self. For many people who share this worldview, the ultimate source of authority is God’s truth, as revealed in Scripture. For others, the ultimate moral authority is the community and its traditions.

We’re in a different moral world here, with emphasis on obedience, dependence, deference and supplication. This moral tradition has a loftier vision of perfect good, but it takes a dimmer view of human nature: Left to their own devices, people will tend to be selfish and shortsighted. They will rebel against the established order and seek autonomy. If a person does not submit to the moral order of the universe — or the community — he may become self-destructive, a slave to his own passions.

The healthier life is one lived within limits — limits imposed by God’s commandments, by the customs and sacred truths of a culture and its institutions. These limits on choice root you so you have a secure identity and secure attachments. They enforce habits that slowly turn into virtues.

In the “moral freedom” world you have to be free to realize your highest moral potential.

In the “you are not your own” world you must be morally formed by institutions before you are capable of handling freedom. In this world there are certain fixed categories. Male and female are essential categories of personhood. In this ethos there are limits on freedom of choice. You don’t get to choose to abort your fetus, because that fetus is not just cells that belong to you. That fetus belongs to that which brings forth life.

Researchers Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt and Brian Nosek found that liberals are powerfully moved to heal pain and prevent cruelty. Conservatives, they discovered, are more attuned than liberals to the moral foundations that preserve a stable social order. They highly value loyalty and are sensitive to betrayal. They value authority and are sensitive to subversion.

The strengths of this moral tradition are pretty obvious. It gives people unconditional attachments and a series of rituals and practices that morally form individuals.

The weaknesses of this tradition are pretty obvious, too. It can lead to rigid moral codes that people with power use to justify systems of oppression. This ethos leads to a lot of othering — people not in our moral order are inferior and can be conquered and oppressed.

But the big problem today with the “you are not your own” ethos is that fewer and fewer people believe in it. Fewer and fewer people in the United States believe in God. And more Americans of all stripes have abandoned the submissive, surrendering, dependent concept of the self.

This is the ultimate crisis on the right. Many conservatives say there is an objective moral order that demands obedience, but they’ve been formed by America’s prevailing autonomy culture, just like everybody else. In practice, they don’t actually want to surrender obediently to a force outside themselves; they want to make up their own minds. The autonomous self has triumphed across the political spectrum, on the left where it makes sense, and also on the right, where it doesn’t.

Both of these moral traditions have deep intellectual and historical roots. Both have a place in any pluralistic society. Right now, the conservative world looks politically strong, but it is existentially in crisis. Republicans will probably do extremely well in the 2022 midterms. But conservatism, especially Christian conservatism, is coming apart.

Conservative Christians feel they are under massive assault from progressive cultural elites. Small-town traditionalists feel their entire way of life is being threatened by globalism and much else. They perceive that they are losing power as a cultural force. Many in the younger generations have little use for their god, their traditional rooted communities and their values.

This has produced a moral panic. Consumed by the passion of the culture wars, many traditionalists and conservative Christians have adopted a hypermasculine warrior ethos diametrically opposed to the Sermon on the Mount moral order they claim as their guide. Unable to get people to embrace their moral order through suasion, they now seek to impose their moral order through politics. A movement that claims to make God their god now makes politics god. What was once a faith is now mostly a tribe.

This moral panic has divided the traditionalist world, especially the Christian part of it, a division that has, for example, been described in different ways by me, by my Times colleague Ruth Graham and by Tim Alberta in The Atlantic. Millions of Americans who subscribe to the “you are not your own” ethos are appalled by what the Republican Party has become.

So is there room in the Democratic Party for people who don’t subscribe to the progressive moral tradition but are appalled by what conservatism has become?

First, will Democrats allow people to practice their faith even if some tenets of that faith conflict with progressive principles? For example, two bills in Congress demonstrate that clash. They both would amend federal civil rights law to require fair treatment of L.G.B.T.Q. people in housing, employment and other realms of life. One, the Fairness for All Act, would allow for substantial exceptions for religious institutions. A Catholic hospital, say, wouldn’t be compelled to offer gender transition surgeries. The other, the Equality Act, would override existing law that prevents the federal government from substantially burdening individuals’ exercise of religion without a compelling government interest.

Right now, Democrats generally support the latter bill and oppose the former. But supporting the Fairness for All Act, which seeks to fight discrimination while leaving space for religious freedom, would send a strong signal to millions of wavering believers, and it would be good for America.

Second, will Democrats stand up to the more radical cultural elements in their own coalition? Jonathan Rauch was an early champion of gay and lesbian rights. In an article in American Purpose, he notes that one wing of the movement saw gay rights as not a left-wing issue but a matter of human dignity. A more radical wing celebrated cultural transgression and disdained bourgeois morality. Ultimately, the gay rights movement triumphed in the court of public opinion when the nonradicals won and it became attached to the two essential bourgeois institutions — marriage and the military.

Rauch argues that, similarly, the transgender rights movement has become entangled with ideas that are extraneous to the cause of transgender rights. Ideas like: Both gender and sex are chosen identities and denying or disputing that belief amounts is violence.Democrats would make great strides if they could champion transgender rights while not insisting upon these extraneous moral assertions that many people reject.

The third question is, will Democrats realize that both moral traditions need each otherAs usual, politics is a competition between partial truths. The moral freedom ethos, like liberalism generally, is wonderful in many respects, but liberal societies need nonliberal institutions if they are to thrive.

America needs institutions built on the “you are not your own” ethos to create social bonds that are more permanent than individual choice. It needs that ethos to counter the me-centric, narcissistic tendencies in our culture. It needs that ethos to preserve a sense of the sacred, the idea that there are some truths so transcendentally right that they are absolutely true in all circumstances. It needs that ethos in order to pass along the sort of moral sensibilities that one finds in, say, Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address — that people and nations have to pay for the wages of sin, that charity toward all is the right posture, that firmness in keeping with the right always has to be accompanied by humility about how much we can ever see of the right.

Finally, we need this ethos, because morality is not only an individual thing; it’s something between people that binds us together. Even individualistic progressives say it takes a village to raise a child, but the village needs to have a shared moral sense of how to raise it.

The Great Replacement

Political Cartoon is by Pedro Molino at

The U.S. Congress Has Blood On Its Hands!


Friday, May 20, 2022

One Certain Effect Of War


Public Is Unhappy With Supreme Court - Wants Term Limits

The charts above reflect the results of a new Quinnipiac University Poll -- done between March 12th and 16th of a nationwide sample of 1,586 adults, with a 2.5 point margin of error.

Intelligent Species?

 Political Cartoon is by Clay Jones at

About 218,000 Workers Filed For Unemployment Last Week

The Labor Department released its weekly unemployment statistics on Thursday. It showed that about 218,000 workers applied for unemployment benefits in the week ending on May 14th. Here is the official Labor Department statement:

In the week ending May 14, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 218,000, an increase of 21,000 from the previous week's revised level. The previous week's level was revised down by 6,000 from 203,000 to 197,000. The 4-week moving average was 199,500, an increase of 8,250 from the previous week's revised average. The previous week's average was revised down by 1,500 from 192,750 to 191,250.

What The Monster Fears

 Political Cartoon is by Ed Wexler at

Nevada Newspaper Laments Lack Of Honest Republicans


In this editorial, the Las Vegas Sun laments the lack of honest Republicans who believe in democracy and fair elections that are running for office in Nevada. I share their concern, and believe it is a problem in most, if not all, states.

No one knows better than Nevadans when it’s time to put our cards on the table.

The Editorial Board, and Nevadans as a whole, are facing an agonizing problem. We have endorsed Republicans in the past and might do so again in the future. Yet as we survey the field of Republican candidates across the state, we are struggling to identify those who are not an active threat to American democracy or the institutions of government that have sustained our republic for 250 years.

Those are the stakes here for the GOP. For Nevada. For our voters.

Following his loss in the 2020 election, President Donald Trump told the Big Lie – that the election had been stolen from him by cheaters, frauds and a country hell-bent on keeping him out of office. Despite countless investigations and audits, no significant fraud or electoral irregularities were ever discovered.

But the words had been spoken. The lie was told.

Two months later, on one of the darkest days in U.S. history, we learned just how far the lie had traveled and just how important it might be. Following a rally at the White House, a violent insurrection took hold at the U.S. Capitol with the goal of overthrowing the duly elected government of the United States and stopping the peaceful transition of power. At least seven people died in connection with the attack, according to a congressional report, including three police officers who were simply doing their job.

Since the insurrection, Republican leadership across the nation has worked to disenfranchise voters, allow themselves to defy the will of voters outright and to allow partisan interference in the vote count. The GOP leadership’s assault on voting rights and basic fairness has been horrifying to watch. Happily, so far Nevada has escaped such corruption. But the coming election could change all that if Big Lie candidates gain office.

Trump told The Washington Post last month that he wished he could have marched on the Capitol with the rioters, but that the Secret Service wouldn’t allow it. And now, numerous GOP candidates in Nevada are saying they wish they had been there too — not to stop the violence, but to endorse it.

Gubernatorial candidate Joey Gilbert was actually at the Capitol that day, spinning unfounded conspiracy theories about election fraud and accusing those Republicans who believe the vote was legitimate of being “RINOs (Republicans in Name Only)” who should be removed from the party.He didn’t think that those who vandalized the halls of our Capitol or threatened police officers should be tossed out; he cheered them on. And he’s not alone.

As we wrote last October, Clark County Sheriff Joe Lombardo disgraced himself by not condemning the violent right-wing groups that have been welcomed into the Nevada GOP, leaving Southern Nevadans to wonder whether their sheriff will protect and serve everyone in our community regardless of political persuasion.

Of the five leading Republican candidates for the governorship of Nevada, every one of them has gone on record as both supporting and contributing to the Big Lie. In doing so, they have all made a choice to subvert our democracy, undermine the integrity of our elections, and ignore the Constitution of the United States.

Will GOP leaders stand up for the rule of law and free and fair elections by rejecting autocracy and lies? Or will they continue to debase themselves and their formerly great party by kneeling to their unhinged demigod, Donald Trump, and his dreams of authoritarianism.

We pray this type of anti-democratic leadership does not represent the entirety of those candidates seeking office under the Republican banner in the Silver State. After all, this is the state that just seven years ago found common ground and reelected Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval with a staggering 70.5% of the vote.

Sandoval proved to be a fair, effective and honorable governor. And had the party not lurched into insanity, he would be considered a compelling GOP candidate for president in 2024. In today’s GOP, he wouldn’t stand a chance because honor and fairness doesn’t win primaries in the GOP anymore.

As we are working on evaluations for our primary endorsements, we are pained to admit that it’s difficult to find honesty and integrity in the GOP hopefuls on this ballot.

If you are a Republican running for office who believes in truth, believes that the last election was fair, who rejects the deranged calls to destroy our democracy, we need to hear from you. Nevada needs to hear from you. We want to endorse sanity, honesty, integrity and moderation.

As it stands right now, voters are faced with a slate of GOP candidates — nearly across the board — who aren’t fit for elective office because they buy into the Big Lie and its attempt to derail democracy. We hate finding people in the public sphere who want to destroy the very elections they now seek to win. We hate efforts to disenfranchise voters and rig future elections. We yearn for a dignified, honest and pro-democracy Republican leadership. We yearn for the Republicans of years past. Patriots, not insurrectionists.

So please, if you are such a Republican and are running for office, stand proud and reach out to us. We want to present a list of heroes trying to rescue their party from the madness afflicting it.We want to share your perspective with our readers and let them know that Republican candidates for office still exist who believe in the Constitution, who believe in democracy, and who believe that the peaceful transition of power among our duly elected officials is a hallmark of what not only has made America great in the past, but what can help us continue to be a great country moving forward.

No Shortage

 Political Cartoon is by Ed Hall at

People Are Good - Until They Get In Groups


Thursday, May 19, 2022

Making The Epidemic Of Gun Violence Worse


Replacement Theory = White Supremacy = Republicanism

The cartoon above (by Ed hall at shows a reality.

The shooter who killed 10 innocent Black citizens in Buffalo made his reason clear. He was a believer in "replacement theory" -- the idea that Democrats are trying to replace white heterosexual citizens with others (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Lesbians, Gays, Muslims, etc.) to keep the Republicans from ever winning elections (especially on a national basis).

Where does replacement theory come from? It was originally a fringe idea embraced by white supremacists (and other racists). It is no longer a fringe idea. The Republican propaganda organ (Fox News) has several of their hosts pushing the theory now. And many elected Republicans are openly embracing the theory. Even those Republicans who don't preach it are reluctant to condemn it.

Republicans will try to tell you the shooter was just mentally ill. But mentally ill or not, the ideas he was expressing (and carrying out with his murderous rampage) are now a part of mainstream Republican beliefs. 

How did a once proud political party sink to such racist depths? It began in the 1960's when Democratic president Lyndon Johnson piloted three civil rights bills through Congress and signed them into law. This caused millions of racists to abandon the party (especially in the South). Republicans saw an opportunity to seize power in the South, so they embraced these racists, appealing to them with racist dog whistles.

The Republican leaders thought they could control this racist element -- using them to win elections. But it didn't work out that way. The racists proved to be numerous, and unwilling to be controlled. They have seized control of the party. Now a Republican can't get elected with accepting the sick beliefs of these racists. The Republican Party has become the party of bigotry -- particularly when it comes to white supremacy, anti-immigrant sentiment, and christian fundamentalism.

Add in the conspiracy theorists (like Q-anon) and an irrational loyalty to Donald Trump, and it's easy to see that the lunatics are now running the party. 

They are no longer a mainstream party, but a party of radical fringe ideas.

Loser Perv Endorsed Loser Perv

Political Cartoon is by Clay Jones at

The View Of The American Public On Homelessness

The charts above are from a YouGov Poll -- done between April 19th and 25th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults, with a 3.3 point margin of error. 

A Lynching In Buffalo

Political Cartoon is by Gary Huck at