An American Observer

Socialism’s Glossy Makeover Hides a Graveyard

October 31st, 2026

In an excellent editorial, Carrie Sheffield argues that some political ideologies belong in history’s graveyard and asks why media outlets, like Newsweek, continue to package them as lifestyle brands. She likens that treatment to communist media urinating on the graves of more than 150 million innocent people who died under communist regimes.

In her article, Carrie wonders why the left-wing “intelligentsia” has never fully repudiated Communism, even though it has killed more people than any other ideology in human history.

The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, edited by Stéphane Courtois and written by a group of European academics, was published in 1997. It documents political repression, mass killings, and human rights abuses under 20th-century communist regimes; Harvard University Press later published the English edition. Its authors describe millions of people dying in engineered famines and slave-labor camps, and being buried in unmarked mass graves. These atrocities should provoke unequivocal condemnation. Yet the American left has shown no shame. No one can credibly deny that these regimes were murderous or dismiss their appalling record.

Sheffield assured us in her article that we don’t need to look back to the 20th century. We only need to focus on Venezuela today. Here is a nation that sits atop the world’s largest oil reserves, yet after two decades of socialism, 7.9 million Venezuelans have fled the country. She also reminds us that people do not desert a utopia if it’s actually working.

Supporters of socialism often point to Scandinavia as proof that it works, but the region’s experience tells a more complicated story. Denmark’s generous welfare state is funded by a market economy. Sweden, after pursuing more socialist policies, fell from the world’s fourth-richest country in 1970 to eleventh in 1993 before shifting back toward a market economy. Today, Denmark ranks seventh in economic freedom, Norway eighth, the Netherlands tenth, and Sweden eleventh. The United States, by contrast, ranks twenty-second. These comparisons raise a serious question: should voters continue choosing leaders such as Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden?

Sheffield reminds readers that socialism in the United States has moved beyond the freshman dorm. New York City now has a democratic socialist mayor, and the Democratic Socialists of America’s 2026 program calls for Medicare for All; an end to deportations and amnesty “regardless of status”; abolishing the police and prison systems; the Green New Deal; a 32-hour workweek; and a wealth tax. With the help of our weak, fragmented leftist parties, DSA members are making their way to Congress. Too many Democratic leaders who should be drawing a clear line are instead trying to ride the socialist wave. Surely, they cannot consider themselves true Americans…

What would the socialist agenda cost? Credible economists estimate the price tag at a staggering $49 trillion over ten years—mostly financed through debt, or about $355,000 for every American household. Medicare for All alone accounts for $47 trillion. And what would Americans get in return? The risks of a single-payer system, as seen elsewhere: in Canada, patients wait a median of 28.6 weeks from a doctor’s referral to specialist treatment—more than half a year with a torn knee, a tumor, or a failing heart valve. In England, some people die while waiting to meet with a surgeon who might have saved their lives.

I’m only laughing because, at my age, the prospect of the government collecting that much from me is funny. For all those people in their mid-40s, Yoda might ask, “Taxes, you love, hmm?”

Sheffield has a warning Americans should take seriously: Every socialist experiment follows the same arc. It begins with promises of free goods and ends with bureaucrats deciding who gets them, when they get them, and whether they get them at all. First come empty shelves, ration lines, and waiting lists. Then come the people who complain—and a state forced to decide what to do with them. History shows where that path leads. It isn’t a pretty picture.

Americans built a prosperous nation by giving citizens the freedom to pursue their ambitions, keep what they earn, and succeed through hard work—including “po black folks” who recognize that education is essential to long-term success. The principle is straightforward: people thrive when they can build what they dream of, not when central planners dictate their choices. As Carrie Sheffield reminds us, “The only test that matters is history — Socialism has failed it every time.”
From Subject to Citizen — and back again

October 30th, 2026
By Sam Huntington

Some background

In 1688, prominent English politicians invited the Dutch Protestant Prince William of Orange to invade England and depose his father-in-law, the Catholic King James II. History remembers this series of events as the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

After King James II fled to France in 1688, Parliament declared the throne vacant. In an unprecedented move, Parliament crowned James’s Protestant daughter, Mary II, and her husband, Prince William, as co-monarchs in 1689. Under William and Mary, Parliament enacted major constitutional reforms. Notable examples include—
- The Bill of Rights (1689) placed strict limits on royal power, establishing Parliamentary supremacy in Great Britain. It prohibited monarchs from raising taxes or maintaining a standing army during peacetime without Parliamentary consent.
- The Toleration Act (1689) granted freedom of worship to nonconformist Protestants (such as Baptists and Congregationalists) while still excluding Catholics from public life.
The Act of Settlement (1701) ensured that the English Crown could pass only to Protestant rulers, permanently banning Catholics from the throne.

James II, who refused to acknowledge the shift in power in Great Britain, attempted to reclaim his throne by launching a campaign in Ireland. William personally defeated James’s forces at the landmark Battle of the Boyne (1690). King James, it seems, wasn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. His son, Bonnie Prince Charlie, was even duller.

Note: The Nine Years’ War refers to two historic conflicts: the first occurred in Ireland as a Gaelic resistance to English rule (1593 – 1603); the second, also known as the War of the Grand Alliance, was a major world war fought between 1688 and 1697.

In the War of the Grand Alliance, Louis XIV of France fought against an alliance of England, the Dutch Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, and Savoy. The primary issue was Louis’s attempt to expand France’s borders and exert influence over the Rhineland.

However, his actions threatened Europe’s balance of power. The war was fought across Europe, primarily in the Spanish Netherlands and the Rhineland, at sea, and in North America, where it was known as King William’s War. The war ended in 1697 with the Treaty of Ryswick, which compelled France to return most of its territorial gains and restored the balance of power.

To finance Parliament’s costly wars against France, it established the Bank of England in 1694 and created a national debt. This move modernized the British financial system. In 1695, Parliament allowed the Licensing Act to expire, ending state censorship of the press and sparking a boom in printing, newspapers, and political pamphlets.

After Queen Mary II died of smallpox in 1694, William ruled alone until his death in 1702. Upon William’s death, the throne passed to Mary’s sister, Queen Anne.

One unanticipated consequence of the Glorious Revolution (1688) was a series of rebellions seeking to restore the exiled Stuart dynasty to the thrones of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The supporters of James became known as Jacobites. James, in Latin, is Jacobus — so his supporters became known as Jacobites. The rebellion began in 1689, when Viscount Dundee led the first Scottish rising at the Battle of Killiecrankie.

Additional rebellions occurred in 1708, 1715, and 1719, but all failed due to poor planning, a lack of foreign support (capital), and England’s swift counter-revolution. Between 1745 and 1746, another Jacobite rebellion, involving Scottish Highlanders, was soundly defeated at Culloden. The leader of this rebellion was none other than Charles, James II’s son. Highlanders who escaped death at Culloden were arrested, jailed, or executed; those who avoided capture migrated to North America—many settling in Rowan County, North Carolina. Charlie escaped dressed as a woman.

When Queen Anne died, the House of Hanover (in Germany) came to power, beginning with George I in 1714. It was a time when kings still chose their ministers, led foreign policy, and expected to govern actively, though with the support of Parliament’s majority party. In this way, the monarch remained the focus of personal loyalty, patriotism, and national pride. Parliament retained its power to tax and regulate.

After 1701, the two main parties in the United Kingdom were the Whigs and the Tories. The Whigs retained power for most of the early Hanoverian monarchs. The first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, serving from 1725 to 1742, was Robert Walpole—the man most responsible for setting the American Revolution in motion—though he had no idea he was doing so.

Historic Notation: Sir Robert Walpole, Britain’s first Prime Minister from 1721 to 1742, was the politician most responsible for initiating the unofficial policy of “benign neglect” (more commonly known as salutary neglect) in North America.

Walpole intentionally relaxed enforcement of strict parliamentary laws and mercantilist trade regulations—such as the Navigation Acts—believing that if the American colonies were left to prosper and trade freely, they would generate more wealth and, ultimately, buy more British-manufactured goods. This hands-off approach allowed the colonies to develop a strong tradition of economic independence and self-governance.

Historians also point to Thomas Pelham-Holles, the 1st Duke of Newcastle, who served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department (responsible for colonial affairs) during and after Walpole’s tenure. Newcastle prolonged this era of neglect through deliberate political accommodation, administrative inefficiency, and patronage appointments.

The term itself was later popularized in 1775 by British statesman Edmund Burke, who looked back and praised the period as a time of Wise and Salutary Neglect“.

Discussion

In British society, supreme power was held almost exclusively by wealthy landowners (the aristocracy) and the mercantile elite. Voting rights were limited to property owners and burgesses in select towns. Most English people were unrepresented because they could not vote in local or national elections.

Despite limited voting rights, the broader public remained politically active through local courts, public demonstrations, and deep ties to traditional institutions, such as the Royal Navy. Others, the poor and the religiously persecuted, voted with their feet. They migrated to North America and other British overseas territories—most as indentured servants, a form of bondage or enslavement. Between 1700 and 1850, 90% of those migrating to the British colonies and later to the United States were indentured for five to ten years.

Not everyone who migrated to the American colonies was rebellious, but about a third were—including those seeking religious freedom, those who suffered under serfdom in British society, and most Highland Scots.

The transition from British subject to American citizen was a fundamental shift in political status. It moved those who owed allegiance to a monarch (or other sovereign power) and, under that system, lived with limited rights and were regarded as the property of their king into a self-governing political community with protected and guaranteed civil and political liberties. Many historians agree that this shift occurred almost unnoticed over a long period. At some point between 1620 and 1775, British subjects realized they were capable of self-government, could be responsible citizens, and did not require the protection or permission of any king.

Parallel to conditions in British society, the lives of Russian people shifted dramatically—from a society of rigid imperial autocracy to a chaotic revolutionary upheaval, and then to a strict totalitarian Communist state—the Soviet Union.

Under the Czars of Russia, society was deeply divided and strictly controlled. It consisted of a small, wealthy elite of landowning nobles and a vast population of impoverished peasants. The Czars of Russia ruled with absolute authority. Political freedom and civil (humanitarian) rights did not exist in Russia. Although serfdom ended in 1861, peasants and a new class of factory workers still faced extreme poverty, brutal working conditions, and chronic food shortages.

Clever planning by Russian Marxists, most of whom lived in exile in Germany during the First World War, led to their return to Russia, where they exploited the nation’s devastating wartime losses, freezing winters, and widespread starvation to organize and incite urban workers and soldiers to riot and protest in 1917. Eventually, massive social upheavals forced Czar Nicholas II to abdicate, ending centuries of imperial rule. The Bolsheviks (radical labor unionists), led by Vladimir Lenin, seized power in October, triggering a brutal civil war that devastated Russia through 1923.

The Russian Revolution led to a one-party state that controlled all aspects of public life in Russia. The peasants remained so. After Lenin’s death, Joseph Stalin seized control and pushed rapid industrialization and collective farming. These efforts transformed the Russian economy, but at a massive human cost. To keep everyone in line, Stalin instituted programs of state terror, including secret police, labor camps, and political purges, which silenced dissent and tightly regimented the daily lives of ordinary people. Stalin even infiltrated the secret police into the Russian Orthodox Church to hear confessions and turn that information over to the central authority.

After 74 years of state terrorism (worse than anything under the Czars), the Soviet Union imploded in 1991. Nothing attempted under any Communist system has worked anywhere in the world: not in Russia, not in any other country that was part of the Soviet Union, not in China, Korea, Laos, Burma, Thailand, or Vietnam, and not in any country in South America, Africa, or the Middle East.

Around the same time as the Soviet Union’s implosion, the United States experienced several notable cultural shifts. These, along with a few significant economic crises, sparked a resurgence of interest in Marxism, socialism, and fascism among undereducated young people. This interest, largely on American university campuses, was aided and abetted by far-left professors and a network of communist activists.

Note: The number of people who died worldwide due to the actions, repressions, and economic policies of Communist regimes between 1917 and 1991 has been estimated at 80 to 100 million. The source of this estimate is The Black Book of Communism—a comprehensive academic study published in 1997 that incorporated declassified Soviet bloc archives to tally deaths at around 94 million worldwide.

Between 2005 and 2010, the United States experienced a housing crisis—often described as the most severe real estate collapse since the Great Depression. It began with corrupt government (Congressional) oversight of mortgage lending companies, expanded as lending institutions approved loans to people who could not ordinarily qualify for a home mortgage (mostly ethnic minorities who were too stupid to understand when they were being set up for failure), and accelerated through a wave of subprime mortgage defaults—each of which combined to trigger the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession.

The net effect of this crisis marked a major economic turning point—fueling activists with nutty ideas about the merits of Marxism, even though there is not a single legitimate argument supporting Communist ideology or its application. Despite this reality, the economic crisis was real. Federal bank bailouts (rewarding corporations “too big to fail” with taxpayer funds), widespread mortgage foreclosures, and sudden increases in unemployment called into question the sustainability of capitalism. The truth is that, despite its challenges, nothing has benefited our world as much as capitalism.

Another crisis was one created by Democrats for the express purpose of assaulting Americanism: COVID-19. Here was a “pandemic” so corrupted by government for insidious purposes that it is hard to fathom how President Biden’s administration got away with it.

Since the 1990s, the U.S. economy has shifted away from secure corporate or manufacturing careers toward more volatile employment models—many of which offer nontraditional “work from home” options. Contract, freelance, and gig work have also risen (Uber, DoorDash, and Lyft).

The American left complained about stagnant wages and rising costs at a time when Democratic activists also complained about — and successfully achieved — increases in the minimum wage to $15.00 or more per hour (in some locations), which caused a dramatic increase in consumer prices. Today, only middle class bankers can afford a BigMac.

At the same time, the internet and social media platforms facilitated the rapid spread of Marxist lies, theory, and anti-capitalist propaganda among the least informed segments of society. Left-wing political podcasts, YouTube channels, and TikTok (Chinese) creators translated dense 19th-century economic theory into accessible, modern commentary. These efforts normalized concepts that were heavily stigmatized during the Cold War.

Another stratagem by the political left was the acceleration of such junk-science threats about climate change—the effect of which has pushed despicable Marxist thought into the popular arena. Many climate activists argued that infinite economic growth—a fundamental requirement of capitalism—is inherently incompatible with a planet of finite resources … and while the planet may have finite resources, not in the lifetime of anyone we know today, or even over the next 100 generations. After that, seriously, who really cares?

In addition to the foregoing, leftist activists took the nauseating position that anti-Capitalism is a necessary component of saving the ecosystem. One wonders: is there any concept more arrogant than the idea that planet Earth needs the human species to survive in lethal space?

The consequences of young Americans demanding a Marxist economic system depend on whether their demand takes the form of gradual political pressure for structural reforms or a fundamental systemic overhaul. The full realization of a pure Marxist state—characterized by the total abolition of private property and state control of production—remains more than rubbish: it is a highly polarized notion inconsistent with what we know about historical events since 1917. If these young morons remain adamant in their ludicrous demands, America faces a measurable and highly illogical shift across the political, corporate, and economic landscapes.

Put plainly, rising demands from young Americans to adopt Marxist principles are farcical; they shift the political baseline toward greater government intervention in the market — which, anyone with an elementary understanding of world history knows, cannot work to the benefit of any state or its people. Economists note that modern youth favoring Marxism, or its baby sister, socialism, underscore not only a lack of understanding of the real world but also a dearth of wisdom. No intellectual foundation, whether basic knowledge or deeper understanding, can support a demand for universal health care, student debt forgiveness, or state-subsidized housing.

If we assume that these trends will continue—urged on by collegiate activists and Communist professors—then at some point the future will yield only this: America will return to servitude to the state (rather than the other way around). Whether the government hierarchy takes the form of a republic in disarray or a monarchy, oppression is tyranny. In this environment, the people cannot be free. Should this occur, Americans will either sign on to a return to servitude or become like Soviet serfs—flea-bitten crap bags. And at that moment, we (the people) will have transitioned from subjects of a king to citizens of a republic, and back again to some other form of absolutism.

Name your poison, America—may God have mercy on your souls.
The Destruction of America: A How-To Guide

October 29th, 2026

By Sam Huntington

Some people and societies criticize Western traditions because they find them unfamiliar—a fact that underscores the diversity of global cultural perspectives. India’s cultural traditions are shaped in part by Hinduism and Buddhism—religions that most Western societies find unfamiliar. Despite sharing a border and a long history of social, political, and economic interactions, China and Vietnam have distinct cultural traditions, as does Thailand, another country that also borders China.

China and its neighbors also remember their shared histories in markedly different ways. Many Vietnamese, for instance, remember centuries of Chinese efforts to bring Indochinese cultures under the Celestial Empire’s authority. The two nations fought many wars, yet Vietnam retained the core of its distinct Indochinese culture, even as some aspects—especially in northern Vietnam—reflect Chinese influence. This historical experience helps explain why a distinctly Vietnamese perspective may not resonate with a Chinese scholar, who might simply respond, “And what’s your point?”

Culture and social traditions are profoundly shaped by the interplay of geography, history, and language. The physical environment—whether mountains, deserts, islands, or river valleys—determines which resources are available and influences architecture, clothing, and food production. Texas offers a compelling example: when Anglo-Americans migrated there in search of economic opportunity, Mexican communities around San Antonio de Béxar already possessed essential knowledge for adapting to the region’s climate. They shared that knowledge with newly arrived Texians, helping them build suitable shelters, choose appropriate clothing and footwear, and adopt wide-brimmed hats, or sombreros, to protect against the searing Tejas sun. Similarly, semi-nomadic pastoralism took root in dry steppe regions, while maritime traditions flourished along coasts. These examples show that geography and history are not merely a backdrop to culture; they help shape the distinctive traditions that define cultures today.

Societies develop distinctive speech patterns, idioms, and concepts that reveal their shared worldview and emotional life. Consider the Japanese word tsundoku, the habit of acquiring books and letting them pile up for future reading, or the Danish and Norwegian word hygge, which evokes coziness, comfort, and conviviality. These terms resist direct translation, showing how language captures cultural nuances that other languages may not express as precisely. In this way, Japanese and Scandinavian languages reflect distinct cultural perspectives.

Moreover, wars, migrations, colonization, trade routes, and natural disasters do more than shape events; they leave lasting marks on a society’s collective memory, politics, and survival strategies. These dramatic shifts can fundamentally reshape how a society views outsiders and authority—and how it understands its resilience.

Belief systems are among the forces that most profoundly shape society, influencing moral codes, holidays, architecture, family structures, and rites of passage such as weddings and coming-of-age ceremonies. Spiritual practices give communities a shared sense of sacred meaning and order and help shape the legal systems that govern them.

Dance, visual arts, literature, and folk songs preserve the stories and values that shape a culture. Passing these traditions from one generation to the next strengthens cultural identity and safeguards our shared heritage. Social norms and core values also shape how organizations function, influencing priorities such as individualism or collectivism, hierarchy or equality, and attitudes toward time and nature.

That said, if Group A sought to dismantle Group B, it could begin by attacking Group B’s culture—one facet at a time. For example, undermining the credibility of Group B’s history would also weaken its sense of identity in the present. That is precisely what is happening in the United States today.

Some academics and government officials argue that multiculturalism strengthens America, but that claim deserves scrutiny. I don’t want to overcomplicate this, but consider the dynamics of a fish tank. Most owners stock their tanks with a variety of fascinating species: schooling fish such as Tetras, Zebra Danios, and White Cloud Minnows; peaceful guppies, Mollies, and Swordtails; and bottom-dwellers such as Catfish, Plecos, and Loaches. Angelfish and, of course, goldfish are popular choices, too. Though these fish share the same space, they generally avoid interfering with one another, creating a balanced “live-and-let-live” environment. As long as they are cared for and fed, aggression among the population is uncommon. Similarly, a well-ordered human society depends on those same principles: people can coexist peacefully when they respect one another and have their basic needs met.

But if we add two or three Oscars, Bass, Arowanas, or piranhas to our tank, they will kill the others. These fish are highly aggressive, voracious, and predatory.

The fish tank analogy raises an important question about American multiculturalism: How can people from different backgrounds live together and thrive? I’m not arguing against multiculturalism. Other cultures enrich our lives in many ways—for example, I especially enjoy Mexican food. But diversity alone does not guarantee mutual respect or a sense of community.

Humans often resist assimilating a new culture until circumstances leave them no choice. A strong multicultural society should welcome newcomers, expecting them to respect the principles that make peaceful coexistence possible—but it must also be willing to draw a clear line: groups that openly despise the people they seek to join should not be admitted.

But that is what is happening here in America—

Somewhere along the way, U.S. officials decided it was a good idea to invite people to America who despise Americans and their culture—and who are now doing everything they can to undermine the country that welcomed them. Ask yourself why, even if you find the answer uncomfortable. More troubling still, certain members of the mainstream cultures have joined with these “others” in working against the homeland. I’m not exaggerating when I say this reflects a grand conspiracy that began in the 1920s and has continued for more than a century. What, then, do you think the likely outcome will be?

Our latest example of the Islamist assault is a demand that Muslims answer only to Sharia law, rather than to the American judicial system. The U.S. legal system evolved from English common law; it draws heavily on court decisions, long-standing customs, and constitutional principles.

The Anglo-American judicial systems developed over many centuries, beginning with the Magna Carta of 1215, which established enduring protections against arbitrary government: due process, habeas corpus, and the principle that rulers are subject to the law. The system also rests on precedent, stare decisis (adhering to prior decisions), and the Constitution’s supremacy. If American officials allowed Islamists to impose their version of the law, our long-evolved legal principles and the system built around them could be swept aside and consigned to the dustbin of history.

Constitutional supremacy is a cornerstone of American democracy: the U.S. Constitution is the nation’s highest law, protecting the separation of powers and the fundamental rights of every individual. No religious legal system can supersede American law or impose a separate set of rules on any group. Muslims, like all people in the United States, are subject to the same laws and jurisprudence. People may observe religious practices freely, but they do not replace the Constitution or the laws enacted under it.

The paragraph above reflects what I wrote earlier: American culture is being dismantled, facet by facet, until we risk losing the distinct ethos that defines us. The question of whether Sharia law could supplant American jurisprudence has become a midterm election issue because many Americans recognize a fundamental tension: classical tenets of Sharia, they argue, conflict with the Constitution’s guarantee of equality before the law.

But this is only the latest example of efforts to undermine America. For more than a century, public schools have taught students a version of the nation’s history that, critics argue, casts the country in an unduly negative light and reflects a distinctly left-wing agenda. Consider the conflicts between European settlers and Native Americans: they were real, but they were not one-sided. Does it follow that newly arrived Europeans, upon learning that the American Indians did not want them here, should have simply returned to their European homes? Likewise, it is true that European diseases devastated Native American populations, but did any of these migrants knowingly set out to spread them? These distinctions matter when judging the past fairly. The question remains: why would American educators seek to destroy American history?

Destroying one cultural facet at a time—hoping that no one notices until it’s too late.

The United Kingdom offers a compelling case study on the effects of supplanting English law with its Islamist counterpart. In 2018, the British Home Office commissioned an independent review of the effects of Sharia councils. The review found that Islamic women seeking religious divorces could face intense pressure from all-male councils to reach agreements with their husbands—a particularly serious concern in cases involving domestic violence.

The review also found that most people turning to Sharia councils were women whose marriages had never been registered under civil law, leaving them without the statutory protections afforded to civilly married couples. Although these councils consist of panels of male scholars and their decisions have no legal force in the U.K., they can nevertheless exert considerable influence within Muslim communities.

British officials estimate that approximately 100,000 Islamic marriages have taken place outside the British legal system. If each marriage involved one woman, this would mean that around 50,000 women lack the legal protections afforded through registered marriage and English law. However, the original estimate of at least 50,000 may have been based on different assumptions. The number of unregistered marriages involving polygamy remains unknown or unannounced.

In September 2026, Rasmussen and Our Republic polls found a striking generational divide in views of Sharia law. Positive views were highest among younger respondents: 43% of those aged 18 to 24 and 39% of those aged 25 to 29 viewed it positively, compared with just 16% of respondents over 40. Across all respondents, 21% held a positive view and 57% a negative one. This divide deserves serious attention—not dismissal. The figures raise an uncomfortable question: Are Americans sufficiently informed about Sharia law? Whatever the answer, the growing generational gap merits a thoughtful, urgent response.

Americans must recognize the choices before us and what they mean for our country’s future. We have reached a defining moment: preserving and protecting the traditions and values passed down over the past 1,600 years will take resolve and commitment. To defend our history, we must first learn it. To defend our religious beliefs, we must understand and value them. To live as Americans, we must fully embrace what it means to be American. A bended knee to foreign ideology is not a revered tradition.
What Stands Out Most

October 28th, 2026

By Sam Huntington

Comedian Bill Engvall, who is also an ordained minister, is probably best known for his supposition that stupid people should wear signs that read, “I’m Stupid.” That way, people wouldn’t rely on them—and only another stupid person would ever ask them for anything. For example, in one routine, Engvall tells us about the fellow who returned home with a boat full of fish, and his neighbor asked, “Hey, did you catch all those fish?” The fisherman responded, “No, I talked most of them into giving up.”

Laughter aside, one has to wonder about our nation’s stupidity—which becomes apparent after watching no more than 15 minutes of any news broadcast; pick any one, and you’ll see what I mean. Occasionally, though, the stupidity isn’t readily apparent. As the editor of the Jerusalem News Syndicate noted, we now live in a time when fashionable opinion becomes unquestioned truth—no matter how stupid the proposition. According to Jonathan Tobin, an example of this is the claim that biological gender is fluid and changeable, while racial and ethnic identity is not.

First, I have to admit that anyone who thinks sexual migration is anything other than unnatural has to be pretty stupid. So were the antics of Rachel Dolezal, who convinced herself she was a Black woman. Rachel rose to prominence as the president of the NAACP chapter in Washington State, only for her parents to announce that, no, she’s about as white as it is possible to be. Whether or not she suffers from psychosis is beside the point; stupid is what stupid does.

Frankly, I keep wondering why sane people ignore the stupidity. As Bill Engvall suggests, we should hand out signs to morons—otherwise, if we keep ignoring it, the trend will continue. We should think of it as “stepping up to save America.”

Tobin wrote, “… the ideas that are the foundation of these complicated and sometimes illogical notions are a formula for a social architecture that prizes one thing above all: victim status.” He’s right. I can’t ever remember anyone bragging about being a descendant of African slaves until the topic of restitution came to the fore in our domestic conversation.

What these people crave is someone else’s money, and if they have to become victims to get it, so be it. We used to call it “playing the sympathy card,” but now it’s been exposed as “the race card.” The irritating thing, at least for me, is that the scam was entirely fraudulent—and that few in America had the balls to call it for what it is.

Dr. H. C. Felder (at the Center for Biblical Unity) recently wrote, “In 1977, a made-for-TV miniseries came out that would mold the perception of slavery for an entire generation. The miniseries, Roots, was based on the book Roots: The Saga of an American Family, written by Alex Haley. The story allegedly chronicled Haley’s family’s journey from Africa through the generations of slavery in the US. I never missed an episode of the eight-night event, and everyone was talking about it the next day.”

“More importantly,” Felder continued, “every black person identified with the show; they saw it as their story. In fact, the show evoked rage among many black people, and some beat up white people without provocation, all in the name of retribution for their ancestors. Roots was a lightning rod for hatred toward whites, a hatred that never really went away.”

Dr. Felder asked, “But was Roots a true story?” His answer: “Apparently not.” Writer Harold Courlander successfully sued Haley for jaw-dropping plagiarism, and in the process, Haley admitted his book was only a “symbolic history.” We might conclude from the foregoing that Alex Haley may have invented more than his ancestral history; he may have invented black-victimhood, as well.

Mr. Haley, who passed away in 1992, may also have set in motion the widely popular demand for reparations, which, as I noted a few days ago on Mr. C’s blog, “I’ll take Reparations when Hell Freezes Over for $100, Alex.” Honestly, I’ve had it up to here with victimhood.

Another example of stupidity in America was Jessica Krug, a tenured history professor at George Washington University. She pretended to be both black and Hispanic from “El Barrio” in New York City’s Bronx; in reality, she is a middle-class, white, Jewish woman who grew up in suburban Kansas City. She was even whiter than Mitt Romney.

My final example of stupidity comes to us in the form of Hannah Gann. Hannah is a high school teacher in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who, at various times, claimed to be Palestinian, Tunisian, and occasionally a po’ black lady. What is significant about Gann is that, despite being a Jew, she has also become one of her city’s leading anti-Semites. She supports Arabs over the Jewish people (no matter where they live). She’s a leading advocate for “Parents for Palestine” and openly supports terrorism, violence, and hatred toward Israel.

Is Gann a psycho? We can’t say anything about that because we have no way to prove the proposition. What we can say, however, is that Gann (and too many others) are con artists who’ve managed to convince other stupid people that they, too, are victims of (whatever). In Gann’s case, she’s not only from a wealthy Jewish family but also has relatives living in Israel.

We should wonder how these people get away with their nonsense. Unfortunately, the answer is that we have an awful lot of stupid people living in the United States. Beyond that, victimhood is race-based—it has a natural appeal to people of color because blaming whites for everything that goes wrong in their lives is highly profitable.

Currently, about 30% of the U.S. population receives some form of assistance from taxpayer-funded programs. That means that, with a population of 345 million people (2026), 103 million Americans are supported by people who have their own families to care for. Notably, within that 30%, some recipients are scamming the system more than others. For example, welfare programs have shifted from offering a helping hand to providing handouts. In the United States today, tens of billions of dollars are lost annually to fraud and mismanagement.

So, if we are wondering why we have so many victims in this country today, maybe it’s because we give away too much free stuff.

What stands out most? That “we the people,” who allow this nonsense to continue, should carry a sign that reads “STUPID.”
The Battle of New Orleans

October 27th, 2026
By Sam Huntington

I’ll begin with a highlight of Mr. Madison’s War. As I previously wrote, the war stemmed from poor leadership among America’s senior officials. One could argue that our country’s early decline began with Thomas Jefferson, an ideologue who, while serving as George Washington’s Secretary of State, covertly conspired with others to destroy the president’s reputation and administration. In modern parlance — a backstabber. Jefferson’s presidency, like his life, was “out there.”

The War of 1812 was poorly advised, easily avoidable, and badly fought, and it caused sustained misery throughout the land. Its negative effects lasted for many years, but it also had positive consequences.

Highlights
- Early naval victories included the USS Constitution’s single-ship duels against the Royal Navy.
- Failed invasions of Canada that resulted in the unnecessary loss of men and equipment, the surrender of Fort Detroit, and the demonstration that American militia lacked a warrior ethos.
- Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry secured a vital American naval victory on Lake Erie in 1813.
- In 1814, after British infantry defeated American forces defending Washington at Bladensburg, Maryland, the city of Washington was burned to the ground — save one structure in its entirety: the U.S. Marine Barracks at 8^th and I Streets, near the Navy Yard. At Bladensburg, when the entire American militia retreated from the British line, only one American unit remained at its post and fired its artillery until it ran out of ammunition: the U.S. Marines. Amazingly, President James Madison joined these Marines in battle, carrying shot and powder to the Marine gun placements until the Marine commander signaled that the fight was over. It was this performance that saved the Marine Barracks — as a sign of the British Army’s respect for the fighting spirit of the Marines.
- The defense of Baltimore at Fort McHenry — for which Francis Scott Key penned the words to the poem entitled “ The Star-Spangled Banner.
- The Battle of New Orleans (1815) — an overwhelming American victory that took place 30 days after the British and Americans signed the Treaty of Ghent to end the war.
When Mr. Madison asked Congress for a Declaration of War against Great Britain, the British Army and Navy were heavily engaged in the Napoleonic Wars. It was a desperate struggle to stop Napoleon Bonaparte, the self-styled French emperor. It was a costly war. The British could not afford, either financially or in men and equipment, to fight a two-front conflict. British war planners wisely decided to “bide their time” and address the American problem once the Napoleonic Wars had been resolved. In London, news of the declaration appeared on the back pages of the London Gazette.

Vice Admiral Sir Alexander Inglis Cochrane (GCB) (1758 – 1832) was a veteran of the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, and the War of 1812. In 1814, he assumed command of the Royal Navy’s Red Squadron on the North American Station (including naval bases in Jamaica and Bermuda).

As Great Britain’s senior naval officer, Cochrane commanded the forces that fought at Bladensburg, destroyed Washington City, and bombarded Fort McHenry. During that bombardment, Francis Scott Key was a prisoner aboard Cochrane’s ship — from which he wrote the Star-Spangled Banner.

Admiral Cochrane also commanded the British forces at the Battle of New Orleans. He planned to attack the City of New Orleans, believing it would force the Americans to lose interest in Canada.

After arriving at the mouth of the Mississippi River, south of New Orleans, Cochrane ordered his soldiers and Marines to build a road toward the city. The road no longer exists, but it was built through Chalmette. He also sent a flotilla into Lake Pontchartrain to draw out any defending Americans, whom he quickly defeated.

The commander of British land forces was Major General Edward Pakenham. Pakenham began his military career at 16; his father purchased a lieutenancy for him in the 92^nd Regiment. He later served as an officer in the dragoons (mounted riflemen). He served as a combat officer in Ireland, Nova Scotia, Barbados, Saint Croix, Saint Lucia, Copenhagen, and Martinique. During his career, he was wounded twice. He was a brother-in-law of the Duke of Wellington.

Pakenham served as adjutant-general under the Duke of Wellington during the Peninsular War. He commanded a regiment at the Battle of Bussaco in 1810 and, in 1811, led troops at the Battle of Fuentes de Oñoro in defense of Almeida, helping secure a British victory. In 1812, Pakenham was praised for his performance at Salamanca, where he commanded the Third Division and struck the flank of the extended French line.

In August 1814, Vice Admiral Cochrane convinced the British Admiralty that his plan to assault New Orleans would weaken American resolve to resist Canada and hasten the war’s end. The Royal Navy therefore began operational planning to capture New Orleans.

Pakenham, who had recently been promoted to major general, was sent to North America to replace Major General Robert Ross — the officer who destroyed Washington — after Ross was killed outside Baltimore.

In the winter of 1814, the British sought to control the entrance to the Mississippi River and to challenge the legality of the Louisiana Purchase. To this end, an expeditionary force of about 8,000 troops under Pakenham arrived on the Gulf Coast to seize the city and port of New Orleans.

While Cochrane and Pakenham marshaled their forces for combat, unknown to either officer, British and American diplomats had already agreed to a general ceasefire and signed the Treaty of Ghent (24 December 1814). However, the U.S. Senate had yet to ratify the treaty, so technically, the two countries remained at war. Andrew Jackson, commanding the American defensive forces, also did not learn of the treaty until after the battle.

On Christmas Day (1814), Major General Pakenham went ashore and assumed command of the battle area. His first order was to conduct a reconnaissance in force (RIF) against Major General Jackson’s earthworks. The RIF was tasked with testing the defensive line and assessing the strength of Jackson’s forces. If the RIF found a weak point in the line, Pakenham would direct a full assault against it.

The RIF found more than a weak point in the defensive line; they found a highly aggressive force of American riflemen who were not intimidated by the sudden appearance of redcoats en masse. When Pakenham witnessed his RIF collapse and retreat in panic, he inexplicably ordered a general withdrawal of his remaining line. In the firefight, Pakenham’s deputy, Major General Samuel Gibbs, was killed.

That night, Pakenham met with his subordinate commanders and staff, along with Admiral Cochrane and his staff — who were displeased with Pakenham’s performance in the field. Cochrane was also displeased with Pakenham’s plan for future operations. Pakenham wanted to send a brigade through the Chef Menteur Pass as his primary approach to the American defenses. Cochrane overruled him. The Chef Menteur Pass is a narrow tidal waterway connecting Lake Pontchartrain and Lake Borgne.

Admiral Cochrane likely focused on enemy troop numbers or estimates rather than closely examining the commander—Andrew Jackson. Some have argued that no one in North America hated the British more than Andrew Jackson.

Cochrane commanded 8,000 British infantry and perhaps as many as 3,000 British sailors. Jackson had about 4,500 men. Cochrane may not have understood why Pakenham was maneuvering rather than attacking Jackson to end it. Cochrane allegedly admonished Pakenham, saying that if he couldn’t defeat the Americans, he would send in his sailors to accomplish the task.

On New Year’s Day (1815), British artillery opened fire on the American line. The Americans recovered quickly and returned fire, shell for shell. The exchange continued for three hours. After another failed attempt to breach Jackson’s line, Pakenham decided to wait for reinforcements.

In the enemy camp, the Americans had constructed three lines of defense. The forward line was positioned four miles south of the city. It was strongly entrenched along the Rodriguez Canal, which ran from an eastern swamp to the Mississippi River. The trench was reinforced with felled timber, loop-holed breastworks, and artillery earthworks. Major General Jackson had mustered just under 4,700 men on the left bank (east side of the Mississippi River) and 546 men on the right bank (west side of the Mississippi River).

On January 5, 1815, British Major General John Lambert and two infantry battalions (totaling 1,700 men) disembarked to reinforce Pakenham. Once ashore, Pakenham’s force totaled nearly 8,000 men. Pakenham planned an attack on the 20-gun right (west) bank American artillery battery. Once captured, he would turn the American artillery on their left (east) bank defensive line during Pakenham’s general assault. He assigned this mission to Colonel William Thornton.

On the right (east) bank, Major General Samuel Gibbs would command the Second Brigade in an assault against Jackson’s left center. Lieutenant Colonel Robert Rennie, commanding light infantry companies from the 4^th and 21^st Regiments, would march in column along the riverbank as a feint. Historians regard this move as part of Major General Keane’s 1^st Brigade. Keane’s men would move either to exploit Rennie’s successes or Gibbs’s efforts in the center. Pakenham’s 3^rd Brigade, under Major General John Lambert, was held in reserve.

The advance of Keane and Gibbs from their disembarkation point was about 650 yards to the American line. Because these formations would be in sight and within range of the American artillery, it was vital to execute the plan so the troops would reach the ditch at first light. The signal for the start of battle was the launch of a signal rocket at 06:20. Soon after, British artillery would focus on Jackson’s headquarters at the McCarty House.

Note: Of the total number of Americans serving under Andrew Jackson, one-fourth (2,256 men) were mustered from the State of Kentucky. To these must be added the officers and men of the U.S. Seventh Regiment of Infantry, also recruited from Kentucky. Lieutenant Colonels Gabriel Slaughter, Presley Gray, and William Mitchusson organized and commanded the three Kentucky militia regiments. Gray, having resigned, was replaced by Lieutenant Colonel John Davis. Mitchusson, having resigned, was replaced by Lieutenant Colonel Samuel Parker. Major General John Thomas and Brigadier General John Adair commanded the forces.

Pakenham’s preparations for battle had not escaped the Americans’ notice. Anticipating the inevitable assault, Jackson unobtrusively reinforced the Louisiana militia with two hundred Kentucky riflemen under Lieutenant Colonel John Davis. They filtered into the line around 04:00 after a five-mile quick march through mud and ice-cold swamp water. Exhausted, they had not eaten since noon the previous day. Brigadier General Daniel Morgan, commanding the Louisiana and Kentucky militia, deployed the Kentucky riflemen at two locations roughly a mile apart.

Meanwhile, British engineers dug a canal to allow Thornton’s men to board 42 small boats and transport them to the American position on the left bank. The effort faltered early on 8 January when the canal banks collapsed and a dam failed. This left British seamen dragging loaded boats through mud alongside Thornton’s assault force. Overall, canal problems set the entire operation back by eight to twelve hours and reduced Thornton’s force by a third, to 560 men.

Under Thornton, Captain Roland Money of the Royal Navy commanded the naval detachment, and Brevet Major Thomas Adair commanded the Royal Marine detachment. Thornton, deciding he did not need to consult a naval officer, failed to account for the Mississippi River’s current, which carried him and his force 1,000 yards below his intended landing site.

Despite this critical delay, Pakenham foolishly ordered the assault to proceed at daybreak. In fairness, however, in 1815, the only way for a field commander to communicate with forward unit commanders was by courier. Pakenham had no way to reach Thornton, whose assault force operated on the opposite side of the Mississippi River (nearly 900 yards wide at Chalmette). Notwithstanding his difficulties, Colonel Thornton’s element was the only British success at the Battle of New Orleans. His force attacked and overwhelmed the American line, routing 700 militia.

At around 10:00, General Lambert was informed that Thornton had taken the right bank. However, Thornton was badly wounded and delegated command to Lieutenant Colonel Richard Gubbins. Additional casualties included two dead, one missing, and 41 wounded. Among the naval detachment, two were dead and 18 were wounded, including Captain Money. Royal Marine casualties were two dead, three officers, one sergeant, and 12 other ranks wounded.

After the successful British assault, led by Colonel William Thornton, on the American-held battery on the west side of the river, Colonel Alexander Dickson, Major General Lambert’s Chief of Artillery, was sent forward to assess whether the captured position could be held. Dickson estimated that at least 2,000 troops would be required to hold it. Because the main British army had just suffered a catastrophic defeat on the eastern bank, Lambert deemed the requirement too steep and ordered a complete withdrawal. When Gubbins withdrew, he took a few American prisoners and serviceable cannon with him.

The Americans were so dismayed by the loss of their west bank position, from which the artillery could have inflicted heavy damage on their lines if the British attack were renewed, that they prepared to withdraw. Nevertheless, as brilliant the move was to seize American artillery on the left bank, it had no effect on the outcome of the main battle — as we will now observe.

On January 8, 1815, General Pakenham assigned the advance guard position for the first-column attack to the 44^th Regiment of Foot. These troops would carry the fascines and ladders that would enable the British to cross the ditch and scale the American defenses. The officer commanding the 44^th Regiment was Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Mullins. He had been commended twice during the Chesapeake Campaign and had been recently promoted.

Still, Mullins was arrogant, careless in his attention to detail, and contemptuous of his superior officers. One of Pakenham’s last directives to Mullins was to determine the locations of the fascines and ladders on the evening of 7 January — to avoid delays in retrieving them the following morning. Later that day, General Gibbs also instructed Mullins to confirm the locations of those much-needed fascines and ladders.

Mullins delegated this task to a subordinate, Lieutenant Colonel Charles C. Johnston. Johnston promptly went to the headquarters section as instructed. While there, General Gibbs observed him and asked what he was doing. In response to the general’s question, Gibbs issued a formal order to Mullins stating that Mullins, as the Officer Commanding the 44^th Regiment, would ascertain the location of the fascines and ladders — and do so “this evening.”

A map of the stored equipment was provided to Johnston, who delivered it to Mullins, who casually tucked it into his waistcoat.

At 17:00 on 7 January, Mullins summoned his officers for a meeting to discuss the attack. One of his officers asked about the ladders’ location and received a caustic rebuke. At about 20:00, Mullins was diplomatically reminded that it was time to prepare for the next day — and that he was to follow General Gibbs’ directive. Mullins dismissively replied that there would be time the next morning.

Pakenham sent a written order to the engineer, directing Mullins to the location of the fascines and ladders (in the redoubt). Coincidentally, Mullins arrived in the presence of the engineer officer (and the artillery officer). After the order was read, he was asked if he had any questions. Mullins replied that the order was clear.

That night, an advance battery was set up forward of the advance redoubt, about 880 yards away, and 800 yards south of Line Jackson. Mullins, thinking this was the location of the materiel, passed the advance redoubt and halted the regiment at the battery. Upon discovering his mistake, he sent two-thirds of his 427 men back to the redoubt at the double-quick to pick up the fascines and ladders. But it was too late. Because the other regiments were already advancing behind the 44th, Mullins’s working party lost formation as they struggled to reach the redoubt. As day dawned, the attack commenced before the much-needed materials could be brought forward.

The attack took place under the worst possible conditions. It began in darkness and heavy fog, which lifted just as the British approached the American line — exposing them to withering artillery fire. The attack formation had already been disordered by the passage of Mullins’ working party, and, being mightily confused by the “fog of war,” they marched into a firestorm of American fire.

Without fascines and ladders, the assault force could not scale and storm the American position. The British forces fell into confusion, thrown into disorder by the advance guard’s retreat to the rear. Most of the senior officers were killed or wounded, including Major General Samuel Gibbs, who was killed leading the main attack column on the right, and Colonel Rennie, who led a detachment on the left by the river. Mullins’s incompetence had compromised the British plan of attack. Mullins was later court-martialed, convicted, and dismissed from the British Army.

Pakenham ordered General Keane to move his 93^rd Regiment in a right oblique — concerned that they would be caught in Thornton’s redirected artillery fire. While moving across the field, Keane was wounded. Colonel Rennie attacked and overran an American advance redoubt by the river, but he could neither hold the position nor storm the main line of resistance without reinforcements. Within a few minutes, the 7th US Infantry arrived, advanced, and fired on the British in the captured redoubt. Within thirty minutes, Rennie and nearly all of his men were dead.

In the main attack on the right, British infantrymen either threw themselves to the ground, huddled in the canal, or were mowed down by a combination of American musket fire and grapeshot. A handful reached the top of the right parapet, but they were killed or captured. The riflemen of the 95th Regiment of Foot had advanced in open skirmish order ahead of the main assault force and were concealed in the ditch below the parapet, unable to advance further without additional support.

Although the two main assaults were repulsed and Pakenham and Gibbs were mortally wounded, Major Wilkinson of the 21st Regiment reformed his lines and launched a third assault. The 21st reached the entrenchments and attempted to scale them. Wilkinson made it to the top before being shot. Impressed by his courage, the Americans carried him to safety behind the rampart; he survived the Battle. His soldiers, having no orders to advance or retreat, stood in the open and were shot to pieces by American artillery.

The light infantry companies under Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Jones attacked the right flank but were repulsed by Coffee’s troops. After the attack failed, British troops withdrew to take cover in the woods. Colonel Jones was mortally wounded.

General Lambert, serving in reserve, assumed command of Pakenham’s army. He ordered his force to advance, directed the withdrawal of the remnants of his army, and covered the retreat of the remaining men. Although the attack lasted two hours, the main assault lasted only thirty minutes.
Paradoxical American History

October 26th, 2026

By Sam Huntington

Anyone who says that American history is filled with confusing twists and turns has uttered a jaw-dropping understatement. Did you know, for example, that the modern Democratic Party still uses the playbook established by Jefferson/Madison/Jackson around 1787 (and carried through the Nullification Crisis of 1832), which became the basis for the Cloward-Piven Strategy (1966) and Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals (1971)?

I’d call it amazing — but not so much for the party’s strategies as for the fact that American conservatives still haven’t figured it out.

I recommend a well-written blog essay titled Shadows of Yesterday in which the writer reveals details of the mostly forgotten Hartford Convention of 1814. I’ve linked the article should you have a few minutes to read it. It is a fascinating story and well worth your time.

Before the Constitutional Convention (1787), the newly created United States of America was united in name only. The government was a confederation of states, each of which did what it wanted, without needing any permission or approval from the central government. Plainly stated, the central authority had no authority. You probably remember this discussion from your American history classes — if you were lucky enough to have any American history classes.

As the founders recognized that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate — and that only they could fix the problem(s) — they began urging a second convention to “retool” the Articles. That was the purpose of the Convention of 1787. But after the Convention was convened, they realized that fixing the Confederation was a bridge too far. Instead, they decided to discard the Articles and replace them with a Constitution.

This decision set in motion the now-famous Federalist Papers. In total, the Federalist Papers involved 85 essays designed to persuade Americans to support the new United States Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote most of these essays.

Still, others resisted the Federalists. They, too, wrote essays, letters, and speeches — all in opposition to the United States Constitution. This effort continued through the early 1790s. In total, fifty writers wrote the anti-Federalist Papers, including (we think) Melancton Smith, Robert Yates, Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Mercy Otis, and Richard Henry Lee. None of these men wanted a powerful central government for fear it would crush state sovereignty and lead to tyranny. It is almost laughable to think this same group today favors exactly that. Nevertheless, we must credit these concerns because they led the framers to adopt the Bill of Rights.

These political differences led to the formation of the two original political parties: the Federalist Party (Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Jay) and the so-called Democratic-Republicans, the party of Jefferson, Madison, Henry, Monroe, Aaron Burr, Henry Clay, and George Clinton. The Federalist Party was Alexander Hamilton’s brainchild (even though he professed to detest political factions); Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the primary leaders of the D-R faction.

The Federalist Party collapsed quickly after the War of 1812 (also known as Mr. Madison’s War). It collapsed quickly because the D-R faction had successfully conspired to publicly discredit the Federalists. As a result, the D-R faction controlled national politics through the 1830s.

Not everyone was happy with Mr. Madison’s war — certainly no one on the conservative side of the aisle, most of whom agreed with George Washington’s caution about avoiding foreign entanglements. Jefferson (and his followers) were known as Francophiles; Washington imagined that if the United States favored one nation over another, it would eventually lead to conflicts with both and would, most certainly, compromise American sovereignty.

In the case of the War of 1812, many Americans (primarily conservatives) viewed it as unnecessary, politically motivated, and as threatening the economy and stability of the United States. History shows that they were right; Mr. Madison’s war did exactly that.

When the Madison administration demanded that Massachusetts provide armed troops (at the state’s expense) to secure Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire against a possible British invasion, Governor Caleb Strong flatly refused. Moreover, without consulting any of his supporters, Strong sent an emissary to the British Commander in Nova Scotia to request a secret “separate” treaty with the State of Massachusetts. He even offered to financially support the British.

In effect, Strong believed that the Jeffersonians sought only to leverage their political faction to achieve political dominance at the expense of national security. Moreover, Madison and his ilk preferred the tyrant Napoleon Bonaparte to Britain’s King George III. These sentiments led Strong to conclude that it would be in his state’s best interests to secede from the United States. Strong knew that such a suggestion, to become feasible, would require the support of others. In fact, many others.

To determine whether such a move was even possible or wise, Governor Strong organized a convention of delegates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island to consider whether those states should, en masse, form a northern confederation — in opposition to Madison and his cronies. Of course, the Hartford Convention was held in secret. Ultimately, nothing came of it. Shadows of Yesterday explains what happened in detail.

To summarize, the D-R faction somewhat loudly accused these men of treasonous behavior — which, of course, was technically true. The D-R faction cared less about that than about publicizing their view of what happened to their advantage and to destroy the Federalists. This, too, happened.

Unhappily for Governor Strong, his timing could not have been worse. Before anyone could table and discuss specific recommendations at Hartford, Andrew Jackson had slaughtered the British in New Orleans, the Treaty of Ghent had been agreed to and signed, and the only effect of the Hartford Convention was that its participants ended up with egg on their faces.

Still, the Hartford Convention was more than a partisan disagreement about Madison’s War. The Federalists saw the declaration of war as both stupid and wasteful. It caused them to argue for additional amendments to the Constitution. There were seven in all — none of which were ever adopted. These included proposals to limit the presidency to a single term, abolish the Three-Fifths Compromise, and require a two-thirds majority of Congress to declare war and admit new states.

One may recall that Thomas Jefferson was among the first to argue that states had a right to nullify unconstitutional federal laws and secede from the Union. See also The Kentucky Resolutions. He argued that the Constitution was a compact among several states, and that the federal government was merely an agent with limited (enumerated) powers. Therefore, each state had a right to judge for itself whether the federal government had overstepped its bounds. This, then, was a proper basis for nullification, or in the worst possible case, secession.

If one remembers their American history, they will recall that when Southern States attempted to make the very same argument as the Hartford Convention, President Jackson (who became the leader of the modern Democratic Party) threatened them with an armed invasion and a series of treason trials to permanently resolve the matter. As a footnote, most of us today would probably agree that armed invasion seems a bit radical — but armed invasion is precisely what Abraham Lincoln did (and got away with) a little over three decades later. Today, folks in northern states call it the Civil War — in the South, many still refer to it as the War of Yankee Aggression.

In any case, modern Democrats, using the playbook established by the Democrat-Republican faction, which later became the Party of Jackson, have (with some modification) used these same strategies against modern Republicans. Cloward-Piven and Alinsky are two notable examples. The antics of Bernie Sanders and the Social Democrats of America are not very far behind.

Republicans in Congress should wise up.
Red or Blue?

October 25th, 2026

By Sam Huntinton

The debate over $4.00-per-gallon gas is real—and justified. But it should be the starting point, not the finish line. To understand the broader pressures on American taxpayers, we also need to examine spending on student debt relief, food and medical assistance for undocumented immigrants, and foreign infrastructure.

Consider the figures: The Biden-Harris administration canceled about $188.8 billion in federal student loans for 5.3 million borrowers through targeted administrative programs. The Supreme Court blocked President Biden’s initial sweeping plan for broad debt cancellation, but Biden found a way around the ruling. Borrowers later received relief through changes and expansions to existing federal programs. For example, Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) delivered $78.5 billion in relief to roughly 1.1 million public-service workers—including teachers, nurses, and firefighters—after the government corrected historical tracking errors and applied waivers.

Income-driven repayment adjustments (IDRA) also cleared more than $51 billion in debt for nearly 1 million lower-income borrowers who had been repaying their loans for at least 20 years.

These figures deserve scrutiny alongside gas prices. For Americans feeling squeezed at the pump, the question is whether current priorities reflect their needs—and whether those priorities should carry political consequences. Voters can decide at the ballot box.

A serious debate depends on understanding the scale of the numbers. Dollars and billions of dollars are not interchangeable, and public spending deserves careful analysis and discussion. The focus should remain on leftist policies, their costs, and their effects on hard-working Americans. One should be mindful of this fact: Democrats hate America and everyone who loves America.

Choose wisely.
False Flag Liars

October 24th, 2026

By Sam Huntington

When citizens are summoned before a congressional committee, Congress is investigating something—x, y, or z—and seeking the truth. The investigation may be, and likely is, politically motivated. But make no mistake: citizens had better tell Congress the truth, as they know it. Lying to Congress is a serious felony.

There is no fixed, standard, or average punishment for lying to Congress. Prosecutions for this conduct are rare, and potential penalties depend on the specific offense charged, the defendant’s criminal history and degree of cooperation, and applicable federal sentencing guidelines. Depending on the circumstances, lying to Congress may lead to charges such as perjury or making false statements, each with its own statutory penalties.

Statutory Maximum Penalties

Perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), carries a statutory maximum sentence of up to 5 years in federal prison, fines, or both. Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), that is, false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to federal investigators or congressional committees, also carries a maximum of up to 5 years in prison (or 8 years if the offense involves specific matters like international terrorism), and obstruction of Congress (18 U.S.C. § 1505) carries a maximum penalty of up to 5 years in prison.

In practice, Congress does not directly prosecute lying or perjury; instead, committees or chambers must refer cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for federal investigation and potential prosecution.

Many high-profile cases involve false statements or perjury to congressional committees end in plea agreements or concurrent sentencing. Actual prison time varies widely—from probation and home confinement to a few months or several years behind bars, depending on the severity and context of the obstruction.

In my view, appearing before Congress without an attorney is a serious mistake. Congressional committees can put witnesses under intense pressure, making legal counsel essential. Rather than risk making a false or damaging statement, a well-informed witness should consider invoking the Fifth Amendment when appropriate. It may be the only way to protect themselves from self-incrimination. Even when the evidence presented in court is substantial, witnesses have no reason to make statements that could condemn them. Yet many Americans incriminate themselves by speaking with investigators and volunteering too much information. If those statements are damaging, they may ultimately provide the case against the witness. This would be very foolish.

Journalist Katherine Mosack of OAN reports that two former FBI officials have surrendered in response to arrest warrants. They face charges of making false statements to Congress about their roles in the investigation into Hunter Biden’s laptop. I am shocked that any FBI agent would lie.

Yesterday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced charges against former Deputy Assistant Director Nikki Cole Floris, 46, of Alexandria, Virginia, and former Section Chief Bradley Benavides, 56, of Aiken, South Carolina. Both officials served on the FBI Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), which has since been dissolved.

The FITF led the bureau’s efforts to secure the 2020 election from foreign influence. Prior to the 2020 presidential election, the task force led several probes into the then-former vice president’s son. In 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary interviewed both officials about FITF’s role in the Hunter Biden investigations. The DOJ clarified that each defendant was warned that lying to Congress is a crime—although as FBI agents, they would have already known that. Both defendants testified at the time that the task force was not involved in the Biden investigations.

However, the Justice Department argues that evidence shows Ms. Floris discussed the FBI’s investigation into the scrutinized laptop for more than a year within the task force and with others in the FBI, despite her testimony that she was never involved in discussions on the matter while serving on the task force. This raises the question: “What did you know, and when did you know it?” Mr. Benavides did the same in the lead-up to the 2020 election, despite his assertion that he learned of the laptop from Wikipedia in 2023.

DOJ officials, citing an affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint against the two former FBI officials, said that documentary evidence, communications recorded at the time, and witness accounts conflict with the officials’ testimony to Congress.

On October 14, 2020, after the New York Post published a story about the laptop, Floris and Benavides both helped the FBI respond to press inquiries. Each received an email from the FBI Cyber Division with the subject “Ny post… morning answer?” and another from the Office of Congressional Affairs titled “SSCI Request – Hunter Biden Laptop.”

In response to the charges, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said, “Lying to Congress strikes at the heart of our democracy. When senior FBI agents believe they are above the law and deceive Congress, they betray the public’s trust and weaken the institutions sworn to protect our nation. No one is above the law. Today’s action sends a clear message: those who obstruct the truth will be held accountable.”

FBI Director Kash Patel stated on Friday, “This morning two former FBI members of the now dissolved Foreign Influence Task Force, Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, were taken into custody – charged with lying to Congress in 2023 on matters regarding investigations related to the 2020 election. One of these individuals is on record privately claiming to be ‘running a shadow government’ during the 2020 election. As we’ve said repeatedly: weaponization will never be tolerated at this FBI.”

Whether they are found guilty will depend on how effectively they defend themselves in federal court. They will spend a great deal of money on that defense, exposing a fundamental unfairness in our justice system—just ask former Lieutenant General Michael Flynn. Still, they likely understood that falsifying testimony before Congress could put them at serious legal risk.

I’ll now ask a question: Many on the left claim these prosecutions are vindictive. Are they? Or is it about setting things right after a deeply corrupt Biden administration?
A Sleaze in Old Dominion

October 23rd, 2026

By Sam Huntington

Sleaze: noun

1: sleazy quality, appearance, or behavior

Also, sleazy material

2: a sleazy person

Synonyms of sleaze: pervert, slime, creep, sleazeball

“Sleaze.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sleaze. Accessed 22 Oct. 2026.

A Google search suggests that the word sleaze first appeared in the 1640s as an adjective used by Kenelm Digby to mean “downy” or “fuzzy,” as on an insect’s legs. The word was later applied to thin, flimsy, or insubstantial fabrics. However, the Oxford English Dictionary finds no factual basis for Google’s account.

In 1941, the word’s meaning shifted from physically shifty to morally or socially squalid, sordid, or disreputable. In this sense, it first appeared in John Faulkner’s 1941 novel Men Working.

In 1967, the word became a noun to describe the seedy atmosphere of places like London’s Soho. In the next decade, the definition was broadened to describe a period marked by low moral standards, promiscuity, corruption, and scandal.

This brings us to Virginia State Senator Lillie Louise [Boone] Lucas (born 1944), who represents the state’s 18th District, which includes Portsmouth and Chesapeake in the Hampton Roads region. She also serves as president pro tempore of the Virginia Senate. Federal agents arrested Lucas on October 22, 2026, under a warrant following her indictment, along with six others, on charges of operating an illegal cannabis enterprise and money laundering.

Lucas has two daughters who partner with her across several business entities. She also had a son who died in a car accident. Her former husband, Otis M. Lucas, worked for several Lucas enterprises until his death in 2014. Preferring to be known as L. Louise, Lucas has five grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

She was educated in the Portsmouth, Virginia, public school system and earned two degrees from Norfolk State University. She served on the Portsmouth City Council and served as vice-mayor from 2010 to 2020. A longtime civic activist, Lucas began her formal political career in 1984 as the first Black woman to serve on the Portsmouth City Council. She was first elected to the Virginia General Assembly in 1991.

As a state senator, she has participated in several committees, including Education and Health, Courts of Justice, Finance, and Local Government and Rules. Lucas was the Democratic candidate to replace U.S. Congressman Norman Sisisky in the 2001 special election following Sisisky’s death in office. She lost the election to Republican Randy Forbes.

In 2008, two companies controlled by Lucas applied for Empowerment Zone bonds to build a conference center in Portsmouth. When the City Council refused to issue the bonds, Lucas filed a $97.7 million lawsuit against the City of Portsmouth, naming the council members who voted against the bonds and the City Attorney. Her lawsuit alleged racial discrimination. The City Council later reconsidered the petition and denied it again. Lucas then dropped her lawsuit.

Lucas is an active member of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus and serves as vice-chair of the Virginia Democratic Party’s Outreach Committee. She was also the past president of the NAACP — which, in all honesty, comes as no surprise.

On August 17, 2020, Portsmouth’s police chief, Angela Greene, charged Lucas with two felonies stemming from an incident during protests at Portsmouth’s Confederate monument on June 10. In early July, Lucas filed a civil defamation suit against Virginia Beach lawyer Tim Anderson, basing it on his social media posts and interviews about the incident. On November 16, 2020, Richmond judge Claire Cardwell (sitting by appointment of the Virginia Supreme Court because local Portsmouth judges recused themselves) accepted the city’s elected Commonwealth’s Attorney, Stephanie Morales’s, motion to dismiss the criminal charges for insufficient evidence, including evidence of intent.

Later that same day, the City of Portsmouth fired Police Chief Greene. Virginia governor Ralph Northam and the American Civil Liberties Union, among others, had condemned the earlier charges as excessive and discriminatory.

On July 21, Chesapeake Circuit Court Chief Judge John W. Brown dismissed a motion supported by a petition signed by 4,600 voters and circulated by the Virginia Tea Party. The petition sought to invoke a law allowing 10% of voters to request the removal of state officials, including Senator Lucas. Judge Brown ruled that, under Virginia’s Constitution, only the state Senate could expel one of its members.

After mediation on December 23, 2021, Portsmouth agreed to pay Lucas $300,000 in exchange for her dismissing a civil lawsuit. The suit initially sought $6.75 million in damages for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and gross negligence. The case is a reminder that allegations involving race can have significant consequences.

In 2023, Lucas won the Democratic primary to retain her seat, despite a redistricting campaign that placed her in the same district as another veteran state senator, Lionell Spruill. In the Senate election that year, Lucas won re-election against Republican challenger Tony Goodwin.

During the 2024 legislative session, Lucas blocked approval of taxpayer funding for a new sports arena in Alexandria, Virginia’s Potomac Yard area, an initiative proposed by Ted Leonsis and Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin. Lucas criticized the arena proposal, whose costs were estimated at $2 billion by supporters and $5 billion by critics, for requiring the state to stand behind $1.5 billion in bonds regardless of the arena’s financial success or failure.

Lucas also led Virginia politicians to adopt a gerrymandered Congressional map that would give Democrats 10 out of 11 seats in response to the GOP’s efforts to realign districting in other states. In a statement aimed at Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) for criticizing Virginia’s 10-1 map as a “brazen abuse of power,” Lucas said, “You all started it and we fucking finished it.” The Virginia Supreme Court later struck down the Lucas redistricting map. Also, not very nice language from a grandmother.

On May 6, 2026, the FBI executed search warrants of Lucas’s office and a nearby cannabis dispensary as part of a corruption investigation. Lucas was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia (with six others) and taken into custody by federal agents.

Today, we might wonder what the bookies are saying about the odds of 82-year-old Lucas once more using the race card.
In Search of Truth about El-Sayed

October 22nd, 2026

By Sam Huntington

Religious tests require individuals to hold particular religious beliefs or belong to a specific church or denomination to hold public office or exercise certain civic rights. They have roots in British law. In England, the Test Acts required officeholders to swear allegiance to the Crown and receive communion in the established Church of England. These laws were intended to exclude Roman Catholics, Protestant nonconformists, and non-Christians from government service.

Between 1776 and 1784, nine of the original fourteen U.S. states required religious tests or declarations of faith for officeholders to ensure moral virtue. For example, Maryland in 1776 required a declaration of belief in Christianity. That same year, Delaware required belief in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments. New Jersey and North Carolina limited government positions to Protestants. Pennsylvania required belief in one God and the divine inspiration of the Scriptures (later amended in 1790 to remove the restriction on Jews, though belief in God remained).

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Charles Pinckney (SC) proposed a prohibition on religious tests. Convention delegates unanimously adopted the rule stating that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”. During the Federalist debates, anti-Federalists like Roger Sherman warned that the clause could allow non-Christians or infidels to run the government, while proponents argued that tests were useless for guaranteeing true virtue and violated natural liberty.

Following this example, individual states gradually moved away from religious tests throughout the late 18^th and 19^th centuries. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state-level religious oaths for public office violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments — effectively invalidating all remaining religious tests.

Recently, as reported in the media, senatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed, when asked whether he would disavow his affinity for the Muslim Brotherhood, compared himself to former President John F. Kennedy, noting that the 35^th president had been questioned about his allegiance to his faith as the United States’ first Catholic president.

Apparently, Senate hopeful El-Sayed is conflating religious affiliation with membership in fraternal organizations and mixing the state’s legal requirements with standards set by public opinion. This 1959 debate echoed concerns raised by some Protestant groups, including the Assemblies of God, that electing a Catholic president could give the pope in Rome undue influence over the United States. As if that were, in any way, likely.

The court of public opinion is a metaphor for how the public, media, and social networks evaluate people, corporations, or legal cases outside a formal courtroom. It is not a real court of law; it has no official judges, juries, formal rules of evidence, or legal authority to issue binding opinions.

Unlike a legal trial, public judgment does not require sworn testimony, cross-examination, or adherence to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Instead, news coverage, social media, viral posts, and public relations campaigns shape perceptions based on unverified or unprovable claims. Although the “verdict” of public opinion is informal, it can cause substantial reputational damage, job loss, or negative consequences in political campaigns.

American society is contentious. People who vehemently disagree on issues often turn to public opinion to gain support for their views. Public courts are also used in corporate and high-profile legal disputes to advance public issues or to defend or protect brands. Public relations strategists often use public statements, leaks, or social media to counter negative news before any formal resolution.

All of the foregoing brings us to consider 42-year-old Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, an American epidemiologist and political hopeful running for the 2026 U.S. Senate election in Michigan. Born in the U.S., El-Sayed was raised in southeast Michigan.

A socialist Democrat, El-Sayed supports universal Medicare, ending U.S. funding for Israel, and abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He now faces Republican nominee Mike Rogers in the general election. If elected, El-Sayed would be the first Muslim member of the U.S. Senate.

El-Sayed began his transition from medical bureaucrat to politician in 2017, when the Detroit News reported that he planned to run for Michigan governor. Subsequently, El-Sayed received endorsements from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (see also Bernie Sanders’s International Conspiracy) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In the primary, El-Sayed garnered only 30% of the vote, losing to Gretchen Whitmer.

In 2018, El-Sayed established a political action committee to help elect anti-American (Marxist) candidates and support socialist ballot initiatives in Michigan. In 2020, he served on the Joe Biden–Bernie Sanders Unity Task Force on healthcare.

In April 2026, left-wing political commentator Hasan Piker appeared alongside El-Sayed at two campus rallies and a primary-night party in Detroit. Centrist Democrats and El-Sayed’s political opponents criticized Piker’s participation because of his past pro-Jihadi comments about the September 11 attacks, the terrorist organization Hamas, and the State of Israel. El-Sayed defended his appearances with Piker as an effort to engage his audience, stating that he does not agree with everything Piker says.

In September 2026, Kamala Harris endorsed and campaigned with El-Sayed; the following month, Barack Obama endorsed and campaigned with the Islamist candidate.

After claims that El-Sayed’s campaign is being funded by terrorist groups and their enablers, which El-Sayed did not deny, El-Sayed attended a town hall meeting where he was challenged about his participation in or membership in the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Society of the Muslim Brothers (also known as the Muslim Brotherhood) is a transnational Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928. The movement’s stated aim is to establish a state ruled by Sharia under a caliphate, and one of its most well-known slogans is “Islam is the solution.” The group disguises its political activism as Islamic charity work.

Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S.-based Nation of Islam began campaigning for expanded rights and entitlements for the ever-growing prison populations of African Americans who professed the Muslim faith. These efforts were later supported by mainstream Sunni-Islamist movements fostered by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia within the United States. Demands included the right to practice Islam, eat halal, and pray in congregation. In this environment, Islam grew rapidly behind bars. By the 2000s, incarcerated Muslims made up a notable percentage of state and federal prison populations.

Today, state departments of corrections and the Federal Bureau of Prisons rely on external Islamic religious organizations to endorse Islamic chaplains and paid Muslim contractors. Congressional critics, such as Senator Chuck Grassley, along with notable national security analysts, warn state and federal officials that groups like the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) are connected to terrorist financing operations as part of the Muslim Brotherhood network. The allegations are bolstered by high-profile incidents, including those involving New York state prison chaplain Warith Deen Umar, who was eventually dismissed after making public statements praising the September 11 hijackers and describing prisons as fertile ground for radicalization.

After El-Sayed was asked to disavow his association with the Muslim Brotherhood, he tried to sidestep the issue by comparing himself to John F. Kennedy, who was challenged in the court of public opinion about his Catholic faith. The confrontation escalated from there. Today, the Muslim Brotherhood is designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by several countries, including Egypt, where it was founded in 1928.

Taqiyya (an Arabic word meaning prudence or caution) is an Islamic concept that permits concealing one’s true religious beliefs, identity, or practices when facing a credible and severe threat of injury, death, or persecution. Its root is waqa (shielding oneself). Taqiyya is most commonly associated with Shia Islam, as practiced in Iran, which supports the Hamas Terrorist organization. Critics of terrorism broadly interpret it as a general doctrine of strategic deception toward non-Muslims.

With that in mind, Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed, whose religious teaching permits him to protect himself from persecution, as in political persecution, still has not renounced the Muslim Brotherhood.

What should we infer from this?