Is Republican Populism a Person or a Movement?

by Thaddeus G. McCotter for American Greatness 

Over the Independence Day holiday, a friend asked me if Republican Populism is a person or a movement. I mulled the question, and here is my cursory response to this curious citizen:

Throughout the Trump candidacy, presidency, and to the present, the Left has endeavored to conflate their opponents with a person. True, historically, both American political parties have issued full-throated Philippics against the leaders of the other side. For example, Barry Goldwater was an extremist who would start a nuclear war. Michael Dukakis was a soft on crime egghead who was going to furlough murderers into your neighborhood.

But there was a limit to these political calumnies. While reviling the opposition’s leaders, the opposition’s voters were largely off-limits. Simply, each side wanted to leave open the possibility of capturing swaths of the other side’s voters, who may be disgruntled with the direction of their party’s current crop of leaders. In recent memory, the most obvious example was the GOP’s courting of “Reagan Democrats,” blue-collar, heavily unionized workers in urban and interior suburban areas dismayed by the Democrats’ economic “stagflation” and its leaders’ cultural drift hard left.

Yet, as is its wont, the Left has taken it upon itself to change the political rules and “norms;” thus, not only is Donald Trump a racist, fascist, homophobic, domestic terrorist wannabe, etc., so are his supporters – i.e., the GOP. Sure, Mr. Biden and his handlers have tried to soft-peddle their indictment of GOP populism to only Mr. Trump and his MAGA supporters. This is manifestly disingenuous. Not even the cynical use of “Never Trump” grifters can mask the fact the Democrats’ weaponization of the federal government’s police and surveillance powers and their patently unconstitutional collusion with Big Tech and corporate America to censor free speech is targeted at not only MAGA and the GOP, but at any dissenters to the Left’s radical agenda.

Knowing the Left’s libelous narrative, it is imperative for Republican populists not to take their bait by equally conflating a person for our party. As we head into 2024, Republicans, individually and collectively, must determine who will be the party’s standard bearer for the presidency. The decision will entail gauging who is the best person to articulate our principles and policies, persuade a majority of Americans of their benefits, and, further, have not only the political and administrative capacity to implement these principles through public policies, but also to represent the nation as the head of state.

And while parties are often considered a reflection of their standard bearer, the opposite is also true. There must be a reciprocity between the nominee and the party faithful. Having chosen the nominee, they must stand with the nominee when the going gets ugly and not cut and run. But, on their part, the nominee has a responsibility to refrain from making things uglier and impulsively becoming an impediment to the democratic acceptance by the electorate of their principles and policies.

In the end, then, while nominees and the party faithful are mortal and ephemeral, principles and verities are essential and eternal.  As a past GOP standard bearer once noted: “Important principles may, and must, be inflexible.”

President Lincoln was correct. Thus, as Republican populists contemplate the future of the country and their party, the primary consideration (pun intended) is one of principles and their implementation; the distant secondary consideration is one of personalities. If the GOP populism is a movement, every candidate seeking the nomination must prove their dedication to the populist principles and their ability to champion them during a campaign, and, hopefully, throughout an administration. More importantly, the principles that will guide this administration will be proven throughout it in the minds of the American people and lay the foundation for future policy and political successes of Republican populism.

If the considerations are reversed, however, and the primary consideration becomes one of personalities rather than principles – in sum, being concerned more about a person than the movement – Republican populist principles will last only as long as the nominee’s political viability and ultimately will be tied in the electorate’s mind with a man rather than a movement. Republican populist principles will be tainted by the real or imagined political foibles of the nominee, especially if their political viability ends disastrously and the movement’s bloody carcass will be preyed upon by its enemies on the Left and in the GOP establishment. Should this prove the case in 2024, the Left will win and their regressive march toward autocratic collectivization will proceed unimpeded, as the Republican populist movement will be crushed beneath the weight of a defeated nominee.

Consider the instance of President Lincoln’s first (and surprising) GOP presidential nomination over the presumed front-runner, New York Senator William Seward. Should Lincoln have lost the 1860 election, the cause of abolition would not have ended with this candidacy. The principles that slavery was not a “peculiar institution” but an evil one, and the call for emancipation were part of the relatively new Republican Party’s DNA and they would have continued to be championed by the party until successfully implemented and a race was freed from bondage.

While Republican populism was extant prior to 2016, GOP’s establishment continues to reject many of its core principles and view the movement as an intra-party insurgency to be crushed. Fortunately, in 2024, both who the nominee will be and the fate of the Republican populist movement rests in the hands not of the GOP establishment but in its grassroots’ hands. There is no better place for it. Whoever they choose, one should trust their decision will be made not upon personalities, but upon Republican populist movement’s principles and their perpetuation. Our free republic requires no less from GOP primary voters.

The cynics will chortle at such optimism. But no less than Lincoln believed otherwise: “Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better, or equal, hope in this world?”

I trust my friend who asked the original question about Republican populism would agree. I also hope my friend would agree to stop asking me questions that require long responses – especially as another beautiful and brief Michigan summer slips by….

Christian Patriot News, and more- July 9

 

South Carolina is Ground Zero for the MAGA Movement

by Keith Blandford for American Greatness 

President Donald Trump launched the MAGA movement back in 2015 when he announced his first successful presidential campaign for the White House. The message resonated with millions of us: Make America Great Again, put American interests first, and return to the principles that made this country great to begin with – the principles outlined in our Constitution. Under President Trump’s leadership, hope was restored. America was energy independent. Our borders were secure. Our sons and daughters were not sent to fight in any new wars. And up until the pandemic, our economy was booming. 

Then the dubious election of 2020 hit us like a ton of bricks. Americans in almost every state in the union sacrificed their time, money, and even relationships in a desperate attempt to understand what happened and how we could fix it. We tried everything. We canvassed. We studied election law. We studied the election process. We studied how election machines operated. We placed observers to watch over the 2022 election. We ran for office. We did it all. And through this process, we realized we weren’t just fighting Democrats and Marxists, we were fighting a “machine” and to our disappointment, that “machine” included members of our own Republican Party. 

President Trump often says, “They’re not after me. They’re after you; I’m just in the way.” And those words became painfully true during the 2022 midterms. The deep state, and bad actors on both sides of the aisle, didn’t just have Trump in their crosshairs, they took aim at any candidate who dared call themselves “America First” and who vocally supported Donald Trump. I know because I was one of them. It wasn’t about Trump, the man – it was about the MAGA movement and what it represents. 

I ran for office in South Carolina in 2022 to do my part to save this country. Maybe it’s my military background, or maybe just common sense, but I immediately recognized the tactics being used to defeat me were similar to the ones used against Donald Trump during his entire first term in office. It became clear, the “country club” RINOs in South Carolina were not going to let MAGA candidates threaten their power structure. Even going so far as to sabotage candidates in their own party. 

Many primary candidates, like myself, were not even allowed to enter certain “establishment” counties to speak, although it is in the bylaws that we are allowed to speak. Beaufort County is one of them. In other establishment counties, I would drive four hours to only be given two minutes to speak. 

The establishment wing of our party was going to great lengths to stop MAGA in its tracks. 

And that is why South Carolina patriots worked to weed out the RINO enemy from within and slowly take back our party one small victory at a time.  

As we embarked on our mission, it became clear no one was coming to save us. Not the RNC, not even Donald Trump himself. We were focused like a laser on reclaiming the GOP at the state and local level. 

Our first target was the precinct elections. America First candidates crushed the RINO establishment by taking over 70 percent of the seats statewide. 

After precinct elections, we organized and prepared for the county GOP elections in April. MAGA candidates won approximately 50 percent of the county GOP elections. As an example, in Lexington County, MAGA candidates won all five seats. And out of 51 delegates that Lexington County sent to the state convention, all 51 were MAGA candidates. Meanwhile, South Carolina’s establishment-backed Attorney General Alan Wilson and federal House Representative Joe Wilson couldn’t even muster enough votes to be delegates at the convention. 

We then took those precinct and county level victories to the state GOP convention on May 20. Our America First delegates worked to vote RINO Drew McKissick out of his position as chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party. While we came up short, America First delegates were a mere 16 votes away from kicking McKissick out. 

The takeaway? The precinct strategy worked in South Carolina. Grassroots patriots created the blueprint of what a MAGA takeover looks like at the local level. From soccer moms to mechanics, “We the People” put in the work. We studied parliamentary rules to ensure RINOs had no dirty tricks up their sleeves. We held weekly zoom meetings, did role playing, and discussed strategies to win, and it paid off. For decades, RINOS have had a stronghold on our state, but we are dismantling their machine piece by piece. 

The RINO establishment is wounded, and we are never going back to the status quo. The days of “country club Republicans” like Lindsay Graham are over. South Carolina is ground zero for our America First future. And we believe our state can and will be a model for the rest of the country.

Donald Trump - Our Horatius at the Bridge?

posted by Ward Clark at RedStateVIP 

Is Donald Trump a latter-day Horatius?

Horatius Cocles was a great hero of the early Roman Republic, known for his stand against the Etruscans at the Pons Sublicius in the early 6^th century BC. His acts are well documented, as he is described in Plutarch’s “Life of Publicola” and in the 1842 poem by Thomas Babington Macaulay, Horatius, among other places.

Horatius took a stand with two other Roman soldiers in the Pons Sublicius (the Sublician Bridge), a bridge into the walled city of Rome, against Etruscan invaders led by Lars Porsena. The Etruscans eventually took the city, but Rome was not sacked – that time. Horatius emerged as a symbol of Roman courage, as the man who planted himself in front of an invading horde and said, “You shall not enter.” In the poem Horatius, Macaulay described it thus:

Then out spoke brave Horatius, the Captain of the Gate:

“To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late;

And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,

For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his Gods,

“And for the tender mother who dandled him to rest,

And for the wife who nurses his baby at her breast,

And for the holy maidens who feed the eternal flame,

To save them from false Sextus, that wrought the deed of shame?

“Hew down the bridge, Sir Consul, with all the speed ye may!

I, with two more to help me, will hold the foe in play.

In yon strait path, a thousand may well be stopped by three:

Now, who will stand on either hand and keep the bridge with me?’

Then out spake Spurius Lartius; a Ramnian proud was he:

“Lo, I will stand at thy right hand and keep the bridge with thee.”

And out spake strong Herminius; of Titian blood was he:

“I will abide on thy left side, and keep the bridge with thee.”

“Horatius,” quoth the Consul, “as thou sayest, so let it be.”

And straight against that great array forth went the dauntless Three.

For Romans in Rome’s quarrel spared neither land nor gold,

Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, in the brave days of old.

Then none was for a party; then all were for the state;

Then the great man helped the poor, and the poor man loved the great.

Then lands were fairly portioned; then spoils were fairly sold:

The Romans were like brothers in the brave days of old.

After reading the account of Horatius again, I wonder if some of the electorate view Donald Trump as our Horatius. Bear with me; I’ll explain all that.

Horatius’ fame resulted from his action described in Macaulay’s poem and by Plutarch; he planted himself at a bridge and, with only two comrades, faced down an invading army until the bridge could be removed and the gate closed. He did so without question, an act of courage, patriotism, and duty so profound that it has survived through the ages.

When Donald Trump descended the golden stair (escalator, but you’ll forgive me the Classical allusion) and announced his candidacy for the Presidency of these United States, many thought it was a stunt. I thought it was a stunt, to be honest. It wasn’t until some months into the primary campaign that I began to think, as the late, great Charles Krauthammer put it at the time, that “…it’s beginning to look as though he might pull this off.” He did; the rest is history, as the saying goes.

Even so, a lot of people jumped on board the Trump train right at the outset, and lots of those folks are still riding that train today. Is it because they see Donald Trump as the latter-day Horatius?

It may very well be. There are several parallels.

Horatius took a stand, with only two faithful followers, against an invading army. Donald Trump’s campaign now portrays him as the only man who could take on the army of the Deep State, and that he is taking a stand to do so.

Horatius was unafraid, taking his stand out of a sense of duty to Rome. Trump’s message was that the Deep State scares him not a whit, that he is losing wealth by running for President, but that he does it out of a sense of duty to America.

Horatius took his stand with two others, also loyal soldiers of Rome, who shared his commitment. Trump sells himself similarly, that he is a “team builder” who would put together a crew to put our national affairs in order.

There are, of course, some key differences.

We know nothing of Horatius’ personality save the heroic stand that history remembers. But his deeds depended on fortitude and courage, not personality, and Horatius was not standing for elected office; Trump is, and his abrasiveness and quicksilver temper don’t help him.

Horatius faced a foe that admired and respected his courage, which is one of the reasons the Etruscans didn’t sack Rome. Trump enjoys no such luxury. His foes will take him apart by any means necessary, legal or illegal.

There are probably a lot more holes in the comparison than I’m mentioning here. An actual scholar of ancient Rome would probably pick the idea apart. But I do think that this is a big part of Trump’s appeal. It’s a potent symbol: The strong, stoic man, standing at the head of a small band of heroes, with weapons drawn, saying, “No more. It ends now. This far and no farther. Now we will drive you back.”

Mind you, I’m not saying Donald Trump is that man. He may prove to be, but it remains to be seen. But I think, consciously or unconsciously, that this is the image he is trying to portray, and it may well work for him if he can resolve some of his other issues. And it may be a cautionary note that Horatius’ brave stand being what it was, Rome still fell to the Etruscans.

Here’s another important cautionary note. About five hundred years after Horatius, another Roman leader emerged, and this one saw the end of the Republic. That’s a parallel that voters should be watchful for. Caesar was a populist, legally elected Dictator first for ten years, then for life, largely on a slate of jobs and benefits for the common people of Rome. But in the end, his actions led to the fall of the Republic and the rise of the totalitarian Empire.

It’s tempting to say it can’t happen here. But a lot of Romans about 49 BC probably thought the same.

Think Twice Before Drinking From The Tap: Federal Study Finds ‘Forever Chemicals’ May Be Poisoning Your Water

A sip from the tap might not kill you today, but it might over 30 years.

Tristan Justice reporting for The Federalist

A new federal study out Wednesday found nearly half of all U.S. tap water is contaminated with PFAS, commonly known as “forever chemicals.” PFAS are a group of synthetic compounds that break down slowly and are commonly used on everyday products such as cookware and food packaging.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has connected PFAS exposure to a range of severe health problems from developmental delays in children and fertility issues to obesity and cancer. PFAS exposure has also been linked to abnormal cholesterol levels, hormone suppression, and liver damage. Last summer, the EPA issued a health advisory about the lingering chemicals, raising the alarm that exposure was more dangerous than previously known. The agency updated guidelines from 2016 to reset determined risk exposure to two of the most widely studied chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, from 70 parts per trillion to nearly zero.

The new data published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on Wednesday revealed 45 percent of the nation’s tap water contained at least one or more types of “forever chemicals.” Researchers measured for just 32 different kinds of PFAS out of more than 12,000 that exist. Samples were taken from 716 locations between 2016 and 2021.

“USGS scientists tested water collected directly from people’s kitchen sinks across the nation, providing the most comprehensive study to date on PFAS in tap water from both private wells and public supplies,” USGS research hydrologist Kelly Smalling, the study’s lead author, said in a press release. “PFAS concentrations were similar between public supplies and private wells.”

The map from the USGS below outlines PFAS concentrations in tap water locations found throughout the United States. 

The widespread contamination of tap water raises significant concerns for public health in a nation where life expectancy is suffering its first significant decline in more than 100 years. Americans who live through the next century are projected to suffer an epidemic of chronic illness, with 6 in 10 Americans already living with at least one chronic disease.

Dr. Keith Nichols, a certified member of the American Academy of Endocrinology and CEO of Tier 1 Health and Wellness in East Tennessee, blames the nation’s incumbent health crises on low testosterone levels driven down by endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

“[We’re seeing] increased morbidity across the board with low testosterone,” Nichols told The Federalist in February.

Levels of testosterone, a central hormone for metabolic function, have dropped by double digits since the 1980s, and have continued to drop with each generation. 

“All this decline has correlated with the increase in environmental chemicals,” Nichols told The Federalist. “We are being chemically castrated by our environment.”

Anthony Jay, the president of the International Medical Research Collaborative, published a book in 2017 warning about the proliferation of estrogenic substances contaminating everyday life. In his book, “Estrogeneration: How Estrogenics Are Making You Fat, Sick, and Infertile,” Jay dedicated an entire section to substances found in presumably “clean” drinking water.

“City water ‘treatment plants,'” Jay found, “are not effectively removing estrogenics.” And if city water treatment plants are failing to filter out pollutants such as phthalates and atrazine, they’re certainly prone to miss far more, as demonstrated by the USGS this week with the discovery of PFAS in nearly half the nation’s water supplies.

“These chemicals should not have been legal to begin with,” Jay told The Federalist of the PFAS detection survey. “Our municipal water suppliers are good at killing viruses and bacteria but they are not good at filtering out hormone-disrupting chemicals. People absolutely need to filter their own drinking water, these days, ideally with a filter containing activated charcoal.”

The Dutch Government Has Fallen – Prime Minister Mark Rutte Future Uncertain, New Elections Likely

Sundance reporting at Conservative Treehouse 

The Netherlanders are a rather dramatic sort, organizing their system of governance on coalitions of various shades that agree to high-minded pleasantries as a way to remain above the fray of pesky conflict.  Alas, once a moment of core and consequential disagreement reaches an impasse, the entire Dutch government is said to “collapse.”

The Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte traveled to Tunisa earlier this year, together with EU leaders, pledging €1 billion in assistance if the North African gatekeepers could just stop the flow.  The effort didn’t work, and his small country of 18 million, already dealing with major internal conflict driven by farmers and climate change, could not cope with the toxic political challenge of increased unlawful migration.

Associated Press – The ruling Dutch coalition collapsed Friday after tense talks among the four parties in Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s ruling bloc failed to broker a deal over ways to rein in migration, a senior politician said. 

Henk Kamp, a senior member of Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy told Dutch television: “It is a great shame that the government has now fallen.” The failure of months of talks on the thorny issue could now force a general election. 

Rutte’s Cabinet gathered late Friday in a hastily scheduled meeting. “We talked for a long time, we are coming here tonight because we did not succeed,” Defense Minister Kajsa Ollongren told reporters as she walked into the Cabinet meeting.

Meanwhile, opposition lawmakers wasted no time in calling for fresh elections. 

Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-immigration Party for Freedom, tweeted, “Quick elections now.” Jesse Klaver, leader of the Green Left party also called for elections and told Dutch broadcaster NOS: “This country needs a change of direction.”

Rutte, the Netherlands’ longest serving premier, presided over late-night meetings Wednesday and Thursday that failed to result in a deal. More talks were held Friday evening, and he declined to answer questions about the issue at his weekly press conference before the discussions.

[…] There will likely be an election for the 150-seat lower house of the Dutch parliament later this year amid a polarized and splintered political landscape. Rutte’s Cabinet would likely remain in office as a caretaker administration until a new government was formed.

During provincial elections earlier this year, a populist pro-farmer party put Rutte’s party into second place. The defeat was seen as a possible incentive for Rutte to do his utmost to hold together his coalition until its term ends in 2025. (read more)

When Seconds Count: How Heroic Gun Owners' Quick Actions Saved Lives in 2 Blue Cities

Jeff Charles reporting for RedState 

Chicago has seen a rise in defensive gun uses, as crime persists and firearm ownership rises there. This story is the latest in which a lawful gun owner used his weapon to defend his life, as well as others. As more people realize that the government can’t protect them, these numbers will likely increase nationwide.

Here’s how it went down:

Chicago Police said three men, ages 26, 33 and 31, were standing near a vehicle on West Devon Avenue at about 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday when they were approached by the suspect, CBS reported.

The suspect, who the three men said they did not know, flashed his handgun and demanded they fork over personal items.

The victims complied with the suspect’s demands until one of the victims pulled out his licensed concealed carry and fired shots at the suspect, CBS reported.

The unidentified suspect was transported to a local hospital with gunshot wounds to the torso, as well as a gunshot graze to the head.

This incident adds to a series of cases in Chicago where legally armed citizens have successfully thwarted crimes. There have been at least 44 instances between 2020 and February 2023 where concealed carry or licensed gun owners stopped attacks or crimes. Recently, a Chicago mom and concealed carry holder filed a lawsuit against the city and police officers, after she and her son were initially arrested and charged with murder for shooting a man who had attacked her.

The Windy City is not the only one that has seen a significant rise in defensive gun uses. The same has been happening in Philadelphia.

This story serves as a powerful example of why responsible gun ownership is crucial. In this particular incident, the concealed carry holder was able to defend himself and the two other men from an armed robbery suspect. Law enforcement, who are often the first responders in such situations, would not have been present at that exact moment to protect the victims – even if one of them had the opportunity to call 911.

This highlights the importance of individual responsibility for personal safety and the ability to take immediate action when faced with a threat. The bottom line is that we are our own first line of defense against evil people who wish to victimize us.

Unfortunately, incidents like this occur every day to individuals who do not carry firearms for self-defense. Without a means to protect themselves, these victims are left vulnerable and dependent on the arrival of law enforcement, which is not exactly timely.

The outcomes of such encounters can often be tragic, with innocent individuals becoming victims of assault, robbery, or worse. Contrary to what the anti-gunner lobby will tell you, responsible gun ownership empowers individuals to take control of their own safety, offering a potential deterrent to criminals and the means to defend themselves when faced with immediate danger.

While it is essential to recognize that responsible gun ownership comes with the responsibility of proper training and maintenance, stories like these underscore the potential benefits of armed citizens. By being prepared to protect themselves and others, responsible gun owners can make a significant difference in life-threatening situations where law enforcement may not be readily available.

Press Slobber Over Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, but Inadvertently Expose She's Terrible at Her Job

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

Another Supreme Court term has wrapped up, and it wasn’t short on controversial landmark decisions.

As RedState reported, affirmative action in college admissions was struck down while Joe Biden’s illegal student loan forgiveness scheme also went up in smoke. Further, in a less sexy but equally important case, the court ruled against the EPA’s ability to arbitrarily define and regulate bodies of water.

If you are a fan of preserving personal freedom and equality under the law, the results were worthy of celebration. Unfortunately, many people, including some of the justices on the Supreme Court, have no care for such things. On that front, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made her mark, and not in a good way.

In what is being heralded as a triumph of diversity, Jackson used more words in oral arguments than any other justice over the last year. That’s being spun as evidence of her immense qualification and ability.

There’s something to be said about humility and realizing you don’t have all the answers, but that’s a completely foreign concept to Jackson. She attempted to bully her way through her first term, to the point that she ended up writing three solo dissents. But while members of the press are heralding that as a show of strength, it’s really an inadvertent admission that she’s just a terrible justice.

The fact that it took Chief Justice John Roberts over a decade-and-a-half before he wrote his first solo dissent should be a hint that writing three of them in a single term is not something to brag about. Solo dissents, by their very nature, should be incredibly rare and reserved for only the most extenuating of circumstances. Any justice making common use of them, much less writing three of them in a single first term, is advertising that their arguments are terrible and constitutionally illiterate, to the point that they weren’t able to garner a single other justice’s support.

That’s not to say there aren’t some exceptional situations where a solo dissent is justified, but it is to say that if a justice is writing three of them in their first term, the problem isn’t with the other justices. So, while the press proclaimed that Jackson “came to play,” all she really demonstrated is how inept and partisan she is.

And to be sure, this isn’t all hypothetical criticism. In her first term, Jackson managed to make several embarrassing mistakes. Here’s the most recent example.

To put it succinctly, Jackson’s first term on the Supreme Court was amateur hour, and her talking a lot is not an accomplishment. On the contrary, it shows a profound weakness in her ability to dissect matters in an unbiased and concise way. If a justice is wasting so many words in oral arguments, that’s usually because those words are being used to push a political preference and lead participants in a particular direction.

That’s not what the Supreme Court is supposed to be, but when it comes to the liberal justices, there is no eye toward the actual job at hand. Rather, they serve as just another arm of the Democratic Party. There is no provision of the Constitution sacrosanct enough to not be violated, if it contradicts the current thing.

Megyn Kelly Dismantles Disney and Explains Why We Are Winning Against 'Woke'

Nick Arama reporting for RedState 

We’ve seen Americans letting companies like Target and Bud Light know what they think of them for their respective “woke” moves that ignore what their customers are thinking. Americans are finding their voice and letting the companies have it. Ben and Jerry’s parent company, Unilever may be finding that out now as well, as they took a big hit—losing about $2 billion in market cap—after they attacked America on the Fourth of July, claiming that it was living on stolen lands.”

Now, Megyn Kelly is laying out evidence that shows that we’re winning against the woke when it comes to Disney, too. She explained during her Thursday podcast this week, with guest, TPUSA’s Charlie Kirk, that Disney has lost almost $1 billion because of “wokeness” that has hurt it in flops such as “Lightyear,” “The Little Mermaid,” and “Elemental.” She said “Elemental” –with a non-binary character — had one of their worst openings ever.

Kelly devoted a segment of Thursday’s SiriusXM podcast “The Megyn Kelly Show” to a YouTube report that claimed the Mouse House lost $900 million on its last eight feature films, several of which include prominent “woke” characters.

“The people are not buying this content,” Kelly said during her podcast on Thursday.

“They don’t want this content.”

It also limits where the movies can be distributed in the world. “Lightyear” wasn’t able to be shown in 14 Middle Eastern and Asian countries, which has an impact on its global box office performance.

They’re also planning to make more bad moves, like eliminating the dwarves from their new live-action film of Snow White, due out next year, to “avoid reinforcing stereotypes.”

According to analyst/YouTuber Valiant Renegade:

The once envied entertainment company is now struggling to find a profit on almost every single film released. Disney’s bloated budgets for these projects are vastly higher than the competition on average, particularly considering the fact that every single film Disney releases comes with blockbuster production price tags.

It means that Disney is having to prop itself up with its more profitable properties like the theme parks and resorts.

On top of that, Kelly pointed out that Disney, along with companies like Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery, have seen their heads of diversity leave their jobs, although one is expected to be replaced. She tagged that as more evidence of “wokeness” failing, saying:

Bit by bit all these media companies and big tech companies are eliminating their heads of diversity, because it’s just a wasted position where somebody just glorifies their wokeness.

Both Kelly and Kirk noted Disney had come a long way from what they used to be—the wholesome kids’ movies that we used to remember that elevated people.

Kirk made the great point that the movie that’s come to the top this week is “Sound of Freedom” because it’s not in the woke mold, and deals with fighting child sex trafficking. Americans are talking with their feet and showing what they prefer, and it isn’t woke Disney.

Disney has lost touch with its audience. These numbers should be a further wake-up call for Disney and other studios. It remains to be seen if they will take the hint. But Americans are no longer staying silent about letting companies know what they want.