Democrats’ Army of Assassins

American Thinker 

Once again, a wannabe assassin has attempted to murder President Trump.  This marks at least the fifth time that a person or group has tried to take Trump’s life since he became the Republican nominee for president in 2016.  

During this time period, a Democrat from Illinois tried to assassinate an entire baseball team of Republican lawmakers and nearly succeeded in killing House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.  Antifa domestic terrorists — a paramilitary organization supporting the Democrat Party — have destroyed businesses and attacked numerous American citizens for their political beliefs.  A “trans”-supporting leftist assassinated the great Charlie Kirk last September 10, and numerous other “trans”-supporting leftists have murdered children in a spate of school shootings.  Just this year, Democrats organized multiple violent confrontations against federal agents attempting to arrest criminal illegal aliens — including known pedophiles, rapists, and murderers.  

Democrats call for their followers to “rise up,” “take to the streets,” and “get in the faces” of Republicans.  Democrat governors and lawmakers call President Trump and his voters “Nazis,” “fascists,” “white supremacists,” and “racists.”  

Democrat Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi recently described Trump as “the worst thing on the face of the Earth.”  

The Democrat governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, recently traveled to Europe to denounce Trump as a “fascist,” encouraged violence against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (whom the governor defames as “Trump’s Gestapo”), called for a “war” against the federal government, and admitted to an audience that he wakes up each morning in giddy anticipation of finding out that Trump has died.  

Democrat Congresswoman Dina Titus recently told an audience that Republicans better “hide” because, “We’re coming for J.D. Vance!  We’re coming for the MAGA folks!  Donald Trump, we’re coming for you!  We’re coming for ya.  And what a day it’s gonna be!”  

Democrat Senator Ron Wyden often calls President Trump and top members of his administration “Nazis” and “white supremacists” who provide “cover for pedophiles.”  

Democrat musician Bruce Springsteen has spent the last month recklessly calling federal ICE agents “Nazis” and insulting Trump and his administration as “corrupt,” “racist,” and “treasonous.” 

Democrat propagandist-posing-as-network-comedian Jimmy Kimmel not only recently called members of the Trump administration “racists,” “white supremacists,” and “baby Hitlers,” but also “joked” about First Lady Melania Trump soon becoming a widow.  He told this “joke” two days before the recent attempt on Trump’s life and only eight months after mocking the assassination of Charlie Kirk.  

It is no surprise, then, that the president’s latest wannabe assassin justified committing mass murder by repeating the same lies that Democrat politicians and pundits regularly tell their followers.  In a letter stating his intention to murder Trump and members of his administration, the would-be killer described the president as “a pedophile, rapist, and traitor” and accused “the many criminals in this administration” of blowing up school-kids, starving children, and abusing teenaged girls.

Just as in 2017, when Democrats pretended not to know why one of their supporters would try to murder a baseball field full of Republican lawmakers, Democrats now pretend to have no idea why so many of their voters would try to kill the president of the United States.

Even though Democrat politicians, news personalities, and “comedians” encourage violence against President Trump and his supporters every day, as soon as violence occurs, those same Democrats blame Trump and Republicans.  Immediately after the latest attempt on the lives of the president and members of his administration, Democrat Congressman Eugene Vindman excused Democrats’ calls for violence against MAGA “Nazis” and instead blamed rhetoric coming from the White House.  

Democrat leader of the House, Hakeem Jeffries, insists that the assassination attempts on President Trump are justified because “far right extremists in Congress” provided “aid and comfort” to the J6 protesters who correctly called out the mail-in-ballot fraud that tainted the 2020 election.  For four years, Democrats hunted, harassed, and jailed those unarmed protesters, yet still use that single day of protest in D.C. to justify Democrat violence against Republicans across the country.  

When a Democrat voter hears Democrat leaders calling the president of the United States a “Nazi,” “rapist,” “pedophile,” and “Russian spy,” how else is that Democrat voter expected to act?  When Democrat members of Congress, Democrat governors, and Democrats hosting late-night “news” and “comedy” shows all describe President Trump as, to use Nancy Pelosi’s words, “the worst thing on the face of the Earth,” what do they expect will happen?  You don’t call someone a “Nazi” for ten years, unless you want that person assassinated.  You don’t frame someone as a “Russian agent,” unless you intend to conduct a coup d’état.  To pretend otherwise is just another Democrat lie.

Speaking of liars, disgraced ex-president Barack Obama is trying to claim that the latest wannabe Trump assassin’s “motives” are unknown.  Serial liar Obama says this despite the fact that the would-be killer wrote a manifesto echoing Democrat Party lies and expressing an intent to murder President Trump and all those around him.  Obama excels at what all Democrat politicians practice as part of their dark arts: He lies; his lies encourage violence; and when violence occurs, he lies about his own culpability for the violence.

As a principal architect of the Russia Collusion Hoax, coup-plotter Obama has his own motive for shamelessly pretending that we “may never know” why someone would attempt to murder President Trump: The former president has done as much as anybody in the world to instigate violent attacks against President Trump.  

During his own presidency, Obama helped to initiate the Democrats’ war on cops.  He regularly demonized law enforcement professionals as “racists,” and his meritless attacks on police led to an epidemic of targeted cop assassinations across the country.  When President Trump defeated Obama’s heir apparent, Hillary Clinton, both Democrats conspired with former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director Jim Comey, and a web of Democrats inside and outside the Intelligence Community to frame Trump as a Russian agent.  That same Democrat cabal worked with Democrat-aligned groups — such as the Southern Poverty Law Center — to frame Trump and his MAGA voters as “white supremacists” and “Nazis.”  By leading the efforts to falsely paint President Trump as a “traitor” and “racist,” Obama has repeatedly put a target on Trump’s back.  He clearly does not care whether Trump is impeached and removed from office, criminally convicted and imprisoned, or assassinated.  Obama just wants him gone for good.  There are numerous Democrats whose actions have directly led to the multiple attempts upon President Trump’s life.  No Democrat is more culpable than Obama.

Let us not pretend.  Had the latest would-be assassin succeeded in murdering President Trump, his family, and members of his administration, a significant percentage of Democrat voters would today be celebrating.  Democrat governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, has admitted as much.  Democrats all over social media whine every time one of these wannabe murderers fails to succeed!  Teachers — including this Cincinnati woman in charge of kindergartners! — express disappointment that President Trump isn’t dead.  That should surprise no-one since the man accused of attempting to assassinate President Trump is a teacher, himself!

Ever in “spin mode,” Democrats will continue to pretend that they are not responsible for all these threats to the lives of Trump, his administration, his voters, and law enforcement officers around the country.  Right after the latest attempt on the president’s life, Democrats in the press collectively blamed “guns.”  Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin joined Democrat mouthpiece Margaret Brennan to call for a “national conversation” on “gun violence.”  

In other words, Democrats call Trump and his voters “Nazis” and “racists.”  Democrat voters take those words seriously and attempt to kill Trump and his voters.  Then Democrats blame that violence on “guns” and demand that Trump supporters be disarmed.  Democrats’ ridiculous cycle of lies and violence would be laughable if it were not also so deadly.

Podcast thread for May 1st

 

Sometimes, spending the day with good movies you've never seen before can really lift your spirits.

Three Cheers for the Collapsing ‘Rules Based’ Global Order

American Thinker 

On February 28, 2026, the world awoke to something many had long insisted could never happen. But it had. Epic Fury and Lion’s Roar were shots across the bow of the almost 80-year-old “rules based” order.

Together Trump and Israel had launched a direct strike on Iran. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was dead. Much of his inner circle was gone with him. No United Nations resolution had authorized the attack. No effort had even been made to secure one. Even the U.S. Congress had not been informed.

The postwar “rules-based international order” invoked for decades had simply been ignored.

Since its post-World War II inception, western leaders insisted that this order was the indispensable framework of global stability: rules, institutions, procedures, legitimacy. Yet when the moment came, those same rules proved optional -- discarded not after debate, but quickly and unceremoniously. Even its most ardent defenders now seemed to concede its weaknesses. As the crisis unfolded, the European Commission president lamented that the system was being eroded by a “league of authoritarians” before adding a striking admission: it could no longer be relied upon as the sole means of defending Western interests.

Others had already reached that conclusion. Donald Trump, fresh from his own precedent-shattering intervention in Venezuela, had long treated the “rules-based order” less as a constraint than as an inconvenience. Israel, facing existential threats, had spent years undergoing heightened scrutiny.

What happened on February 28 did not destroy the tottering rules-based order. It merely revealed what it had already become: a system with rules invoked selectively, enforced unevenly, and defended most loudly by those who benefited from its ambiguities.

Iran, a fanatical regime with apocalyptic goals, has long stood as a stark illustration of its failures, revealing deep flaws in both its foundational assumptions and structure. Reexamination and clarification are increasingly urgent priorities if we are to understand its apparently sudden collapse.

 The “Rules-Based Order” Under Strain From Tensions Between Nation States

The reality is that today’s world is far removed from the post-World War era. The “rules-based” order was built for state-to-state relations among like-minded nations with defined borders, territorial control, and accountable governments as primary actors. Those assumptions have steadily eroded.

In the decades that followed, decolonization brought a surge of newly independent states into the system, while the geopolitical rivalry of the Cold War reshaped global alignments. Over time, major powers such as Russia and China became entrenched members of the UN Security Council, often advancing interests that diverged sharply from those of Western democracies. Coalitions, like CRINK, underscore that the “rules-based order” is no longer anchored in a single, unified vision, but instead operates within a contested and pluralistic global landscape.

At the same time, the system expanded to include states with widely varying levels of stability and governance. Failed states and authoritarian regimes -- despite documented human rights violations -- have held positions within bodies such as the United Nations Human Rights Council fueling criticism that the legitimacy and consistency of the system’s standards are unevenly applied.

Tensions from Global Non-State Actors

Moreover. some of the biggest threats today come from non-state, transnational networks placing even greater structural strains on the” rules based” order.

Sovereign states battle narco-terror networks operating beyond established legal and military norms, enjoying near-unfettered access to global funding and media platforms. The challenge is compounded for western democracies facing not only infiltration and subversion -- through “weaponized migration” -- but also the constraints of electoral cycles, a limitation their adversaries do not share.

War Itself Has Changed 

Compounding these challenges is a deeper shift in the nature of warfare itself.

Rules governing warfare -- particularly the prohibition on offensive war absent UN Security Council authorization -- were intended to reduce large-scale conflict. In practice, however, they have produced prolonged stalemates, repeated ceasefires and drawn-out negotiations in conflicts where decisive outcomes remain elusive.

Nevertheless, we cannot return to the clear-cut victories and defeats of earlier eras. In a world shaped by asymmetric warfare, conflict now tends to end in ambiguity, with protracted, low-intensity struggles replacing decisive outcomes.

For many non-state actors, especially ideologically driven ones, survival alone can be framed as victory, even success. This redefinition complicates deterrence and blurs the line between tactical loss and strategic messaging.

In an era of global media and digital communication, the perception of victory can be as consequential as battlefield outcomes. Armed groups that endure -- even after suffering heavy losses -- may claim success by shaping public narratives, influencing regional audiences, and reinforcing their ideological bases. This dynamic highlights a central vulnerability in the current system: rules designed for state-centric wars are increasingly strained when applied to conflicts where legitimacy, perception, and persistence matter as much as territorial control.

Iran : A Case Study in the Collapse of the “Rules Based” Order

Today’s contested and incoherent world order benefited Iran most. Bluster and bravado kept the U.S. and Israel at bay for 47 years while Iran used time it gained from endless negotiations to cheat repeatedly. Even after the June 2025 strikes, its negotiators claimed 440 kg of uranium enriched to 60% (which it offered to “dilute”); revealed long-range IRBMs capable of reaching Europe; and deployed cheap proprietary drones in swarms overwhelming expensive Gulf and Israeli missile defense systems.

Iran straddled and weaponized the new global landscape by funding and arming proxies to create a “ring of fire” to fulfill its core theocratic goals: to eliminate Israel and remove the U.S. from the region. During the 2026 conflict it did not hesitate to attack its Gulf neighbors with the same intensity it attacked Israel’s civilians. Briefly claiming ownership of Hormuz to choke off 20% of global oil shipments, it levied tolls in crypto giving it a new ability to evade the entire dollar-based banking system under which its assets had been frozen.

Future Imperfect -- The Core Problem

Taken together, these trends suggest a growing mismatch between the original design of the “rules based” order and the evolving realities of modern conflict.

Traditional warfare focused on defeating an enemy’s army as the decisive path to victory.

In today’s networked conflicts involving non-state groups, the dynamic has shifted. Adversaries disperse, adapt, and endure, frequently outlasting democratic states. Organizations such as Hamas or the Taliban demonstrate that persistence, combined with a widely distributed narrative, can translate into strategic advantage even after severe battlefield losses. In this context, survival and the ability to regroup can matter as much as, if not more than, conventional military success.

The gap between rhetoric and reality has become too large to ignore and acknowledging that gap is a necessary first step toward developing a more honest and effective framework for global stability. It’s time to move on.

Transparent Monetary Policy and Economic Stability

Transparent Monetary Policy and Economic Stability

Frank Shostak for Mises

According to some economic commentators, the key for economic stability is that the central bank should state clearly the likely course of the monetary policy ahead. In this way of thinking, expected monetary policy is a factor of stability while unexpected policy sets shocks and instability. The transparency framework is based on the ideas of the Chicago School economists Milton Friedman and Robert Lucas.

In his writings, Friedman held that there is a variable lag between changes in money supply and its effect on real output and prices. According to Friedman, in the short run changes in money supply are likely to be followed by changes in real output. However, in the long-run, changes in the money supply will have an effect on prices.

Friedman held that, if the central bank were to follow a constant money growth rule, this would cause money to become neutral with respect to economic activity also in the short-run. The only effect that money would have is on the prices of goods and services.

According to such thinking, various disruptions in economic activity are caused by unexpected monetary policies. These policies generate volatility in the money supply growth rate. This, in turn, causes fluctuations in economic growth. Hence, according to Friedman, by making the money supply growth rate stable, the Fed could eliminate disruptive economic fluctuations.

Similarly, in his Nobel lecture, Robert Lucas suggested that if monetary growth is expected, then people will adjust to it rather quickly and there will not be any effect on the economy. According to Lucas, expected money supply growth will result in a corresponding increase in the prices of goods, which will offset the increase in the monetary spending. However, if the growth rate of money is not expected, then—according to Lucas—it will stimulate production. Following this logic, only unexpected monetary growth can cause economic growth. Such economic growth, however, is likely to be unstable.

Both Friedman and Lucas believe that it is desirable to make money neutral in order to avoid instability and, therefore, unsustainable economic growth.

Money, Expectations, and Economic Growth

Even if everyone were to accurately anticipate the money supply growth rate, there are always going to be the first recipients of the new money and the late recipients. The early recipients can purchase goods at unchanged prices while the later recipients of money would likely have to pay much higher prices. This sets in motion the transfer of wealth from the late or non-recipients to the early recipients of money and this, in turn, is likely to change the relative prices of goods and services. As a result, money cannot be neutral.

Even if money is injected into the economy in such a way that everybody receives it instantaneously, changes in the demand for money will vary—after all, every individual is different from other individuals—there will always be somebody who will spend the newly-received money before somebody else. This will result in the redirection of wealth to the first spender from the last spender. This will result in the depletion of the pool of resources through the exchange of nothing for something, which, in turn, will undermine economic growth.

Note also, that to stabilize individuals’ expectations, the Fed will be compelled to tamper with the growth rate of money supply. This however will set in motion disruptions in terms of boom-bust cycles.

We can conclude that both expected and unexpected money supply growth will weaken the pool of resources, private saving, and stable economic growth.

Additionally, Friedman’s constant money growth rule cannot make money neutral since the constant money growth rule is still about increases in the money supply despite it being at a constant rate. This means that, in Friedman’s framework, we will also have an exchange of nothing for something and, therefore, boom-bust cycles and economic instability. The Fed’s transparent monetary policy cannot prevent economic bust.

In the words of Ludwig von Mises,

The boom brought about by the banks’ policy of extending credit must necessarily end sooner or later. Unless they are willing to let their policy completely destroy the monetary and credit system, the banks themselves must cut it short before the catastrophe occurs. The longer the period of credit expansion and the longer the banks delay in changing their policy, the worse will be the consequences of the malinvestments and of the inordinate speculation characterizing the boom; and as a result, the longer will be the period of depression and the more uncertain the date of recovery and return to normal economic activity.

The view that it is possible to stabilize the economy by means of transparent policies is questionable. Thus, Friedman’s constant money growth rule cannot make money neutral since the constant money growth rule is still about increases in the money supply despite it being at a constant rate. There will also be an exchange of nothing for something and, therefore, boom-bust cycles and economic instability.

A better way to stop the menace of boom-bust cycles and economic instabilities is for the central bank to stop the tampering with financial markets. Note that, as a rule, however, central banks respond to the bust by again loosening their stance thereby starting the new boom-bust cycle phase.

Conclusions

A policy of transparency employed by the Fed cannot prevent the boom-bust cycles, which are set in motion by the Fed’s tampering with financial markets. Neither Friedman’s constant money growth rule, nor Lucas’s perfect anticipation of the money growth rate, can eliminate boom-bust cycles, and thus these measures are counterproductive and actually set the platform for economic stability. Money is not neutral. Furthermore, what would bring economic stability is for central banks to cease inflationary monetary policy. What is required for economic growth is voluntary production, private saving, and capital investment. The ever-expanding government and central bank intervention remains a major obstacle to all these things.

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

Democrats Are Back to Arguing Bathroom Bills and Immigration Enforcement Will Literally Kill People

Townhall 

The Democrats don't have much of an argument for the midterms, it seems. They've returned to their tried and true tactic of saying people will die if Republicans pass legislation protecting women's private spaces and Americans from illegal aliens.

Democratic Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37) did just that with her argument that immigration enforcement and a girls' bathroom bill will literally kill people.

"The budget bill will fund the murderous ICE and Border Patrol to the tune of $140 billion without accountability," she said. "And the anti-trans bill will continue to demonize the trans community. These bills are not just dangerous, they could kill people."

Harsh, but fair.

There are some Democrats who think this is true and great.

That tracks.

They are very desperate, it seems. 

Enforcing immigration laws and protecting girls' bathrooms will not result in anyone dying. Democrats know this. We know this. And Democrats know that we know this. Yet they continue to push this inflammatory rhetoric.

Trump Task Force Releases Report Detailing Shocking Extent of Biden Admin's Anti-Christian Bias

RedState 

Yes, it’s true — the Biden administration discriminated against Christians, and did so systematically and without remorse. That’s the conclusion of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, which was created by a Donald Trump executive order in February 2025, and they brought receipts in a detailed report released Thursday on the Department of Justice website.

What they found is beyond disturbing:

The 200-page report collects the detailed findings of the seventeen federal agencies on the Task Force, as well as other agencies who also uncovered religious discrimination. The report examines how the Biden Administration pushed its radical policy agenda, even when its actions infringed on Christian beliefs, free exercise, and on matters of deep personal importance to nearly every American: life, family, marriage, self-identity, education, medical decisions, and more. To support these findings, the Report contains over 1100 footnotes and over 300 pages of exhibits.

You can see the bias in Joe Biden’s DOJ just by the way they charged defendants:

The Biden DOJ requested an average sentence of 26.8 months for pro-life defendants.

That compares to the average sentence of 12.3 months Biden DOJ requested for pro-abortion defendants.

Per today's DOJ report on anti-Christian bias: "Pro-life defendants were ultimately sentenced to an average of 14 months, while pro-abortion defendants were sentenced to an average of 3 months."

There are numerous instances of anti-Christian bias reflected in the report, but this one jumped out at me:

The Civil Rights Division under President Biden sidelined Christians in favor of preferred constituencies. It published materials suggesting that Christians could not be victims of religious discrimination, only other faith groups.

Ole Joe’s administration is shown to have doubled down on extreme gender philosophy, abortion obsession, silencing concerned parents, and shutting down anyone who had concerns about the COVID vaccines. For example:

• The Biden Justice Department immediately mandated the adoption of gender ideology throughout the federal government far beyond the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County.
  • The day after Biden was sworn into office, career employees at the Justice Department urged for the reversal of a Trump Justice Department memo on Bostock that directed the department to “respect its employees’ right to express traditional views" regarding marriage and gender identity.
  • Career employees called the memo “an affront to the dignity of our transgender employees,” and called for the memo to be rescinded under Biden's Executive Order on gender ideology.
  • The Biden Justice Department also considered requests for religious exemptions related to gender ideology as harmful conduct to be regulated and consistently pushed its incorrect Bostock interpretation in amicus briefs, even though federal courts repeatedly rejected it.
• The Biden Justice Department advised White House and senior leadership in a phone call that federal employees’ religious objections to the Covid vaccines were “insincere” or “not religious.”

Acting Attorney General and Chair of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, @DAGToddBlanche, on the report: “No American should live in fear that the federal government will punish them for their faith. As our report lays out, the Biden Administration’s actions devastated the lives of many Christian Americans. That devastation ended with President Trump. The Department of Justice will continue to expose bad actors who targeted Christians and work tirelessly to restore religious liberty for all Americans of faith.”

I’ve often considered Biden to be perhaps the worst president in U.S. history. He portrayed himself as a lifelong moderate to get elected, but once in office, he shape-shifted into a leftist zealot who took the most extreme positions on everything imaginable, from gender ideology to fossil fuels to religious freedom.

Although we already knew a lot of what’s in this report, it’s nevertheless imperative to document it all in one place and record it for history. Biden and former Attorney General Merrick Garland should be remembered as intolerant tyrants who considered the Constitution an annoyance to be stepped over.

These are the kind of people who worked for them:

ICYMI: Texts show two Biden DOJ prosecutors (who went on to work on Arctic Frost with Jack Smith) chatting about how they'd like to target Catholic nuns. 

Molly Gaston: "I would like to take a special assignment of finding and prosecuting [the nuns]"

@cooneycongress: "I'm with you, although I'd like to prosecute any nun who still wears the head habit"

There actually was a real “threat to Democracy” — but it was never Donald Trump. It was these miscreants.

The Hypocrisy of the ‘Hate Has No Home Here’ Contingent

The Hypocrisy of the ‘Hate Has No Home Here’ Contingent 

Maybe the Democrats should walk outside and read their yard signs again.

James H. McGee for American Spectator 

Maybe the Democrats should walk outside and read their yard signs again.

The signs are less common now where I live, but once they were everywhere. “Hate has no home here,” in large letters, usually against the same blue background common to the Democrats’ election signs. Scattered around the main lettering, the same phrase repeated in multiple languages, although never in the language of those Americans whose ancestry was European. Moreover, one couldn’t help noticing that, during an election season, the signs would be joined by “Vote for…” followed by the name of whichever Democrats were in the race.

For Democrats, “hate” never applies to their own actions.

Here in Virginia, the juxtaposition became painfully ironic during the last gubernatorial election when Abigail Spanberger was joined on the ticket by attorney general candidate Jay Jones, notoriously the unapologetic author of e-mails wishing for the death of a former political rival and the suffering of his wife and children. Unsurprising, of course, and for the simplest of reasons. For Democrats, “hate” never applies to their own actions. No matter how aggressively they spew their vitriol, it’s somehow justified by their purity of heart. When you’re always on the side of the angels, it’s entirely justifiable to make devils of your opponents. (RELATED: Yes, Virginia, Jay Jones Is Evil)

And so here we are in the aftermath of the latest attempt on the life of Donald Trump, and this time, perhaps the majority of his cabinet members. One can be deliberately obtuse in the manner of Barack Obama, insisting that we don’t know the shooter’s motives yet. One can suddenly proclaim a commitment to taking the “high road,” following Hakeem Jeffries. One might try to bootleg some predictable Trump calumnies into the discussion, as Norah O’Donnell attempted on 60 Minutes, even while pretending to be sympathetic to the horror just unfolded at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. (RELATED: Why Assassins Almost Always Go After Republicans)

I will leave it to others to catalogue all the hatred strewn about over the last 48 hours on BlueSky and other organs of the left. My capacity for vomit-inducing self-righteous and self-deluding hatred reached the hurling point within the first few hours after the event. Instead, I simply wish to draw attention to the left’s overweening hatred for Donald Trump, its vicious contempt for the strawman they’ve made of “MAGA,” their luxuriant indulgence in the putrid stew of antisemitism, and their desire to see America humiliated by Iran. (RELATED: TDS Now Resembles Orwell’s ‘Two Minutes Hate’)

Even at the height of the Vietnam War and the civil rights era, a time I lived through as a teenager and young adult, American self-hatred had a self-conscious awkwardness. Except for the most radical of the SDS or, one might add, the SPLC types (it was always a grift), there remained, if nothing else, a misguided idealism about much of the critique being offered by the Bobby Kennedys or the George McGoverns. Even as a college student, I found McGovern’s politics a very hard sell, but the fact that he’d flown 35 bombing missions over Axis-controlled Europe, earning the Distinguished Flying Cross in the process, demanded a certain respect.

My professors, even at a notably liberal college, were almost uniformly liberal, and, viewed through the lens of subsequent decades, helped set the stage for the ruinous leftward drift of higher education — but they weren’t crypto-communists, simply men whose undoubted intellect was regrettably blind to the long-term consequences of their liberal bias. I recall a conversation during my last semester in which I confessed to an admired — and very liberal — political science professor that I’d come to see myself as a “Burkean conservative.” I think he saw this as a youthful aberration on my part, something that I would undoubtedly grow out of over time. But he didn’t dismiss it or treat it as a sign of incipient political depravity. (RELATED: The Collegiate Anti-Woke Counterrevolution)

But that’s all gone now if one pays even the slightest attention to what the Democrats now tell each other on a daily basis. Over the last six weeks, I devoted considerable energy to opposing Spanberger’s fundamentally dishonest redistricting proposal here in Virginia. This meant listening to and reading about what the Democrats chose to say in promoting this measure, and that was noxiously instructive. If one delved even superficially into the world of its online supporters, one quickly discovered that their animus had almost nothing to do with the state of Virginia and everything to do with a passionate and visceral hatred for Donald Trump. (RELATED: Californicating Virginia: Democrats’ Misleading Appeal to ‘Fairness’)

So, having suffered for nearly two months reading these daily outpourings of anger, I find it utterly unsurprising that, once again, someone marinated in this witches’ brew chose to try to murder Donald Trump. More to the point, these people have taken their hatred and turned it into a virtue, something to be flaunted, something to share proudly, something — let’s face it — akin to the shining, cheering faces of the crowds who once attended the Nuremberg rallies in Nazi Germany.

This is what horrifies me, not just that there are haters in our political world, not even that some are motivated to attempt an assassination. Instead, the true horror lies in the fact that many millions of Americans have now made hatred, hatred of Donald Trump and of what he represents, the single organizing principle of their daily existence, evident in their every online post, celebrated whenever they gather with friends. When one realizes that there were Americans who wanted the rescue of our downed airmen to fail, simply to deprive Trump of a success, one stares into a chasm of darkness. Instead of legitimate political differences, we now must contend with mindless hatred.

The neighborhood signs, then, may have disappeared, fallen out of fashion, no longer sufficient to the craving for public virtue signaling. But in their place, hatred — genuine, vicious, unmitigated hatred —has taken up a long-term lease in the hearts of too many on the left. If we are ever going to reclaim the good at the heart of our nation, then the time has come to start an eviction process, challenging this hatred whenever, wherever it appears.

And hope that we’re not too late.