What happened to the Democratic Party?  Today, much of the media focuses its attention on the turmoil in the GOP, but the Republicans haven't gone through the ideological transformation the Democrats have.  For the GOP, their rancor is largely centered over whether the party leadership has remained true to its ideals of lower taxes, smaller government, law and order and a muscular national defense.  On the Democratic side, the

ideological premise of the Democratic Party has shifted.  The shift has been unmistakably left.  So far left in fact, Democrats

can now with almost cavalier indifference claim avowed socialists like Bernie Sanders and even communists, like Van Jones as part of their family.  It wasn't very long ago, making such an accusation was fighting words.  So, what happened to the Democratic Party?  When did this shift occur?

The transformation of the Democratic Party didn't happen overnight.  It happened over decades.  During those years, there were a number of events, marking turning points along the way.  The purpose here will be to point to the most important milestones in the intellectual and ideological changes that laid the foundations for the radicalism we see today in the Democratic Party.

Many Democrats today call themselves "Progressives."  To the uninformed ear, the term itself connotes movement in a direction that would at first glance seem positive.  After all, who is against progress?  It was precisely for this reason the early 20th century progressives adopted the term to describe themselves.  What role did Progressives play in party politics in the early 20th century and how does that relate to today?

Progressivism was a reactionary response to the rapid social changes brought about by modernization and the Industrial Revolution.  Early 20th

century Progressives were reformers.  They hailed from both political parties.  Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican and Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, were both Progressives.  At their core, Progressives believed in activist government and had little use for strict constitutional interpretations with respect to limiting government's power and role in people's lives.  They believed a powerful national government was necessary as a countervailing force against the rise of monopolistic corporate power in both industry and finance.  Further, they saw national government as a vehicle to enact positive social change.

During the second decade of the 20th century, Progressives accomplished a number of changes.  Ending the practice of child labor, organized labor, the enactment of an income tax, enfranchising women with the right to vote and the prohibition of alcohol throughout the United States, were all efforts, spearheaded by Progressives.  Although the results of these efforts were not all met with universal approval, Progressivism as a political movement became embedded as a permanent feature in the American body politic.

Toward the end of World War I, there was a civil war in Russia.  Revolutionary Marxists calling themselves Bolsheviks (translated to mean , "The Majority"), overthrew the Tsar, murdering him and the entire royal family.  The Russian Revolution marked the first time any country was founded based on the Marxist theories of socialism.  The Russian Revolution created a wave of excitement in the west, including the United States.  In Russia,

they were beginning an entirely different form of government based on the working classes of people, using the writings of Karl Marx and their practical application by Vladimir Lenin.  To call the new Soviet state a bold experiment is an understatement.

The excitement on the Progressive Left in America could hardly have been greater.  Revolutionary communists and socialists grew in popularity in the United States, particularly among the academic classes, but also in organized labor, a Democratic Party progressive stronghold.  Soviet style communism in the United States stopped short of being widely accepted, but the seeds of subversion were planted in a number of key institutions:  namely, academia and organized labor.

Alger Hiss was a top level State Department adviser to President Truman and was appointed by him to represent the United States in drafting the U.N. Charter.  Hiss was highly respected by leading Democrats all throughout the Washington, D.C. establishment.  In 1948, a Congressman from California, named Richard Nixon accused Hiss of being a Soviet spy based on evidence and testimony of a former communist spy, Whittaker Chambers.    The Democrats erupted with outrage against Nixon and Chambers.  Leading Democrats rushed to the defense of Hiss, vouching for his

loyalties to the United States in sworn Congressional testimony.  Rarely has a defense team ever assembled so impressive a

batch of character witnesses as appeared on behalf of Alger Hiss. The list included two U. S. Supreme Court justices, a former Solicitor General, and both former (John W. Davis) and future (Adlai Stevenson) Democratic presidential nominees. Justice Felix Frankfurter described Hiss's reputation as "excellent." Justice Stanley Reed said of Hiss's reputation, "I have never heard it questioned until these matters came up."

Ultimately, Hiss could not be charged with espionage since the statute of limitations had expired, but was convicted on two counts of perjury connected to investigation about the alleged espionage.  It remained a stain on the reputation of the Democratic Party lasting for many years.  Not merely because someone so close to the President was an agent of the Soviet Union, but because he was so prominent, well respected and so many equally prominent Democrats stood up to defend a guilty man.

For Nixon, it both catapulted him into the Vice Presidency and made him the most reviled Republican among Democrats.  The Hiss Affair made it possible for the people to question the loyalties of Democrats.  After all, what does it say of a Democratic Party when Soviet spies, socialists,

communists and other disloyal Americans can find comfort there?  Much of Nixon's later troubles with the media and Democrats were the residual effects of bitterness over the Alger Hiss affair.  Surely, nobody would suggest that all or even most Democrats at the time were less than patriotic.  But it did suggest that in at least some precincts of the Democratic Party, subversive thinking was tolerated.  The Hiss Affair exposed that dirty little secret and as a result, the nation was shocked.  The Alger Hiss controversy occurred in the early part of the Cold War era, when suspicions ran high and often turned into paranoia.

For years after the Hiss's conviction, the debates over his innocence or guilt raged.  It wasn't until the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and the declassification of KGB documents, which clearly showed that Hiss was indeed a Soviet spy, was the matter settled.  Hiss was a traitor.

It should be remembered that Alger Hiss, like many Soviet sympathizing communists, spent their formative years in the first two decades of the 20th century, which were so consequential in the development of the Progressive left and the effect on it from the Russian Revolution.

The Hiss controversy is important because it is illustrative of how leftist extremists were able to hide amongst rank and file Democrats, gain their trust and avoid detection.  Over the decades, as the power of the extreme left of the Democratic party grew, it would  become less and less necessary to hide their loyalties, or lack thereof.

The seminal event that marked the change in the Democratic Party was the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the ascension of Lyndon Johnson to the Presidency.  Johnson, a Texan and former majority leader of the Senate, blocked or watered down every attempt by the Eisenhower Administration at Civil Rights legislation.  With the death of Kennedy, however, Johnson, ever the opportunist, was able to forge a new alliance between southern blacks and the Democratic Party with the promise of a War on Poverty, new Civil Rights legislation and  laws ensuring voting rights.  Ironically, it was Republican support that helped pass those measures.

Johnson,  knew he needed to disassociate the Democratic Party from the harsh images of Southern white supremacy, which was entirely owned by the Democrats.  He saw his opportunity with the War on Poverty.  Johnson was an FDR New Deal Democrat and he took his lessons from the New Deal which secured wide Democratic majorities in Congress.  Those majorities were won with high cost government programs which were supposed to address a social ill.  In the New Deal, the problem was mass unemployment.  Although the New Deal failed to correct the Depression era problems of unemployment, politically, even in failure, they provided the Democrats with Congressional majorities lasting decades.  Johnson was a witness to this.

Johnson merely employed the New Deal model.  Even if it were possible for a government program to end poverty, that was not his political goal.  Rather, Johnson's political goal with the War on Poverty was to secure voting majorities for Democrats, particularly from Southern blacks, who for more than a century were reliable Republican voters.  Secondarily, he could change the image of the Democratic Party in the

South from one of intolerant white supremacists, important in an age where images on broadcast television shaped public opinion.

Prior to the adoption of all of LBJ's poverty programs, leading Democrats, like Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned that they would create a crippling dependency on government.  Moynihan believed these programs could cause the family unit to disintegrate since benefits were distributed based on need only.  Without proper administration, Moynihan said, breadwinner males would have a perverse incentive to be out of the home.  In other words, fatherlessness would be rewarded.  This is called a "moral hazard."  A moral hazard happens when a public policy encourages morally destructive behavior.  Those LBJ era programs did just that and people like Moynihan warned about it at the time and were dismissed or ignored.

At the time, the rate of black illegitimacy was at or below the white rate, about 20%.  In the half century since the advent of the War on Poverty, black illegitimacy is 73% and showing no signs whatsoever of being reversed.  All of this leads to a predisposition on the part of the dependent class to demand more from government.  And government is what the extreme left is all about.

While Johnson's programs had their greatest and most deleterious impact on the population of poor blacks, it was not limited to blacks at all.  The majority of Americans affected by these programs were white.  What Johnson achieved for the Democratic Party, however, was to change its image.  His diabolical gambit was to ensure a permanent voter base of people dependent on government.  He targeted blacks because he knew it would be difficult to oppose government programs for the poor without appearing cold blooded or even racist.  Everyone wants to help the poor, but not everyone believes it's government's role to actually help with financial support for the very reason that it could create the same crippling dependency Moynihan warned about and ultimately do more harm than good.  

Over the half century since LBJ's programs, the black family has virtually dissolved, young black men between 15 and 30 are responsible for at least half of all violent crime, poor blacks are deprived of school choice because of the power of teachers unions, the ever increasing minimum wage promoted by leftists puts more and more unskilled and inexperienced young people out of work, abortion on demand causes more babies to be aborted than born in some major cities like New York, and the sense of hopelessness keeps increasing, placing ever greater demands on government for solutions.  But the solutions over the past half century have failed and suggesting a change in direction is often labeled as "racist."  As the demands grow louder, they also become more radical out of a sense of unfairness and disenfranchisement.

With a population of people dependent on the government, the left extremists in the Democratic Party now had a constituency they could nurture and grow with the promise of greater benefits in the name of vaguely defined principles like "fairness."  By 1966, Columbia University professors, Richard

Cloward and Frances Fox Piven devised a strategy to end poverty by  "overloading" the US welfare system to force its collapse in the hopes that it would be replaced by "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".  Whether this is full blown socialism or not isn't the point.  It is yet another inroad into the mainstream of the American body politic.  It is a rallying point, around which truly extreme socialists and communists could organize and subvert the current system of free market capitalism and constitutional government.

Inside the dependent class, leftists have ferreted their way in to promote all manner and form of grievances.  The proliferation of a grievance culture is now at epidemic levels.  Progressives have teamed with militant radicals to demand fundamental changes to basic institutions.  In some cities and states, birth certificates no longer carry "mother" and "father", but "Parent A" and Parent B".  Marriage no longer means what it always meant for centuries.  Government is in your life in every way imaginable and imagining new ways every day.

The people now in control of policy in the Democratic Party are not in the mainstream.  They have more in common with Alger Hiss than John F Kennedy or even Lyndon Johnson.  These are leftist radicals.  What we label them is less important than recognizing what they are and how it got this way.

Barack Obama likes to punch those he knows won't fight back.  He does it all the time.

The GOP establishment are the most prominent, but least sympathetic of his victims.  They seem to fear the image of a nearly all-white contingent of politicians aggressively opposing the first black president.  Nevermind the fact that the black president also happens to be the most radical subversive ever elected to the office.  That fact is subordinated to GOP concerns over their public image.  The Republicans in Congress don't act out of fear.  They don't wish to offend the racial sensitivities of the Democrats and their allies in the media, lest they unleash a barrage of accusations, however false they may be,  that their opposition is based less on principles than on racial antipathies.  The shame of the Republican establishment is how little Constitutional principles matter to them, at least when compared to their own political fortunes.  The tragedy is the GOP establishment is the one group which could fight back against the radicalism of the Obama Administration, but don't.  And by doing so, they enable the most authoritarian impulses in the President.

Those authoritarian impulses of Obama were evident from the very beginning of his administration.  He fired the CEO of General Motors, Rick Waggoner.  Something he had no authority to do.  Where is it written that the President has the authority to fire the chief executive office of a major American corporation?  There was no Congressional response to that overreach.  And when there is no response to such things, it encourages more of those things.  

About the same time, Chrysler was going through a bankruptcy.  Established bankruptcy laws have been in place for centuries.  These laws are to the stability of our credit markets.  In a typical bankruptcy, creditors have their claims settled first, before the claims of shareholders.  This is done to minimize risk to other businesses in securing credit to finance themselves.  If the creditors claims are not settled first, uncertainty and risk in lending necessarily increases.  After all, would you lend money to a business if you suspected if and when that business failed, a politician might intervene to upend existing laws to help his political allies?  That's exactly what happened in the Chrysler bankruptcy.  The Obama Administration intervened and placed the shareholder claims of the United Auto Workers above the claims of the secured creditors.  That led to a virtual freeze on business lending.  

Again, there was no response from the Congress or the Judiciary.

The Little Sisters of the Poor
Gibson Guitars
Tea Party and Conservative Groups
Spying on Congress
Wiretapping journalists
Snubbing allies like Great Britain, Israel, Jordan and Poland
Police organizations all over America

The list goes on and on and on. But there is one group that has stood up to Barack Obama radicalism.  The National Rifle Association.  Despite being continuously slandered by Obama and his anti-Second Amendment friends, the NRA has stood firm and has hit back.  And Obama doesn't like it one bit.  He's been so conditioned to getting his way on practically everything, he can't stomach it when the other side pushes back and pushes back hard. Obama's gutlessness has been exposed by our international adversaries over and over.  
He drew a red line in Syria, then backed off.  
He gave into Russian aggression in the Crimea as though he was a weak kitten.  
He hasn't supported the Ukraine with the arms they asked for just to defend themselves.  
He's ignored the pleas of Iraqi Kurds for arms.  
He abandoned Poland without being prompted.  
He's capitulated to Iran rather than adopt anything resembling a hard line.  
He infamously offered flexibility to the notoriously inflexible and difficult Russians.  

He has projected weakness and provoked aggression from all of our adversaries.  Among world leaders, there is no doubt that Barack Obama is a weakling, fearful of confrontation from anyone who can push back. Domestically, it's no different.  Obama usually only pushes when he knows there won't be resistance.  But Obama is bound and determined to destroy the Constitutional Republic we have.  That's what fundamental transformation is all about.  And as history teaches us, one key element to the victory of authoritarian dictatorship over a Constitutional Republic based on individual sovereignty is to end the individual right to keep and bear arms.  A disarmed populace is a cornerstone for dictatorship.

There are those who scoff at the idea that the American public could ever be totally disarmed.  But I would stipulate that it doesn't need to be totally disarmed, if it can be substantially disarmed and those remaining armed criminalized.  It accomplishes the same thing.  But if Barack Obama were truly a man of honor and political courage, he would accept the challenge of Wayne LaPierre of the NRA.  If he doesn't, why doesn't he?  If Obama honestly believes the argument in favor of what he wants to do with respect to firearms, then confront your leading opponent.  Debate him.  Discredit him.  If you have the courage. But we all know what Obama's answer will be, don't we?

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, ISIS, is the richest terrorist organization in history.  Much of their funding comes from oil from lands they occupy, which they are able to sell to buyers willing to deal with them.  Key to any strategy to defeat ISIS would be to destroy the source of their funding:  oil.  This would seem to be a rather obvious strategy.  Destroy ISIS's oil supplies.  Render them useless and ISIS will be starved of funding.  Combined with other actions, the terror group could be routed in relatively short order.

But Barack Obama has refused to bomb the tanker trucks carrying that oil.  What possible reasons could exist for not bombing them?  The answer to that question is bewildering.  You might find the answers irrational at best.  Others might find the answers perhaps even treasonous.

Why does Barack Obama refuse to bomb the oil tanker trucks?  He's afraid someone might get hurt.  That's not an exaggeration.  The Obama Administration has said, that out of an abundance of caution for the safety of the tanker truck drivers, they have not bombed those trucks.  The Obama Administration seems to think the drivers of those trucks are being compelled to drive them at gunpoint by ISIS.  There is no evidence of this.

Why then, does Obama not order them bombed?  Because he doesn't want them bombed.  It's as simple as that.  If he really wanted to destroy ISIS, he wouldn't look for reasons not to destroy them.

To further bolster his screwball decision not to bomb the ISIS oil resources that are the lifeblood of that genocidal organization, Obama's Administration also claimed  bombing the tanker trucks would have an adverse impact on environment.  Defeating ISIS apparently adds to the "problem" of climate change.  That's not a joke, folks.

Let's sum it up.  The President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, refuses to destroy the oil resources of the most genocidal terrorist group on the planet because he's afraid he's going to hurt people, litter and cause more global warming.  This President, by inaction and cowardice is imperiling the lives of Americans because he's afraid he's going to hurt a handful of ISIS sympathizing truck drivers and upset the Democrats largest contributor, environmentalist fanatic billionaire, Tom Steyer.

Obama is fond of making speeches where he lectures us that "the arc of history bends towards justice."  Obama is an idiot.  The arc of history doesn't bend towards justice on its own.  It is bent towards justice by men of principled determination who bend it.  It doesn't happen through the empty rhetoric of a coward, who lacks the fortitude to pursue justice with manly firmness.

America in 2015 faces enormous social problems.  Throughout our history, America has always faced enormous social problems.  Today's problems are not any more challenging than those we faced in days gone by.  There has never been a time where America experienced a period of unimpeded bliss.  Every decade in each generation presented its own challenges to our constitutional guarantees.

We live in a period of pervasive institutional corruption.  Corruption seems present in every direction we look.  This too, is not new.  Corruption is what leads to reformation movements.  America has had plenty of those.  In fact, the great strength of the United States of America, is our ability to renew ourselves and our commitment to the principles of our founding.  Nevertheless, what is unique about the corruption we see today is how that corruption has now affected the news media.  Media corruption is not new or unique to this generation, but the pervasiveness of that corruption is new.

In a word, the media has been politicized.  Journalists are human and as such are subject to the flaws and frailties everyone experiences.  Journalists, reporters, and editorial boards of newspapers have always had their biases.  In the past, it was taboo for that bias to bleed into what was supposed to be straight and unbiased news reporting.  It still happened, though.  Walter Duranty of the New York Times is probably the best example of how journalists can compromise their own credibility when influenced by political leaders they favor.  Duranty was the Moscow Bureau Chief for the New York Times during the years Joseph Stalin was deliberately starving 7 million Kulaks to death in 1931-32.  All during that time, Duranty was aware of the plight of the Kulaks, but continued to report on the Soviet Union under Stalin in glowing terms.  Duranty's reports were accepted enthusiastically by the left wing progressives in the US, looking for FDR to recognize the USSR.  His work has long been discredited.  But Duranty was just one man and not indicative of a systemic problem.

Everything began to change after it became acceptable for political operatives to become journalists.  In years past, it was acceptable for a newsman to switch careers into politics, but not for anyone involved in a political career to become a newsman.  On the surface, this may appear unfair.  But it's precisely about appearances that the news media was concerned.  Even the appearance of being less than neutral was enough to be excluded from the ranks of journalists.  Clearly, someone who worked in partisan political organizations lost the appearance of impartiality.  Once the veil of impartiality has been pierced, it is pierced permanently.

But that standard is no longer held.  Today, there are a great many former party apparatchiks posing as unbiased newsmen in critical positions in the news media, both on air and behind the cameras.  Although it is possible for these people to come from any political party, they are almost universally Democrats.  It should be made clear here that this refers to newsmen, reporters, journalists and anchormen whose job it is to report the news without bias and impartially.  News commentary and opinion pundits are not subject to the same standard.  In those cases, they only need to fully disclose their former or present political connections.

The media corruption today runs deeper than most Americans may think.  There are also numerous cases of elite media news people with close relatives or spouses also in high positions within the government, which they are supposedly holding accountable.  Here again, we seen another ethical violation where the appearance of compromised professional integrity is ignored as if it doesn't matter at all.
see The Incestuous Relationship Between Media and Democrats

The behavior of the media in Republican debates is nothing short of appalling.  Particularly when contrasted with the same media's behavior in Democratic debates.  Debate moderators should ask tough questions.  The character of the questions reflects a striking level of bias.  Questions posed to Democrats are not hostile.  Media questions to Democrats don't pit them against each other.  If one examines the CNN Democratic debate, there wasn't a single question designed to bring any of the candidates in conflict with each other.  The result was, it wasn't really a debate.  A debate is supposed to compare and contrast the differing views of candidates, where each can have their ideas challenged by other candidates.  That isn't what happened at the CNN Democratic debate.  It amounts to something resembling a 2 hour infomercial, where the shill and the pitchman pretend to be conducting legitimate interview.  Unfortunately, the media behavior in the Democratic debates have made it transparently obvious they're all playing on the same team.

Conservatives have legitimate and workable solutions to every problem facing the country but they will never be given a fair hearing as long as the news media remains corrupted.  Americans should demand reimposition of ethical standards long abandoned by professional journalists.  No one with a previous political career should ever anchor a news program like Meet the Press (eg., Chuck Todd, former staffer for Democrat Senator, Tom Harkin).  No one should have editorial control over news programming when they have close family members in a Presidential administration (eg., David Rhodes, CBS News and Ben Rhodes, Obama National Security Adviser).  No former Presidential spokesmen should pretend to be unbiased news anchors (eg., George Stephanopoulos, ABC This Week and former Clinton Press Secretary).  All of these and many more should be considered violations of journalistic ethics and strictly prohibited.

The media must be held to the highest standards or we will lose this republic.

Most Liberals are a bit slow, but eventually some do catch on.

Yesterday, the following article appeared on the website, Vox.com:

Better late than never.  I'll say this much about the Vox article.  At least it is an honest attempt to point out the weakness of the Democratic Party at the state and local level.  Not many Democrats are willing to do that.  They are so busy crafting excuses for their failures, they never stop to consider that perhaps their failures are policy related.  But not so with Matthew Yglesias, who every cogently, albeit belatedly points out what should have been obvious to Democrats in the immediate aftermath of the 2014 Congressional Midterms.

The question that needs to be asked is why has this catastrophe for Democrats been largely ignored or dismissed?  There are several reasons.  Mr. Yglesias believes it's denial.  This is true, but it is a denial that is media enabled.  Cable news and the blogosphere are almost entirely focused on politics at the national level.  Almost no attention at all is given to sate level politics and even when it is, it centers on a controversy.  Such was the case with Scott Walker in Wisconsin, for example.  Coupled with the fact that Conservative and Tea Party groups have been organizing locally across the nation, without any countervailing answer from the left, the Democrats have allowed the initiative at the state and local levels to be seized away from them and there is little chance they will wrest it back any time soon.

Great Vocal Majority Analysis of State party alignment

In response, the national Democratic Party has become much more radicalized.  Now, candidates and some other party members are speaking openly of allowing illegal immigrants voting privileges.  Although it is hard to imagine with the Motor Voter Law, at least some illegals aren't already voting.  Furthermore, the fear of a wave of newly registered illegal alien voters has created a renewed effort at assuring the integrity of election results with Voter ID laws.  It should come as no surprise that Democrats see this as a major threat to their chances.  They should.

Nevertheless, the Republicans seem a bit slow footed in their defense of the Voter ID laws.  Democrats howl that the Voter ID laws are actually voter suppression and propose to fix a non-existent problem.  This argument seems powerful, but it really isn't once you poke at it.  To explain this, think of voting as a process, which it is.  It is the process by which we elect people to office.

Many years ago, more than I would admit to, I was an auditor.  As an auditor, one of your responsibilities is to ensure there is no fraudulent activity in the organization under audit.  But even when no fraud exists, an auditor's job doesn't end there.  The auditor must ensure that the processes being used by the organization aren't vulnerable to fraud.  This is key to understand when considering the need for Voter ID Laws.  The absence of voter fraud is no assurance that the voting process is secure from risk.  If the process of voting relies on the honesty of the people engaged in the process, without the necessary safeguards, then it is only a matter of time before the opportunistic fraudster avails themselves of those vulnerabilities.

So, when Democrats say, "there is no evidence of voter fraud", the correct response from anyone interested in voting integrity should be:  "We should't wait for voter fraud to happen, when the process we now have is vulnerable to it and there is a reasonable solution that will accommodate every single person who is eligible to vote."

The integrity of the vote should be of paramount importance to all Americans, especially since there have been so many close elections, turning on recounts.  Victory in an election is of less importance than assuring the public that the final result is the true voice of the people.  Integrity matters.  Or at least it should.  Even to Democrats.  And one must wonder why on earth it does not if there is no monkey business going on right now.

The divisiveness and radicalization of the Democratic Party that we are now witnessing is a direct result of the clear an unambiguous repudiation of their agenda by the American people at the state and local level.  But in their response to it, take a look at what the Democrats are doing.  They are demanding the legalization of at least 10 million illegal aliens, most of whom, conventional wisdom dictates, would vote Democratic.  They are playing the race card, labeling the Voter ID laws, a "poll tax", despite the fact that Voter ID cards are free and nobody would be prohibited from voting without one.  Every state with a voter id law, provides for free id's and provisional ballots to those without one, and 10 business days to acquire one in order to vote.  That's hardly a poll tax.  But the race card is all about fear and it works on a great many people.  Democrats stoke fear on other ways, too.  Asserting that the Republicans are conducting a "war on women."  From the Occupy Democrats to the Black Lives Matter movement, Democrat radials are seeking to polarize and divide Americans along lines of race, class and gender.

Slandering wealthy GOP contributors is especially galling since Democrats have an equal number of wealthy contributors who don't hide their agendas.  Men like George Soros, Tom Steyer, Richard Rich, among a number of others.  In a nutshell, the Democrats are desperately attempting to juice their base with fear, while adding to it with millions of illegal aliens.  They hope to nullify the expressed will of the country.  And they don't seem as interested in how it's done more than the fact that it is done.  They have placed their leftist vision ahead of  the will of Americans to support that vision.

For their part, the Republican establishment has offered no alternative and has profited by beating something with nothing.  This cannot be sustained.  Their political advantage cannot be maintained without presenting their case for governing.  But the problem for the Republican establishment is the Tea Party.  You see, the Tea Party and other conservative groups are largely responsible for this resurgence, but the GOP establishment has until now been too entrenched to yield power to the Conservatives.  The establishment is sensitive media reaction, which is overwhelmingly hostile to Republicans and serves as an arm of the Democratic Party so often, they can be indistinguishable.  The timidity of the GOP establishment can be ended by a strong, conservative voice.`

Republican Presidential candidate, Donald Trump is employing the same type of publicity tactics as were once employed by radio shock jock, Howard Stern.  But will Americans continue to embrace Trump's tactics or ultimately reject them?