The remarks, reported by The Catholic Herald from a copy of the original talk issued by Burke’s office, mark a notable intervention in the debate that followed the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s (DDF) November 4, 2025, doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis.

Signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández and approved by Pope Leo XIV on October 7, 2025, MPF claimed it is “always inappropriate” to use the title Co-Redemptrix to define Mary’s cooperation in the Redemption. The note argued that the expression risks “obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation” and becomes “unhelpful” when it requires repeated explanations to prevent misunderstanding. It likewise discouraged Our Lady’s long-standing title, “Mediatrix of All Graces.”

In January, Pope Leo XIV praised the document as offering “precise and important clarifications for Mariology” and a “great benefit” to the faithful. Cardinal Fernández later sought to clarify that “always” referred to future official and liturgical use, adding that those who understand the title’s true meaning “may use the title – but it will not be used officially.”

‘The Blessed Virgin Mary is Co-Redemptrix’

Speaking after Mass during events organized with Radio Maria Nederland, Burke used the title without hesitation.

“The Blessed Virgin Mary is Co-Redemptrix, that is, she participates in Our Lord’s saving work, in a unique way,” he said. Situating that uniqueness within the broader Christian vocation shared by all the faithful, he affirmed, “We are, in virtue of Baptism and Confirmation, co-redeemers, that is, we participate in Our Lord’s saving work by sanctifying the portion of His vineyard, which He has entrusted into our care.”

The cardinal from Wisconsin affirmed that Mary’s cooperation implies no defect in the salvific work of her divine Son, Jesus Christ.

“It is not that the Sacrifice of Our Lord is in any way defective,” he noted, referencing the Gospel of Luke. “It is perfect and procures divine grace and eternal life for all who unite themselves to Our Lord in His Sacrifice. All that is lacking is our wholehearted participation in Our Lord’s Sacrifice, our daily taking up the Cross and following Him.”

He then turned to Isaiah 61:10-11, saying God’s promise is “fulfilled, first of all and most perfectly of all, in the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary by her irreplaceable cooperation in the Mystery of the Redemptive Incarnation.” That same promise, he added, “is to be fulfilled in each of our lives as co-workers, with the Virgin Mother of God in her Divine Son’s work of the Redemption.”

Mater Populi Fidelis ‘basically states the ‘right opposite’ of what the Church Fathers and previous Popes have historically taught’

Cardinal Burke’s doctrinal presentation aligns with critiques of Mater Populi Fidelis that quickly emerged after its promulgation late last year.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider confirmed that the Ordinary Magisterium, saints, and Doctors of the Church have long taught co-redemption and mediation under these titles, so it “cannot be maintained that the Ordinary Magisterium could have led the faithful astray through a consistently inappropriate use.”

He cited papal texts from Leo XIII through John Paul II, including Pius XI’s 1933 statement that “we invoke her under the title of Co-Redemptrix.”

Dutch Bishop Rob Mutsaerts, who was present for the weekend events with Burke, has written that “cooperation does not mean rivalry” and that “the term ‘Co-Redemptrix’ is not as shocking as some fear,” because “co” means “with,” not equality.

The International Marian Association Theological Commission, including theologians such as Scott Hahn and Mark Miravalle, called the note an “anti-development of doctrine,” noting that Lumen Gentium 58 affirms Mary’s association with Christ’s sacrifice even without using the word, and that many core Catholic terms require explanation.

Mariologist Fr. Serafino Lanzetta, STD, who sponsored a “Filial Appeal to Pope Leo XIV” last December asking him to reconsider Mater Populi Fidelis, commented that “never in the history of the Church has the magisterium said what this document says; instead, it basically states the ‘right opposite’ of what the Church Fathers and previous Popes have historically taught.”

Though Cardinal Burke did not directly contest the DDF note’s disciplinary directive for official texts, he did echo the voices of other experts in presenting the long-affirmed title as a concise expression of a doctrine rooted in Sacred Scripture, the uniqueness of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s fiat at the Annunciation, her suffering with Christ at Calvary, and the baptismal call of all the faithful to cooperate in Christ’s work.

Cardinal Raymond Burke publicly reaffirmed the Blessed Virgin Mary’s traditional title of Co-Redemptrix during a conference on Sunday at the Cathedral of Saint Bavo in Haarlem, the Netherlands.

The remarks, reported by The Catholic Herald from a copy of the original talk issued by Burke’s office, mark a notable intervention in the debate that followed the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s (DDF) November 4, 2025, doctrinal note Mater Populi Fidelis.

Signed by Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández and approved by Pope Leo XIV on October 7, 2025, MPF claimed it is “always inappropriate” to use the title Co-Redemptrix to define Mary’s cooperation in the Redemption. The note argued that the expression risks “obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation” and becomes “unhelpful” when it requires repeated explanations to prevent misunderstanding. It likewise discouraged Our Lady’s long-standing title, “Mediatrix of All Graces.”

In January, Pope Leo XIV praised the document as offering “precise and important clarifications for Mariology” and a “great benefit” to the faithful. Cardinal Fernández later sought to clarify that “always” referred to future official and liturgical use, adding that those who understand the title’s true meaning “may use the title – but it will not be used officially.”

‘The Blessed Virgin Mary is Co-Redemptrix’

Speaking after Mass during events organized with Radio Maria Nederland, Burke used the title without hesitation.

“The Blessed Virgin Mary is Co-Redemptrix, that is, she participates in Our Lord’s saving work, in a unique way,” he said. Situating that uniqueness within the broader Christian vocation shared by all the faithful, he affirmed, “We are, in virtue of Baptism and Confirmation, co-redeemers, that is, we participate in Our Lord’s saving work by sanctifying the portion of His vineyard, which He has entrusted into our care.”

The cardinal from Wisconsin affirmed that Mary’s cooperation implies no defect in the salvific work of her divine Son, Jesus Christ.

“It is not that the Sacrifice of Our Lord is in any way defective,” he noted, referencing the Gospel of Luke. “It is perfect and procures divine grace and eternal life for all who unite themselves to Our Lord in His Sacrifice. All that is lacking is our wholehearted participation in Our Lord’s Sacrifice, our daily taking up the Cross and following Him.”

He then turned to Isaiah 61:10-11, saying God’s promise is “fulfilled, first of all and most perfectly of all, in the life of the Blessed Virgin Mary by her irreplaceable cooperation in the Mystery of the Redemptive Incarnation.” That same promise, he added, “is to be fulfilled in each of our lives as co-workers, with the Virgin Mother of God in her Divine Son’s work of the Redemption.”

Mater Populi Fidelis ‘basically states the ‘right opposite’ of what the Church Fathers and previous Popes have historically taught’

Cardinal Burke’s doctrinal presentation aligns with critiques of Mater Populi Fidelis that quickly emerged after its promulgation late last year.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider confirmed that the Ordinary Magisterium, saints, and Doctors of the Church have long taught co-redemption and mediation under these titles, so it “cannot be maintained that the Ordinary Magisterium could have led the faithful astray through a consistently inappropriate use.”

He cited papal texts from Leo XIII through John Paul II, including Pius XI’s 1933 statement that “we invoke her under the title of Co-Redemptrix.”

Dutch Bishop Rob Mutsaerts, who was present for the weekend events with Burke, has written that “cooperation does not mean rivalry” and that “the term ‘Co-Redemptrix’ is not as shocking as some fear,” because “co” means “with,” not equality.

The International Marian Association Theological Commission, including theologians such as Scott Hahn and Mark Miravalle, called the note an “anti-development of doctrine,” noting that Lumen Gentium 58 affirms Mary’s association with Christ’s sacrifice even without using the word, and that many core Catholic terms require explanation.

Mariologist Fr. Serafino Lanzetta, STD, who sponsored a “Filial Appeal to Pope Leo XIV” last December asking him to reconsider Mater Populi Fidelis, commented that “never in the history of the Church has the magisterium said what this document says; instead, it basically states the ‘right opposite’ of what the Church Fathers and previous Popes have historically taught.”

Though Cardinal Burke did not directly contest the DDF note’s disciplinary directive for official texts, he did echo the voices of other experts in presenting the long-affirmed title as a concise expression of a doctrine rooted in Sacred Scripture, the uniqueness of the Blessed Virgin Mary’s fiat at the Annunciation, her suffering with Christ at Calvary, and the baptismal call of all the faithful to cooperate in Christ’s work.

Myles Allman, Lifesite News

I agree with this meme. Republicans do not stand for individual rights and freedom; in words, maybe, but rarely in practice (leaving aside President Trump). But Republicans seek much less control and coercion over every detail of daily life than the now radicalized, highly insane and physically dangerous Democrats.

You need not love Republicans to state there is simply no comparison. Republicans are like an inept night watchman. Democrats are like gang rapists, looters, violent psychopaths, medieval lunatics, grifters, self-righteous, arrogant mobsters and snake oil salesmen all rolled up into one.

Stay home on Election Day, and you’re signing your own death warrant. And you have doomed your children and grandchildren to a far inferior life to what you had. Socialism kills. Democrats are expecting a big victory this fall as a mandate to arrest Trump, his Cabinet and throttle the lives of his supporters like nothing seen even during the Biden regime. And to socialize and nationalize everything from medical care and education to groceries, energy, automobiles and housing. Republicans buy us a little more time while America perhaps will yet get its act together. President Trump made an excellent contribution this past decade and will hopefully leave office with a lot of prosecuted tyrants. He unmasked a corrupt media and a grotesque federal bipartisan Establishment unsustainable and incompatible with our Constitution. Trump is a heroic, courageous figure for the ages who literally took bullets for this nation and its Constitution.

Just the same: the rest is up to us.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Trump administration is drafting a rule that would allow certain married couples with a stay-at-home parent to qualify for federal child care assistance of about $9,000 per child annually, according to people familiar with the discussions who spoke with The New York Times. 

The reported proposal would expand eligibility under the Child Care and Development Fund, a roughly $12 billion Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) program that currently subsidizes care for children from low- and moderate-income parents while their parents work, attend school, or participate in job training.

Under the draft rule, a new category of “parent-based child care” would allow one married parent to receive assistance to care for the couple’s child while the other spouse works at least 35 hours a week, according to the Times. The payments would come from the program’s existing funding rather than a new congressional appropriation.

Families would still have to meet income limits established by their states. Federal rules generally limit eligibility to families earning no more than 85% of their state’s median income, although states may set lower thresholds. Unmarried couples and single parents who are not working would not qualify under the reported proposal.

The Times described the proposal as a top priority for Vice President JD Vance. Vance has previously endorsed the idea of using federal child care assistance to support families whose children receive care from a parent or relative. 

During an August 2024 interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Vance said child care policy should accommodate different family arrangements, including care from stay-at-home parents and grandparents.

“I grew up in a poor family where the child care was my grandparents, and a lot of these child care proposals do nothing for grandparents. If you look at some of these proposals, they do nothing for stay-at-home moms or stay-at-home dads,” Vance said at the time. “I want us to have a child care policy that’s good for all families, not just a particular model of family, and that’s what I’ve said.”

In a May 2021 opinion essay co-written with Jenet Erickson for The Wall Street Journal, Vance expressed a similar view, opposing then-President Joe Biden’s proposed expansion of a government-subsidized day care and arguing that “young children are clearly happier and healthier when they spend the day at home with a parent.” 

According to the Times, the draft also incorporates elements of legislation introduced in 2024 by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, then a U.S. senator from Florida, that would have allowed married couples working a combined 40 hours per week to receive direct assistance if one parent cared for their children at home. Unlike the reported Trump administration plan, Rubio’s bill would have added $5.25 billion to the child care fund and offset the increase by eliminating a separate child care tax credit.

The change would not require congressional approval, but it would still need White House approval and would be subject to a public comment period before taking effect. The rule could be implemented as early as 2027, according to reports. 

The Times reported that some HHS lawyers have questioned whether limiting the benefit to married couples would be lawful. Officials have also raised concerns about possible fraud if subsidies are paid directly to parents rather than child care providers. 

Meanwhile, critics have argued that expanding eligibility for the program without adding funding could reduce assistance available to the single parents already receiving support.

Conservative commentator Michael Knowles praised the reported proposal during a Sept. 6 appearance on “Fox & Friends Weekend,” calling it “one of the very best policies to come out of either Trump administration.” 

“We already have a fund that is supposed to help parents take care of their kids,” Knowles said. “There’s no new spending here. There’s no new bill that needs to be passed. The problem is the current system incentivizes single parenthood, and it’s basically just a subsidy for corporate America that wants to keep women locked up at the widget factory.” 

Knowles, host of “The Michael Knowles Show,” also said the proposal raises broader questions about whether government policy should encourage marriage and allow children to spend more time with their parents.

“To me, this is a grand slam, no-brainer, and I can’t wait to see it in action,” he said.

Knowles also invoked a disagreement between second-wave feminist writers Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan over whether women should be encouraged or even permitted to stay at home and raise their children.

“Simone de Beauvoir said, ‘No, feminism cannot succeed if women are even permitted to stay home and raise their kids,’” Knowles said, contrasting that position with what he characterized as Friedan’s view that women should be encouraged to work but remain free to stay home. 

“That’s what this policy asks: ‘Should women at least be allowed to?’” he added. “I think so.” 

Knowles also pushed back against conservatives who oppose modifying the existing federal benefit and instead favor abolishing the broader welfare system.

Knowles wrote Sept. 7 on X, “If I understand the establishment conservatives correctly, we should not reform a 30-year-old entitlement program to stop incentivizing single parenthood because it would be better to abolish the entire 91-year-old welfare state, which no one even pretends to think is possible.”

Elise Winland, Zeale

Much has been made about Texas U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico’s version, or perversion, of “Christianity.”

The Democrat nominee has called St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in Austin home since he was two years old, he says. It has been led for 35 years by Rev. Jim Rigby, whom Talarico calls a “mentor.” Rev. Babs Miller is “Minister to the Parish,” according to the progressive church’s website. So, one might conclude Miller knows a thing or two about St. Andrews’ congregants and their beliefs.

“We still have people in this church who wish that the young man had not just nicked his ear, but had been more successful,” Miller said, according to a video obtained by Townhall Media.

CLICK ABOVE ARTICLE LINK FOR THE VIDEO

She, of course, seems to be referring to Thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old man who attempted to assassinate President Donald Trump as he rallied supporters in a Butler, Pennsylvania, field in 2024. Miller didn’t get more specific about which church members feel that way, so it’s unclear if they include Talarico.

Sources tell Townhall Media a trove of other videos that feature Miller and Rigby are forthcoming and indicate the true nature of Talarico’s religious beliefs.

“If you polled our members, and asked them if they were Christian, agnostic, or atheist, the vast majority would say agnostic or atheist because they don’t buy the religion that we got from the Puritans,” Miller said, according to another video reviewed by Townhall.

The inside look at Talarico’s church’s beliefs gives an unvarnished version of the “Christianity” he is offering to Texas voters.

He has sought to tone down his bizarre values as Election Day approaches, including the idea that God is “non-binary” and that “faith traditions all over the world” are “all equal pathways to truth.”

Kyle Olsen, Townhall

• The F-word has transitioned from culturally taboo to commonplace in modern American discourse across workplaces, entertainment, and casual conversation.
• The normalization of vulgar language reflects broader cultural shifts away from traditional standards of decency and respect.
• Christians are called to elevate their speech as a reflection of faith, choosing words that honor God and build up others.

There was a time in America when certain words were simply not spoken in polite company. The boundaries were clear, the standards understood. That world seems increasingly distant.

The F-word, once relegated to the margins of acceptable discourse, has become ubiquitous. It saturates our entertainment, punctuates workplace conversations, and fills everyday exchanges that would have shocked previous generations.

This dramatic transformation didn’t happen overnight. It represents a decades-long erosion of standards that once protected the dignity of public discourse and reflected shared values about decency and respect.

Hollywood led the charge, gradually pushing boundaries in film and television. What began as occasional transgressions for shock value became routine, then expected. Today, profanity-laced dialogue is considered authentic, even artistic.

The workplace followed suit. Professional environments that once maintained strict decorum now tolerate language that would have ended careers a generation ago. The justification is often framed as authenticity or stress relief, but the result is a coarsening of our shared spaces.

Social media accelerated the trend, removing traditional gatekeepers and normalizing shock value as engagement strategy. Algorithms reward provocation, and vulgarity proves effective at capturing attention in an oversaturated information landscape.

But what do we lose when vulgarity becomes ordinary? Language shapes thought, and thought shapes character. When we abandon standards for speech, we signal something deeper about our values and our vision for community.

The Christian understanding of speech has always been clear. Words matter because they reflect the heart. Scripture repeatedly calls believers to choose language that builds up rather than tears down, that honors God rather than debases His image in ourselves and others.

“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear,” Paul writes in Ephesians 4:29. This isn’t legalistic restriction but recognition that our words carry weight and consequence.

The normalization of the F-word and similar profanity represents more than changing linguistic preferences. It reflects a culture that has lost confidence in the value of restraint, the wisdom of boundaries, and the importance of protecting spaces where dignity and respect prevail.

When everything is permissible, nothing is sacred. When all language is acceptable, no language is special. The flattening of distinctions between profane and elevated speech diminishes our ability to mark important moments and communicate profound truths.

Parents face particular challenges navigating this landscape. Children absorb the language they encounter, and the ubiquity of profanity makes protection increasingly difficult. Yet the calling remains unchanged: to model better speech and explain why standards matter.

The corporate world’s embrace of casual profanity also creates pressure for Christians who maintain different standards. Refusing to participate can mark one as uptight or inauthentic, yet compromising personal convictions for workplace acceptance carries its own cost.

Recovery of better speech habits won’t come through legislation or top-down mandates. It requires individuals choosing to speak differently, families establishing their own standards, and communities celebrating rather than mocking those who maintain traditional boundaries.

This isn’t about prudishness or arbitrary rules. It’s about recognizing that how we speak reflects who we are and shapes who we become. Language disciplines thought, and thought directs life.

The widespread acceptance of vulgarity signals cultural exhaustion with restraint itself. We live in an age that mistakes boundary-breaking for authenticity and constraint for hypocrisy. But true freedom isn’t found in the absence of all limits.

Christians have an opportunity to model an alternative. Not through judgment or condemnation, but through the simple practice of choosing words that reflect faith, convey respect, and build rather than destroy.

The question isn’t whether American culture will reverse course on profanity tomorrow. It won’t. The question is whether believers will maintain distinctive speech that points to something higher, or whether we’ll be swept along by the coarsening tide.

What we say matters because of who we represent. Our speech is witness, whether we intend it or not. In a culture drowning in vulgarity, the choice to speak differently becomes its own form of testimony.

The normalization of the F-word tells us something important about where we are as a nation. We’ve traded shared standards for individual autonomy, boundaries for authenticity, elevation for crude realism. The cost of that trade is only beginning to become clear.

Faith and Freedom Report

Whitman College, located in Walla Walla, Washington, promises every student on its campus “freedom of expression and association.” Unless, it seems, they are Republican.

According to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), when members of the Whitman Republican Club applied to become a college-affiliated student organization, “they had every reason to expect approval through the same review process as any other group.”

After all, ideological groups such as Climate Justice Coalition and Planned Parenthood Generation Action have a formal affiliation.

The student senate, however, unanimously rejected their application. 25-0.

Per FIRE:

Was it something they had done? Was it something they forgot? No, the record points somewhere else: It was what they believed.

Immediately before the vote, members of the Associated Students of Whitman College’s Senate grilled the club’s representatives about their political views rather than limiting their questions to the club’s organization, constitution, or eligibility. Instead of using viewpoint-neutral criteria, senators asked probing, ideological questions like, “On the 2024 republican party platform subsection 18, what is your club’s take? Will you call the republican party out for things like this?” and “President Trump has made life hard for all international students. When you don’t get affiliated, what is your plan?”

At the end of the discussion, one senator made their objection remarkably explicit: “You can name yourselves whatever you want, but the language of your constitution is in direct contrast to our own constitution. I would suggest that you scrub the title and make a debate club.”

The senators didn’t identify any problem with the group’s application or reason it would not be eligible for recognition. Despite “creating equal and inclusive opportunities” in the ASWC’s own mission, they told the students to scrap their plans, scrub their name, and make their mission more palatable to the senators reviewing it.

FIRE notes it is “viewpoint discrimination, pure and simple.”

Margaret Flavin, Gateway Pundit

The problem with Democrats — Communists — isn’t that they’re “extremists.” The problem is that they’re extremely WRONG. Extremely toxic. Extremely ignorant. Extremely stupid. Extremely intolerant. Extremely arrogant. Those of us who are extremely RIGHT must overtake them. Being wrong is a weakness.

People who are extremely wrong cannot ever win. They only win when we weaken. Show up, vote in massive numbers and refuse to give an inch.

Never let them put you on the defensive. Demand that they explain and defend their views, instead of name calling and threatening. Tell them no more conversations, debates, scolding or guilt trips–until they convince you, rationally, that they are right. This will never, ever, ever happen.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The socialists didn’t radicalize the Democrat Party; they simply inherited a party that had already radicalized itself.

By Victor Davis Hanson

September 8, 2026

The primaries are over, and the November general election looms.

Suddenly, the Islamo-socialist podcaster Hasan Piker—who is now infamous for blaming America for 9/11 and warning Jews that “someone’s going to come around and take action, not against the state of Israel, mind you, but against American Jews”—is persona non grata on the Democratic stump.

Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee in the Michigan Senate race, once enlisted Piker to jump-start his lethargic candidacy. Now that he is locked in a close general-election race against a strong Republican, El-Sayed dismisses the antisemite, who has suddenly outlived his usefulness, as a mere “social media person in California.”

Clinton-era Democratic politicos like Rahm Emanuel and James Carville insist that Democrats have divorced themselves from the hard-left Democratic Socialists.

Really?

If that divorce were real, why would so many Democrats be cheering a potential Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez presidential run in 2028? She is, after all, a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America’s New York chapter.

Did lifelong socialist Bernie Sanders not run twice for president—not as a third-party candidate, but in the Democratic primaries? And did he not nearly capture the nomination in 2016 and 2020 until terrified donors and insiders intervened to abort his candidacies?

Did House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries not endorse Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, also a member of the DSA’s New York chapter? And did Jeffries not thereby choose Mamdani over former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo?

Did California Governor Gavin Newsom—the opportunist par excellence, multimillionaire, and presidential hopeful—not recently declare that “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work”? (Who, pray tell, are “we”?)

Has not nearly every major Democratic stalwart, including Senate leader Chuck Schumer, called for a “big tent” party that includes unapologetic socialists?

Many Democrats, of course, reject the socialists’ calls to eliminate the Pentagon, close prisons, and dismantle the Senate. But perhaps only because such wild fantasies cannot succeed, at least for now, and repel most American voters.

Where, then, did these largely young, inexperienced, and naïve Democratic Socialists find their agenda?

Self-declared socialists now demand an open border and mass amnesty for illegal aliens; the abolition of police and prisons; war on fossil fuels; radical DEI mandates; free health care for all; wealth taxes on billionaires and even millionaires; deep defense cuts; and an end to military aid to Israel.

Yet these are hardly the socialists’ positions alone. They closely resemble earlier Democratic Party programs and demands. The socialists now talk a grand leftist game; during the Biden years, Democrats tried to enact much of the agenda the socialists later claimed as their own.

So did newly radicalized Democrats spawn this socialist offspring, or did the socialists radicalize the old party of John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton?

Who created whom?

The answer is demonstrably clear: Democrats radicalized themselves. Only later did an underfunded, motley socialist crew jump aboard their increasingly extremist bandwagon. By the time the Democratic Socialists of America became nationally known, the new Democrats had already supplied their model of governance.

When Democratic Socialists claim that “billionaires” owe their success to government, they merely echo President Barack Obama’s taunt to successful business owners: “You didn’t build that.”

Obama lifted that moronic socialist meme—like his “spread the wealth” line—wholesale from Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren. In 2011, Warren boasted that no wealthy American had succeeded on his own, reiterating the classic socialist rationale for confiscation: “the people” make success possible and must therefore be repaid.

In his first term, Barack Obama sought to take over the nation’s health care system while concealing his socialist agenda. He partly succeeded through his now-failing Obamacare plans. His effort rested in part on the claim PolitiFact later named its “Lie of the Year”: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.”

Obama also cut more than $100 billion from defense. His “apology tour” and dismissal of American exceptionalism likewise anticipated these more recent socialist one-world talking points.

Who cooked up DEI?

Who but the Obama and Biden administrations vastly expanded government hiring and promotion by race, gender, and sexual orientation? Who unleashed the Justice Department to pressure the private sector to follow suit—until the Supreme Court declared much of this DEI tribalism unconstitutional?

Sanctuary cities and neo-Confederate state and local nullification of federal immigration law were mainstream Democratic policies long before 2020. Biden’s Democrats—not the socialists—destroyed the southern border and admitted more than 10 million illegal aliens. Until the 2024 election cycle, Biden had also effectively imposed a moratorium on deportations.

Long before forming the 2020 Democratic ticket, Kamala Harris advocated banning fracking, while Joe Biden called for banning new fracking on federal lands and waters.

Long before the DSA and DSA-adjacent cohort of Mamdani, Piker, El-Sayed, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib began mouthing antisemitic talking points, prominent Democrats like Jesse Jackson (“Hymietown”), Al Sharpton (“diamond merchants”), and Reverend Wright (“them Jews”) had shown the party’s tolerance for licensed Jew-hatred. More recently, more than 100 House Democrats voted to cut off all aid to Israel.

The same pattern applies to political methods. Democratic officials gave wink-and-nod support to the violent Antifa and Black Lives Matter movements long before the Democratic Socialists became a major force.

As early as August 2015, the Democratic National Committee officially endorsed BLM, while many Democrats defended Antifa.

In 2018, then-deputy DNC chief Keith Ellison posed proudly with an Antifa handbook and preened about “the book that strike [sic] fear in the heart of @realDonaldTrump.” By 2020, even FBI Director Christopher Wray was claiming that Antifa was more an “ideology” than a real organization of frequently unhinged and violent protesters.

During the post-George Floyd mania of 2020, then-Senator Kamala Harris, soon to become vice president, praised calls to defund the police. She even boasted on national television that the weeks-old, increasingly violent demonstrations would not—and should not—cease before the election.

Some establishment Democrats went further, personally threatening violence. Who screamed outside the Supreme Court, warning the justices, “You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions”? Not a fringe socialist, but the Senate’s top-ranking Democrat.

And in 2018, Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters urged her followers to threaten and “harass” Trump cabinet officials.

More importantly, when the Democratic Socialists urge the next Democratic administration to pack the Supreme Court, abolish the Electoral College and the filibuster, and admit Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia as two new left-wing states, where did those ideas originate?

Mainstream Democratic leaders had already embraced the entire agenda during the first Trump administration, if not earlier.

And who is more lawless: the loudmouth, self-proclaimed radical socialists who talk of weaponizing state and federal power, or the still more radical Democrats who actually wielded it?

Who tried to remove a major Republican presidential candidate from ballots in more than 20 states?

Who sent FBI SWAT teams into Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate?

Who brought four farcical lawfare cases aimed at imprisoning Trump?

Who concocted the Steele dossier and spread the lie that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation?

The answer: mainstream establishment Democrats, acting without any help from a coterie of fringy, downwardly mobile white urban socialists who were then largely irrelevant.

The once-fringe Democratic Socialists became mainstream largely by imitating an increasingly socialist Democratic Party. They did not infiltrate the Republican Party, form a viable third party, or—even after Sanders’s first campaign in 2016—abandon boutique Democratic causes, from open borders to gun control, to concentrate on economic radicalism.

Instead, they adopted the modern Democratic Party’s media, messaging, and methods and joined it, first informally and then formally. Fittingly, they are not called the Republican Socialists, Independent Socialists, or simply Socialists of America.

In sum, the socialists did not swallow the old Clinton Democrats; those Democrats were already gone. A party radicalized over decades instead welcomed younger copycat socialists who proved even more zealous and embittered than their elders—and gave them their first national home.

About Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004, and is the 2023 Giles O’Malley Distinguished Visiting Professor at the School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush, and the Bradley Prize in 2008. Hanson is also a farmer (growing almonds on a family farm in Selma, California) and a critic of social trends related to farming and agrarianism. He is the author of the just released New York Times best seller, The End of Everything: How Wars Descend into Annihilation, published by Basic Books on May 7, 2024, as well as the recent  The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, The Case for Trump, and The Dying Citizen

The Libertarian Party of New York is calling on voters to write in “None of the Above” for governor this year, launching a statewide protest campaign against New York’s ballot access laws after its own gubernatorial nominee failed to qualify for the printed ballot.

In a statement this week announcing its “VOTE NOTA” campaign, the party said it will not support a “named candidate” for governor this cycle and rallied voters to instead write in None of the Above.

Christopher Skelly, communications director for the Libertarian Party of New York, said the effort is intended as a protest against what the party considers a system intended to protect members of the Democratic and Republican parties.

“When the rules make it nearly impossible for principled alternatives to appear on the ballot, the honest response is to withhold consent,” Skelly said. “Writing in None of the Above is a clear, countable statement that none of the major-party options deserve our support.”

New York will have only two gubernatorial candidates appearing on the ballot, with Democratic incumbent Kathy Hochul facing Republican Bruce Blakeman. Hochul will also appear on the Working Families Party line, while Blakeman will additionally appear on the Conservative and Vote Affordable lines.

New York Libertarians initially planned to field Larry Sharpe, nominating Sharpe for governor at the party’s October 2025 convention. Sharpe also announced that he had received the nomination of the We the People Party, the organization once associated with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 independent presidential campaign.

Sharpe ultimately sought ballot access through an independent nominating petition under the Coalition Party name, with Shannon Joy Bones as his lieutenant governor candidate. The State Board of Elections ruled the petition invalid in June, finding that it contained no more than 1,615 possible signatures against the 45,000 required for a statewide independent candidate.

The party has pinned the reasons behind its current strategy on changes to state law enacted in 2020. Sharpe received 95,033 votes as the Libertarian gubernatorial candidate in 2018, clearing the former 50,000-vote threshold and giving the party recognized status for the first time.

New York then raised the qualification requirement two years later to the greater of 130,000 votes or 2 percent in both gubernatorial and presidential elections. It also increased the statewide independent petition requirement from 15,000 signatures to 45,000.

Since that change, the Working Families and Conservative parties, both of which frequently cross-nominate Democratic or Republican candidates, have remained the only recognized parties in the state outside the two major parties.

On a website created for the campaign, the Libertarian Party of New York said its goal is not to elect a governor or regain a ballot line this year, but instead to produce a visible protest vote in support of lower ballot access requirements. However, it is not obvious how the state will treat the effort, given how it views write-ins elsewhere.

New York defines a write-in vote as one cast for a person whose name is not already printed on the ballot, potentially complicating the party’s objectives if it hopes to have a tallied total.

The State Board of Elections also previously declined to recognize an independent nominating petition earlier this summer trying to name “None of the Above,” specifically noting that the document listed no named candidates and provided no candidate residential addresses.

In the meantime, the Libertarian Party of New York said it will continue supporting candidates further down the ballot through what it calls “liberty from below,” focusing on local organizing efforts where it considers them viable.

Jordan Willow Evans, Independent Political Review

Twenty-one percent of young Germans between the ages of 14 and 29 are making concrete plans to leave Germany. Forty-one percent can at least imagine doing so. Even among the population as a whole, one in five is considering emigrating. Of course, not everyone who says they are thinking about emigrating actually leaves. But many do – and their numbers are growing.

In 2024, 269,986 Germans left the country. For years, the figure has remained steady at just over a quarter of a million per year. This is not a new phenomenon: Among German citizens, the net migration balance has been negative for more than two decades. In other words, more Germans consistently leave the country than German returnees come back. In 2024, the net loss was 81,000; last year, it was 97,000.

The troubling part is that those who leave are predominantly highly qualified: 75 percent have a university degree. “It is,” Alexander Steffen writes in his recently published book “Goodbye Deutschland”, “the qualified, those with language skills, those with options, those who are needed elsewhere and are not dependent on Germany.” And it is not just those who actually emigrate, but also those who have already mentally checked out of the country. “When it is precisely these people who are mentally quitting, that is not a character flaw on their part. It is the price a country pays for believing for too long that it can milk achievement, lecture people about freedom, and regard success with suspicion without ever having to pay the bill.”

Steffen does not advocate for emigration. He explicitly writes that he wants to stay because he loves his country. But he warns of the consequences when more and more people with little or no qualifications enter the country while more and more highly qualified people leave. Steffen supports immigration. But qualified immigration.

Germany,” Steffen writes, “does not have a problem with the quantity of migration; it has a problem with quality. Too often, it keeps and financially supports people who burden its system, while losing or driving away people who would make the country stronger.”

Steffen has spoken with people – especially young people – who have emigrated or are seriously considering doing so. For him, their motives are also an indicator of what is going wrong in our country. In one sentence: “Elsewhere, success is an invitation; here, it is grounds for suspicion.” Indeed, Germans are particularly envious of successful and wealthy people. This is also shown by a survey of 13 countries – not cited in his book – which demonstrates that social envy in Germany is higher than in almost any other country. According to the Ipsos MORI survey, it was higher only in France. In Poland, for example, a very dynamic and rapidly growing country, envy is much lower. 

What motivates the young people the author spoke with? The fundamental complaint is that the state demands a great deal from them and takes a great deal away from them, while providing less and less in return. Florian is 33, comes from Hamburg, and worked in his family’s business. He is now planning to move to Doha. “He comes from the chemical and construction industries, a world in which regulations, labeling requirements, liability rules, and supply chains determine the working day. When he said that he was treated like a criminal here, he did not sound angry, but exhausted.” The final straw was a hefty fine because one out of 5,000 products had been incorrectly labeled due to a completely irrelevant printing error. “A state that punishes a minor mistake more harshly than it ever rewards success has got its incentives backwards.”

Germany,” Steffen writes, “does not have a problem with the quantity of migration; it has a problem with quality. Too often, it keeps and financially supports people who burden its system, while losing or driving away people who would make the country stronger.”

What motivates the young people the author spoke with? The fundamental complaint is that the state demands a great deal from them and takes a great deal away from them, while providing less and less in return. Florian is 33, comes from Hamburg, and worked in his family’s business. He is now planning to move to Doha. “He comes from the chemical and construction industries, a world in which regulations, labeling requirements, liability rules, and supply chains determine the working day. When he said that he was treated like a criminal here, he did not sound angry, but exhausted.” The final straw was a hefty fine because one out of 5,000 products had been incorrectly labeled due to a completely irrelevant printing error. “A state that punishes a minor mistake more harshly than it ever rewards success has got its incentives backwards.”

Germany,” Steffen writes, “does not have a problem with the quantity of migration; it has a problem with quality. Too often, it keeps and financially supports people who burden its system, while losing or driving away people who would make the country stronger.”

Steffen has spoken with people – especially young people – who have emigrated or are seriously considering doing so. For him, their motives are also an indicator of what is going wrong in our country. In one sentence: “Elsewhere, success is an invitation; here, it is grounds for suspicion.” Indeed, Germans are particularly envious of successful and wealthy people. This is also shown by a survey of 13 countries – not cited in his book – which demonstrates that social envy in Germany is higher than in almost any other country. According to the Ipsos MORI survey, it was higher only in France. In Poland, for example, a very dynamic and rapidly growing country, envy is much lower. 

Tobias came to Switzerland for an internship and stayed. For working five additional hours a week, he earns twice the net salary and gets an apartment on top of that. But for him and the other people Steffen interviewed, it is not primarily about such figures. It is about a feeling: Working there is simply more enjoyable, he says, because he experiences appreciation not only from his employer but throughout society. Germany, he adds, is not a country he would associate with that word.

Jan is 38, comes from Bavaria, and now lives in Bulgaria, where the tax burden is ten percent. But for him and many others, the following applies: “In the end, they did not flee high taxes, but the deep-seated mistrust that almost automatically comes into play in Germany whenever someone has the audacity to build something of their own. The tax bill was merely the tangible manifestation of a sense of alienation that had actually been there for a long time.”

This reminds me of Sweden in the 1960s and 1970s, when not only did the tax burden become unbearable, but envy of entrepreneurs and the wealthy became widespread. The German writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger wrote about Sweden at the time: “In such a society, the rich, it seems, have little to laugh about. If only it were the taxes! As respectable citizens, they are willing to pay them on time, albeit reluctantly. What hurts them much more is the fact that no one has any sympathy for their plight.” Sweden, Enzensberger wrote, had developed into a country in which the rich felt “superfluous, disrespected, and excluded.”

Steffen’s conversations with the self-employed and small business owners can be summed up as follows: “They did not fail because a form was too long, but because they felt that the state treated them as adversaries rather than as the people who help pay for the whole system.” At some point, people stop fighting that feeling and start looking for alternatives.

A successful tennis player who now lives in the United States says: “In the U.S., I experienced for the first time that success is not something to be embarrassed about. In Germany, people are quick to ask whether you might be wanting too much. In America, they are more likely to ask how big you want to make it.”

I can confirm what Steffen writes from my own experience. A friend of mine, a very well-integrated and highly qualified German of Turkish descent, moved to Switzerland a week ago. The reason: He wants to start a company and cannot imagine doing so in Germany. Another friend of mine, an extremely successful – and wealthy – investor, has been living in Abu Dhabi for several years. “I didn’t leave because of the taxes,” he says. “I left because of the envy.”

Rainer Zitelmann