Democratic Desperation
Tuesday night, while cavorting madly during President Trump's primetime address to Congress, the Democrats conclusively demonstrated nothing less than the need for...
Photo credit: Tom Brenner/For The Washington Post
By Kenneth Allard
Tuesday night, while cavorting madly during President Trump's primetime address to Congress, the Democrats conclusively demonstrated nothing less than the need for their extinction as a legitimate political party.
From the forced expulsion of perennially wretched Congressman Al Green to the constant disrespect displayed by Senator Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren, the minority party showed precisely why they are ideologically opposed to everything real Americans consider sacred. Think I'm kidding? Then follow the litany of contempt exhibited by Congressional Democrats: removing men from competing in women's sports, outlawing DEI, and most appalling, restoring our overrun borders. In these and any number of related areas, Democrats went out of their way to show exactly why they are individually and collectively unfit to hold national elective office.
The most telling examples came whenever Mr. Trump introduced outside guests meant to show the human faces underlying his new policies. Whether it was a brave adolescent fighting brain cancer or a recently released prisoner from the Russian gulag, Democrats either sat on their hands or actively booed the public galleries. As Democratic Rep. Summer Lee explained, “there were “no bipartisan moments” during the address and that the country is looking at a “fascist takeover.” She added that nothing can be done when the president and his fellow Republicans are involved in a “power grab” by “people who do not care about the rule of law and who do not care about the checks and balances.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/5/democrats-double-ignoring-child-cancer-
Putting aside Ms. Lee’s rather wild comments, ask yourself what kind of political party – but particularly one so recently removed from unchecked power – thinks it is a good idea to place a uniformed contingent of Pink Ladies in the forward rows of seats? Worse yet: to have them visibly turn on other women present in those sacred spaces to give silent testimony about the lasting damage incurred when boys are allowed to compete in such “harmless sports” as girls’ volleyball. Worst of all: The blatant disrespect shown by these same Pink “Ladies” to those mothers who had lost beloved daughters to the murderous inclinations of illegal aliens (to reclaim the term abhorred by the left). Nancy Pelosi, may your political offspring fully inherit the lasting curse you incurred by publicly destroying President Trump’s most recent State of the Union Message!
President Trump never seemed more in command – of the room, of himself or of his varied audiences - than he did on Tuesday evening. Sometimes, it seemed as if he was baiting the Democrats into acting more foolishly than usual. But they never recovered from the round-house left he delivered when reminding them that the recent turn-around in border security was not accomplished by new programs or bold legislation “But instead by a new President!”
The only issue on which Democrats could get away with sounding hawkish – after a fashion – was on Ukraine, where the party line stressed the constancy of Joe Biden over the volatility of President Trump. Yet even here the Dems must have realized that, in games of triangular chess, appearances can often be deceiving. Throughout most of Tuesday, the momentum of events oddly seemed to be shifting in favor of Mr. Trump. The break-through came while the audience was taking its place on Capitol Hill. As Mr. Zelensky wrote in a lengthy X post, “None of us wants an endless war. Ukraine is ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible to bring lasting peace closer,” “My team and I stand ready to work under President Trump’s strong leadership to get a peace that lasts.” And as if that were not enough, “Our meeting in Washington, at the White House on Friday, did not go the way it was supposed to be,” he wrote. “It is regrettable that it happened this way. It is time to make things right. We would like future cooperation and communication to be constructive.” Sorry, Dems, but as we left the Capitol on Tuesday night, game, set and match go to Donald Trump! https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/4/zelenskyy-calls-oval-office-blow-regrettable-says-hes-ready-peace/
I particularly appreciate such savvy Democrats as James Carville and Harold Ford. They have repeatedly stressed that the persistent rifts bedeviling our society make incremental progress more difficult and sometimes impossible. At his best, Donald Trump is a deal-maker and, despite his penchant for over-statement, maybe even a unifier. Why not borrow some of Lincoln’s wisdom and be gracious toward a defeated opponent, to “let ‘em up easy” as Old Abe once suggested to General Grant. Indeed, why not, Mr. President?
Colonel (Ret.) Ken Allard is a former draftee who became a West Point professor, Dean of the National War College and NBC News military analyst.
Saw this article, "Pause in US foreign aid has UN in panic over funding cuts, Trump says world body 'not being well run'", https://www.foxnews.com/person/b/beth-bailey, and in particular this quote "Last week, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned about cuts to U.S. spending at the U.N., stating that "going through with recent funding cuts will make the world less healthy, less safe, and less prosperous." My position on the UN has already been clearly made, defund anything and everything that does not align with US philosophy and remove them from US soil entirely. Personally, I don't think Trumps comment "not being well run" goes nearly far enough. This organization stands for everything that the US should be against and even the good they do comes with strings attached. That being said, Guterres concern is a "real problem" only to the extent they manage the funds they do receive. If they use them wisely they can yet be a force for good. As to US funding I have already made a suggestion (no comments back) that would allow funding with control by a US Inspector General with audit access to where and how taxpayer dollars are being used. In this computer age it is not a complicated requirement, it's up to the UN to decide how important US support is to their mission, I can only hope it gets some consideration by both the US and UN.
Read this today, "GOP rep says she'll refer sanctuary city mayors for criminal prosecution", https://www.foxnews.com/person/d/michael-dorgan, I applaud Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla. for doing the obvious, but was this really necessary? The hearing before congress added nothing to what was already public and documented knowledge (i.e., a waste of taxpayer money and time these congress members could have been doing real work). The referral to DOJ is great but is the DOJ not capable of deciding when the law is being broken? They are not a court that can only act when a petition is brought before them, so why this charade? I'm just an ordinary citizen and have been calling for this prosecution long before Biden was forced out of office, surly expected it to be a "first item" of agenda with Trump's victory, and have been asking why not ever sense. This is a referral of four mayors, how about governors, state legislators, city council members, everyone who promoted and voted for sanctuary, they are all guilty of the same offense? Consider the mass round up of Jan6 demonstrators (labeled insurrectionists in most cases just for being there) and contrast that with a "law and order" Trump administration who has let real criminals (that is what you are when you disobey the law) go without even prosecution for nearly three months. Does that make any sense at all? Believe me, I know that everyone has been busy and I support all of that but how long does it take to tell the DOJ to do their job? This "miss" was far and away more important than releasing JFK, MLK, or Epstein documents, present issues should take precedent of "investigating or correcting history" as interesting or important as that might turn out to be.