Friday, July 3, 2026



American Progress Was an Optical Illusion

The turn-of-the-century energy transition dazzled the nation — while concealing segregation, extraction, and ruin.
“America Today” (1930–31) by Thomas Hart Benton. Courtsey of the Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, New York.
By: David E. Nye
Listen to this article
0:00

The kaleidoscope was invented in 1816 by a Scottish scientist, Sir David Brewster. Looking through his invention, Brewster saw, at the end of the tube, shards of colored glass reflected in mirrors to create symmetrical patterns that changed as the tube was rotated, producing endless transformations. He soon realized that, viewed through the tube, anything could become kaleidoscopic: “The furniture of a room, books and papers lying on a table, pictures on the wall, a blazing fire, the moving branches and foliage of trees and shrubs, bunches of flowers, horses and cattle in a park, carriages in motion, the currents of a river, waterfalls, moving insects, the sun shining through clouds or trees.”

David E. Nye is the author of “The Great Energy Transition.

When Brewster’s device reached the market, the public was captivated. It seemed to magically transmute the physical world into a cascade of patterns for private viewing. But its influence eventually became figurative, too: The kaleidoscope offered a new way of seeing — one that could be extended to cultures, societies, and even nations as a whole. And by the following century, the kaleidoscopic lens had turned toward an America in great flux.

Between 1876 and 1929, Americans experienced an unprecedented increase in energy. The census found that adopting oil, gas, and electricity increased agricultural power by 800 percent and industrial power by 600 percent. The urban population mushroomed from 10 to 69 million, and factory productivity increased almost 200 percent. By 1929, every job was far different from what it had been in 1876, whether it be plowing, mining, forging steel, making cement, constructing an office building, assembling a product, or running a company. During the transition, Americans witnessed remarkable feats of engineering. There were suddenly skyscrapers, hydroelectric dams, irrigation systems, department stores, and suburbs; this was, after all, the era of the Chrysler Building, the Model T, and the Golden Gate Bridge. Meanwhile, technologies like the telephone, radio, and film accelerated mass communication.

Yet at the time, Americans did not understand that they were living through the largest energy transition in human history. Instead, they perceived a series of disconnected events. Unable to discern or conceptualize an underlying cause, they often declared the transformations around them were “kaleidoscopic.” In fact, the use of this metaphor doubled in the 1870s and quadrupled between 1900 and 1920 to describe a changing society and to celebrate a limited range of social and ethnic differences while touting technological progress and urban multiplicity.

It seemed a world of cause and effect with no losses.

As one journalist reported in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, Pittsburgh’s mills, rivers, bridges, illuminations, and amusements were “a great kaleidoscope, showing new attractions at every turn.” Other guidebooks praised Chicago, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., and New York in similar terms, with one describing Broadway as “an ocean-tide of travel and traffic, and the eye can find food for continual interest in its changing kaleidoscope.”

Railroads framed the passing scenery with plate glass windows. Bicycles expanded the range of daily movement. Streetcars were faster and slightly detached from the passing scene, which became an unwinding panorama. Motorists, encased in steel and partially deafened by engine noise, accepted sensory remoteness in exchange for acceleration, speed, and control. Meanwhile, for amusement, people threw themselves into the gyrations of the Charleston and other fast-paced dances, moving to 200 or even 250 beats per minute. They sought out the disorienting sensations of Ferris wheels, rollercoasters, carousels, elaborately lighted dance halls, swirling electric fountains, and spectacular fireworks. The painter Joseph Stella depicted the symphony — or cacophony — in his “Battle of Lights, Coney Island, Mardi Gras” (1913–1914), explaining like so:

“I built the most intense arabesque that I could imagine in order to convey in an [sic] hectic mood the surging crowd and the revolving machines generating for the first time not anguish and pain but violent pleasures.”

“Battle of Lights, Coney Island, Mardi Gras” (1913–1914) by Joseph Stella. Courtesy of Yale University Art Gallery.

Americans saw their history as a story of unfolding progress, and the energy transition seemed not a disruption but rather an accelerated continuation. It seemed a world of cause and effect with no losses.


But losses there were. While America’s kaleidoscopic metaphor captured the beauty and propulsive force of the country’s energy revolution, it obscured its dark consequences. In the kaleidoscopic viewfinder, there was no hierarchy, no center, no dominant or subservient parts, and no explicit narrative other than the assumption of progress. Further, there seemed to be no exploitation of labor or resources, no class tensions, and no entropic losses. The disquieting instabilities of unemployment, industrial mergers, and frantic urban growth went unnoticed.

The metaphor, for example, was used to describe the new Yosemite or Yellowstone national parks in all their natural splendor. But it left little room for the destruction of the buffalo herds on the western plains, or the extinction of the passenger pigeons that once appeared by the millions, in clouds stretching from horizon to horizon.

The metaphor was used in reference to America’s industrial might. But it was not used to describe the brutal realities of the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, where 146 men, women, and children perished because the fire doors were locked, or the Avondale Fire in a Pennsylvania mine that killed over 100 workers who had no chance of escape because the blaze broke out near the only exit.

Railroads carried the same contradiction. They may have advertised the “kaleidoscopic views” along their lines, but they seldom mentioned the hollowed-out wastelands surrounding the mines that supplied iron, lead, nickel, and copper on which those lines depended. By the 1890s, the railroads served countless mining districts, where smelting operations released tons of arsenic into the atmosphere every day. In particular, they served the lead and zinc mines in Picher, Oklahoma, where dusty and poorly ventilated shafts and reduction mills created towering piles of toxic tailings. Though lead constituted less than 10 percent of the ore, the tailings contained cadmium and other chemicals that polluted the underlying aquifer. When the ore ran out, sinkholes opened, tunnels collapsed, and Picher became — and still remains — a ghost town.

Women, immigrants, sexual minorities, and the impoverished were excluded from the “kaleidoscopic” freedoms that progress was supposed to bring.

This destruction of the natural world underwrote some of the era’s most ambitious engineering and urban projects — such as the Boston Back Bay, the reversal of the Chicago River, Seattle’s Denny Regrade, New Orleans’s wetland drainage, New York City’s Jamaica Bay, and San Francisco’s Mission Bay. Growing cities seized distant rural valleys for water supplies and forced the evacuation of entire towns. Sprawling factories spread into the hinterland, polluting waterways, flattening hills, driving away or even exterminating native species, as they reshaped the land.

Even James Truslow Adams, the historian who gave the “American Dream” its name — which cast the U.S. as a land of economic and social opportunity — condemned this rampage of development. “It was not a question of preparing a continent for habitation,” he proclaimed in 1929. “It was one of money-maddened men furiously wrenching wealth from it in every way their ingenuity and greed could devise, from the land, from the forests above it, from the mines below it.”


In 1895, the Atlanta Exposition invited the African American theologian and orator John Wesley Edward Bowen Sr. to speak on “Negro Day” about his vision of rapidly changing America. His very presence was a gesture toward racial harmony, and if one reads his address as a whole, it is very much an effort to promote the abilities and the promise of Black American labor in the New South. Like many of Bowen’s white contemporaries, he drew on the kaleidoscope as a metaphor. The transformations of modern life, he said, passed before the eye “like dissolving and charming lines in the kaleidoscope,” leaving the mind overwhelmed. The “New Negro,” he argued, longed for the chance to take his place “in the ranks of one common humanity.”

But Bowen’s hopes for the future of racial harmony proved too optimistic.

While kaleidoscopic America celebrated the varieties of white, middle-class European immigrants, the same could not be said for other racial minorities. In fact, after Reconstruction, even as the metaphor became more popular, segregation increased, and in the 1890s, the Supreme Court cemented its legitimacy: All facets of African American life were circumscribed by Jim Crow laws. Denied meaningful social or economic mobility, many Black Americans were confined to the most grueling and poorly paid forms of labor — shoveling coal, washing and ironing clothes, digging ditches, and cleaning homes and streets — doing the work that kept the modern city running while being excluded from its rewards.

Meanwhile, a specter of violence, owing in part to a resurgent Ku Klux Klan, was also present. Indeed, the kaleidoscopic metaphor was ill-suited to describe the riot that burned down the Greenwood neighborhood in Tulsa in 1921, leaving thousands of Black people homeless, or to describe the 3,224 lynchings that the NAACP documented between 1889 and 1919.

Charred homes and businesses in Tulsa’s Greenwood District after the 1921 massacre, when a white mob attacked and burned the prosperous Black neighborhood known as Black Wall Street. Courtesy of the Tulsa Historical Society and Museum.

Meanwhile, women, Asian, Jewish, and Hispanic immigrants, sexual minorities, the unhoused, and impoverished sharecroppers were likewise excluded from the “kaleidoscopic” freedoms that progress was supposed to bring. In particular, Native Americans — who were expelled from their homelands to create national parks, which were later celebrated as if they had been established on vacant land — struggled to preserve their cultures against continual pressure to assimilate.

Yet, in the kaleidoscopic imaginary, all Americans were like the young white man that John Dos Passos described in the opening pages of his trilogy “U.S.A.” They had walked fast through the streets, eager to take up all the jobs and see all the sights. Their muscles stretched toward a cornucopia of jobs, laying down the new asphalt roads, fishing from trawlers on Lake Superior or off the Maine coast, riveting the steel frames of skyscrapers, driving the new interurban cars from Muncie to Indianapolis, building bungalows in the orange groves outside Los Angeles, selling electric irons and toasters to Philadelphia housewives, drilling for Texas oil, excavating the Panama Canal, making a precisionist painting, or writing a modernist novel about Chicago. It was a white man’s world of hopeful struggle.

But America was not an all-white nation, and not everyone could share equally in its promise of hope — not the women excluded from many professions, not the Black Americans living under segregation, not the Native Americans stranded on reservations. The kaleidoscopic metaphor pandered to an individualistic dream of success that even many white men would never realize: Mechanization made many redundant. More miners died of silicosis than struck it rich. Some workers suffocated in a grain silo, were electrocuted by touching a live cable, or lost a hand in a machine. Despite the prosperity, workers were restless, and in 1912, annual turnover in meat-packing plants, machine shops, textile mills, and automobile factories averaged an astonishing 115 percent.

At the end of “The Big Money,” the third volume of “U.S.A.,” Dos Passos’s young protagonist had no job, no family, and no home. While hitchhiking west, he wears a threadbare suit and broken shoes, but none of the passing cars offer him a ride. When he was young, the opportunities of America’s transition seemed limitless. But with the Great Depression, the blinders came off. Individualism was not sufficient, industrial progress was neither assured nor automatic, and the nation’s kaleidoscopic beauty was revealed as an optical (or rhetorical) illusion. The metaphor had not resolved America’s contradictions; it had only rearranged them into pleasing forms.


David E. Nye is an American historian specializing in the history of technology. His thirteen books with the MIT Press include, most recently, “The Great Energy Transition: America from 1876 to 1929.” His work has been recognized by the Leonardo da Vinci Medal in 2005 and a knighthood conferred by the Queen of Denmark in 2013.

 

Thursday, July 2, 2026

Drought has pushed the Rio Grande river past the breaking point – in Albuquerque, it has completely dried up.
For the third consecutive year, a combination of record-low winter snowpacks, warming spring temperatures, and persistent drought has left the Rio Grande completely dry through Albuquerque. This ecological crisis has arrived earlier and stretched further north than in previous years, leaving the river's fragile ecosystem in jeopardy.
Reservoirs across New Mexico are hovering at near-empty levels—with Elephant Butte currently at just 9% capacity—forcing water managers to triage scarce resources.
Despite efforts by federal agencies to artificially trigger fish spawning, the endangered silvery minnow is suffering a catastrophic decline, with countless fish left stranded on the parched riverbed.
The crisis highlights a looming reckoning for the American West, where states spend roughly 75% of the year in some level of drought. While Albuquerque's municipal water supply remains secure due to redundant groundwater systems, the drying river serves as a severe warning about long-term climate shifts. Compliance with the strict 1938 Rio Grande Compact prevents simple water reallocations, leaving local authorities to desperately hope for strong monsoon rains. Ultimately, experts urge that this dry spell must serve as a catalyst for aggressive public water conservation, particularly regarding outdoor irrigation, as emerging demands like technology infrastructure place even greater pressure on already depleted water systems.
source: Mencinger, A. (2026). Bone-dry bosque: Rio Grande stops flowing in Albuquerque. Santa Fe New Mexican.
See less

 

FROM RABBI ANDRUE KAHN, of NYC, Executive Director for the American Council for Judaism:
"I’m noticing that many people upset about the way AIPAC is being framed, and particularly about the way Mayor Mamdani described it, don’t seem to know the facts about AIPACs tactics over the past couple election cycles.
At last public count, this cycle AIPAC's super PAC has spent more than $38 million, on track to pass the $46 million it spent in 2024.
The dark money, a term of art for the tactic AIPAC is using, can only be fully counted after the elections are over.
Because AIPAC's own name has become toxic in Democratic primaries, so they run money through United Democracy Project, AIPAC's super PAC, which seeds pop-up groups with unrelated names like Elect Chicago Women.
FEC rules mean the donors are not revealed (hence, dark) until after the vote. In Illinois primaries, AIPAC's super PAC seeded two anonymous groups that spent more than $14 million, with the funders confirmed only after voters went to the polls.
In those same races it ran $22 million in ads that never mentioned Israel, routed through shell PACs built to hide who was paying.
The voters see a flood of well-funded local attack ads without attribution to their primary source; that is what dark money means, because they are obfuscating where the funding is coming from.
Why focus on AIPAC in particular?
Because AIPAC's PAC reported $12.75 million to candidates this cycle, more than three times the next-largest PAC of any kind in the country. It is the single biggest donor PAC in the entire cycle, and its super PAC concentrates that money in a few competitive Democratic primaries rather than scattering it. In 2024 its spending to unseat Jamaal Bowman eclipsed what any group had ever spent on one House race.
And I think in the context I’m speaking into, an important fact unrelated to their money is that AIPAC does not present itself as a Jewish organization.
It is a bipartisan pro-Israel lobby, with nearly half its donors to Democrats also giving to Republicans.
Its single issue is American support for the Israeli government.
There is nothing particularly Jewish about that.
When someone says going after AIPAC is the same as going after Jews, they are the ones treating loyalty to a foreign government as a measure of Jewishness; a conflation that is, indeed, antisemitic.
If you think I’m overstating it, or misunderstanding, I invite you to read the sources that will be in my first comment on this post."
[ links in the comments ]
See less

 

 

Harry Truman left the White House without any income other than his Army pension of $113 (£85) per month. The 33rd US president later wrote that it was wrong to "commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency".

George W Bush put his investments in a blind trust before running for president, and said in his last week in office that he had no idea how the 2008 economic crisis affected his net worth.

Donald Trump, in contrast, made at least $2.2bn (£1.7bn) in his first year back in office, according to a new financial disclosure report - a sum historians said was unprecedented and shattered the norm of US presidents avoiding financial conflicts of interest in the White House.

"There's just no precedent for this," said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. "It's beyond anything we've ever seen in the presidency."

Trump's massive 2025 earnings laid bare just how much he has benefited from his return to office, through money-making ventures that often blurred the line between official government policymaking and private business dealings by the president, his family and close advisers.

Trump made $1.4bn in the cryptocurrency industry alone, according to the mandatory financial disclosure that was made public on Tuesday.

Trump reported $635m in royalties from Celebration Coins, the entity thought to be behind the $TRUMP meme coin he launched just before starting his second term.

The president also reported more than $500m from the cryptocurrency business World Liberty Financial. The firm was founded by his sons, Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, and the sons of Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East and Ukraine.

Trump's 2025 income was nearly four times higher than the $622m he reported in 2024, the year before he returned to office.

The White House has denied that Trump and his family were profiting from the presidency.

"Neither the President nor his family has ever engaged - or will ever engage - in conflicts of interest," White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement.

A bar chart titled “Length of Certified Annual Financial Disclosure Report” compares the number of pages in financial disclosure reports for three U.S. political figures. Donald Trump’s bar is extremely long at 927 pages, while JD Vance’s bar shows 17 pages and Joe Biden’s shows 11 pages. Small circular portraits of each person appear next to their names. The source is listed as the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, and the BBC logo appears at the bottom.

She added: "All actions by President Trump and his administration are taken in the best interest of the American people – and any so-called 'reporters' pushing otherwise are recycling the same, tired, false narrative that Democrats and the legacy media have been pushing for a decade."

Past presidents have been involved in financial scandals that raised questions of corruption.

Historians point to the period after the Civil War, when officials in the treasury department under President Ulysses Grant were involved in scandals around gold sales and customs collection, among other controversies.

The interior department secretary accepted bribes in exchange for awarding oil leases during Warren Harding's presidency in the 1920s, an episode known as the Teapot Dome scandal.

But in those cases, the president was not directly involved or accused of personally enriching himself while in office.

Getty Images President Truman addressing the nation Getty Images
President Truman refused lucrative corporate roles

In the modern era starting with Franklin D Roosevelt's presidency in 1933, several presidents have had relatives who sought to profit from their ties to White House.

Jimmy Carter's brother promoted a beer brand.

While Joe Biden served as vice-president, his son Hunter Biden made money from a Ukrainian energy company.

But historians said those past examples pale in comparison to the profits made by Trump and his family business since he returned to office.

"This is the big distinction between Trump and his family and other presidents," said Perry, the presidential historian.

"Making money hand over fist in office, it's not illegal but it is unethical. Most [past] presidents didn't want to do that."

AFP via Getty Images World Liberty Financial co-founders Donald Trump Jr (right) and Eric Trump outside the Nasdaq building last yearAFP via Getty Images
Donald Trump Jr (right) and Eric Trump at the New York stock market last year

Before starting his first term in 2017, Trump handed control of his family business, the Trump Organization, to his adult sons. But the move broke with the precedent set by past presidents because Trump did not place his business interests in a traditional blind trust or divest from his real estate holdings and other investments.

Trump took similar steps ahead of his second term.

The Trump Organization said before his second inauguration that he would not be involved in the company's day-to-day dealings while serving as president.

Eric Trump said at the time that the Trump Organization would follow "robust ethical standards" during the president's second term.

Pardon for a crypto tycoon

Still, Trump has made a number of moves in the White House that have benefited his business as well as businesses tied to other senior administration officials.

Last July, Trump signed legislation supporting stablecoins, a form of cryptocurrency, just four months after World Liberty Financial launched its own digital currency venture. The firm made Trump at least $500m in 2025, according to his financial disclosure report.

Last October, Trump pardoned Changpeng Zhao, the billionaire founder of the cryptocurrency firm Binance.

The move came as Trump praised the crypto industry in his first months back in office, after having dismissed it in the past as a "disaster waiting to happen".

Trump's family business and some close associates have profited in other industries beyond cryptocurrency since he returned to the White House.

Last year Trump struck a deal with the president of Kazakhstan giving an American company access to a major critical minerals project in the country, according to a New York Times report.

Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr later took a minority stake in a company involved in the mining project. The investment firm Cantor Fitzgerald - which is run by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's sons - also worked on the deal.

On Wednesday, Trump attributed his profits in office to stock market gains and claimed he was not involved in his family's business dealings.

"I don't get involved in my personal [finances], we have funds that run my money," Trump told reporters. "I've made a lot of money before I became president, and they invest my money, and I don't talk to them."

Ethics watchdogs argued Trump's profits from cryptocurrency in particular were problematic.

"Of course it's a conflict of interest," Richard Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer under George W Bush, told the BBC.

"This is a very, very troubling situation for the American people to see their president making so much money."

A thin, grey banner promoting the US Politics Unspun newsletter. On the right, there is an image of North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher, wearing a blue suit and shirt and grey tie. Behind him is a visualisation of the Capitol Building on vertical red, grey and blue stripes. The banner reads: "The newsletter that cuts through the noise.”

Follow the twists and turns of Trump's second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher's weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

For years, both parties told New Yorkers there was never enough money for housing, schools, child care, health care, or working people.
Then he came in, inherited a projected $12 billion budget gap, and within months put forward a balanced New York City budget without raising property taxes or making across-the-board cuts to services.
It was not magic. It took savings, new revenue, and support from Albany.
That is why he is becoming a problem for both Republicans and Democrats.
Republicans do not want people believing government can actually work for working people.
And the Democratic establishment does not want people asking why they accepted excuses for so long.
He is forcing people to see that the money was never the only problem. The priorities were.

 

Wednesday, July 1, 2026

BREAKING: THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU! Republican Rep. Troy Nehls responds to reporter asking about struggling Americans by bragging about eating steak and lobster tails and sneering that poor Americans just don't work hard enough!
Republicans have spent months insisting to their constituents that they understand the economic pressures facing ordinary Americans. Congressman Troy Nehls of Texas just gave them a little public relations problem.
Asked by a reporter on the steps of the Capitol how House Republicans plan to convince voters they are fighting for affordability while they are back in their districts over the Fourth of July, the cigar-chomping Nehls opted to talk about his dinner menu.
"I'm going to get me a couple big lobster tails. I'm going to get me some nice rib eyes," Nehls said, describing plans to celebrate the holiday with family and neighbors while honoring "the greatest president in my lifetime, Donald J. Trump."
That's one way to answer a question about affordability, isn’t it?
Nehls went on to acknowledge that fuel prices have risen because of the U.S. attack on Iran but waved off concerns about fuel prices as temporary.
Then the interviewer pointed out an inconvenient fact.
"Do you think the 60 percent of Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck can afford lobster tails and rib eyes and all of that?" he asked.
Nehls' response was breathtaking.
"Maybe not. Maybe that 60 percent of Americans don't work as hard as I do either. I mean, I don't know."
So, according to the Texas congressman, Americans struggling to afford groceries, gas, rent and health care may simply need to work harder. If he’d kept on talking, maybe he would have gotten to “bootstraps.”
He didn't consider things like stagnant wages, soaring housing costs or rising insurance premiums, all of which have squeezed household budgets across the country. Instead, he suggested the problem may lie with the people struggling to pay the bills themselves.
This is the kind of response that perfectly captures why so many voters believe Washington politicians are out of touch with everyday life.
Most Americans hearing the word "affordability" don't picture lobster tails and rib eyes. They picture electric bills, rent payments, prescription drug costs, and the cost of filling up their vehicles.
But Nehls was kind enough to say the quiet part out loud for us.
How many more Republican politicians hear that millions of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck and don't see an economic problem, they see a work ethic problem.
And they wonder why voters are frustrated, and the approval rate of Congress hovers between 10 and 30 percent.
Bon appétit, Congressman. Your cigar stinks, by the way.
See less

 

 And yet another article from the Washington Post decrying the march of the left. But now centrists, Tom Souzzi and Josh Gottheimer have come up with an answer-a manifesto promising to adhere to the core republican values of capitalism, law enforcement and fiscal responsibility to counter Democratic Socialists embracing M4ALL and affordable housing. Raise your hand if you'll vote for capitalism and law enforcement that has brought rising prices and thousands of illegal ICE detentions.
"Democrats Are in a Civil War—and the Far Left Is Gaining Ground Centrists have been ‘wringing our hands’ are scrambling to beat back insurgents In Colorado, allies of longtime Rep. Diana DeGette are pouring money into a late round of ads to help defeat a Democratic socialist in next week’s primary election. In Los Angeles, Democratic Mayor Karen Bass shook up her campaign team this week in her tough re-election bid against a Democratic socialist challenger. And in Michigan’s race for a U.S. Senate seat, Democrats have discussed consolidating the primary field in hopes of beating Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive populist candidate whom party-establishment figures see as a risky bet in the general election. The party’s centrists are alarmed. “The left, the DSA, and the right, the MAGA movement, they’re both very well organized, and those of us that oppose those policies are talking to each other at cocktail parties and wringing our hands,” said Rep. Tom Suozzi, a Long Island Democrat. “But we got to get organized.” “I agree that people’s economic anxiety is real, and we have to address it—I just happen to disagree with their solutions,” Suozzi said.
In the aftermath of the New York races, 10 House Democrats including Suozzi signed a centrist pledge of “bringing common sense back to the Democratic Party” by committing to fiscal discipline and capitalism over socialism. Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey Democrat who signed the pledge, said the left was “using Tea Party tactics and trying to divide up the country and pray to socialist ideals.”
See less