A Detroit church had a Democratic unity event on its Sunday calendar. By Saturday, one of the two headliners had been asked to stay home. By Sunday, she had endorsed the Republican. By Sunday night, the state party announced she was no longer a member. Two days before the vote, the party that says it is saving democracy met a dissenter and showed her the door.
THE PROGRAM CHANGED ON SATURDAY
The church in Detroit had its Sunday program set. A unity event, with Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina on the bill, and two Democrats standing side by side: Abdul El-Sayed, the party’s Senate nominee in Michigan, and Rep. Haley Stevens, the woman he edged out in the August primary by less than one point. It would have been their first joint appearance since that primary.
Then the program changed.
The week before, Stevens had asked El-Sayed to condemn an ad from Rebellion PAC, an outside group backing him, that tied American aid to Israel to the price of groceries. She called it antisemitic. El-Sayed said his campaign did not make the ad, that he disagrees with its message, and that Stevens was relitigating a primary that ended three months ago. Stevens said a disclaimer is not a condemnation. On Friday she added demands: apologize for his own past statements blaming Israel for what Michigan can’t afford, and pull his campaign ad featuring Tucker Carlson, which she called an insult to the congregation that was about to host them.
On Saturday, El-Sayed said he would rather not distract from the key issues of the campaign. CBS News reported that Stevens had been asked to stay away from every remaining campaign event before Election Day. Rep. Debbie Dingell said she was the one who pulled the church event because it had become too distracting. Stevens says El-Sayed told her to stay away.
On Sunday afternoon, Stevens stood in a Detroit church next to Mike Rogers, the Republican nominee, and posted a video endorsing him. Her longtime chief of staff and several other staffers resigned. Chuck Schumer called the endorsement a despicable betrayal. Trump praised it on Truth Social. Stevens says she is still a Democrat and will vote Democratic in about 90 percent of the races on her ballot. The Senate race is not one of them.
THE PARTY TOOK HER MEMBERSHIP CARD
That was Sunday. By Sunday evening, Michigan Democratic Party chair Curtis Hertel announced on X that Stevens is not a current member of the party and will not be in the future. He told reporters she is not who she said she would be. According to reporting from the Detroit News, she lost access to the party’s voter database and her photo came off the party website. Neither report describes a vote or a formal expulsion process. It looks like an announcement, not a trial. Politico reported that several House Democrats want her removed from the House Democratic caucus, and DNC chair Ken Martin condemned the endorsement. As of this writing I haven’t seen a caucus decision, so I’m not claiming one.
Let me be precise about what she did, because the precision is the whole story. Stevens endorsed one Republican. One. She says she remains a Democrat, plans to vote Democratic in about 90 percent of her races and will support the rest of the party’s candidates. She disagreed with the party on a single Senate seat, and the state party’s answer was that she is no longer a member and never will be again.
Think about what that teaches every Democrat watching. You may vote the party line on every race on the ballot but one, and the one is enough. Independent thought has a price, and the price is your membership. Say what you like about whether she is right on the substance. The sentence “you are not welcome in this party and never will be” does not belong in the vocabulary of a party that tells you it is the home of free choice.
I’ll give the other side its due. A private political party is allowed to decide who is a member, the same as any club. Hertel’s argument is that she misled him and other Democrats about her intentions, and that she put a personal grievance ahead of the ticket in the final days of a race that could decide Senate control. That is a fair thing for a party chair to be angry about. My answer is the same one I’d give a Republican chair who did this to a dissenter. I’d call it a mistake in my own party too.
Now, fairness, because I grade everybody on the same rubric. Stevens did not say the Democratic Party is anti-democracy. Her stated reasons were the ad, the way El-Sayed answered her about it, and the fact that she was told she wasn’t welcome. Her fiancé and her former campaign chair had already announced for Rogers over what they describe as El-Sayed’s rhetoric on Gaza and Jewish safety. El-Sayed’s side says she was reopening an old fight, that his campaign had nothing to do with the ad, and that Dingell’s explanation is the whole story. Those are their positions and you can weigh them.
Mine is simpler, and it is a position, so label it as one. Betrayal is a word for oaths and wedding vows. A Senate endorsement is a choice made by a free citizen in a republic, which is the whole reason the choice exists. When a member of your own party asks a hard question, gets a disclaimer for an answer and then an invitation to stay away, and when the response from the top of the caucus is to call her choice a betrayal, you have learned how the party treats the word no.
Here is what makes it sharper. The Democratic Senate campaign committee backed Stevens heavily in the primary, according to CBS. Voters in Michigan picked El-Sayed anyway, narrowly. The party shrugged and rallied to the winner, which is how it is supposed to work. Then the loser asked a question and was sent home. At no point in that sequence did anyone ask what the voters of Wayne and Oakland counties, who gave Stevens the win in their own counties in August, wanted to hear. They asked what the campaign wanted to avoid.
And where does that leave the Michigan voter? Eleven of the twelve October polls had El-Sayed ahead, by 1 to 7 points. Every one was taken before Sunday. Several polls before the August primary showed him with a double-digit lead over Stevens, and he won by less than a point. So nobody knows the real number, and a party that couldn’t organize a two-car funeral two days before an election is about to find out.
Quinn’s Law Number Twenty-Two: liberals love democracy unless it doesn’t go their way.
THE NOMINEES, AND THE ONE WHO GOT ZERO VOTES
Michigan is not the first time the party has decided what the voters get. Let me grade three cycles, and let me start with what’s true for their side: in 2016 and in 2020, Democratic primary voters picked the nominee. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden each won the primaries. I’m not going to tell you otherwise.
What I’ll tell you is that the party’s machinery left fingerprints both times. In 2016, roughly 700 unpledged superdelegates, party officials free to back anyone, were part of the delegate math, and Clinton held an enormous lead among them by the time Iowa voted. Leaked emails then led Debbie Wasserman Schultz to resign as DNC chair. And on October 31, 2016, CNN cut ties with Donna Brazile, then the party’s interim chair, after a leaked email indicated a debate question had reached the Clinton campaign ahead of time. In 2020, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar left the race and endorsed Biden within three days of his South Carolina win, on the eve of Super Tuesday. Candidates are free to quit and free to endorse, and I’m not claiming anyone was ordered to. I’m noting that voters in the Super Tuesday states woke up to a field that had been narrowed for them in 72 hours.
Then came 2024. Joe Biden won the Democratic primaries and carried nearly every pledged delegate. On July 21, he withdrew. By early August, the party’s delegates had installed Kamala Harris as the nominee. She received zero votes in the 2024 presidential primaries. Not a small number. Zero. There was no debate between candidates and no process through which a Democratic voter got to choose her. The party announced the nominee the way a committee announces a hire.
So here is the record, and the reading of it is mine: two nominees the voters did choose, with a thumb near the scale at the edges, and one nominee no primary voter chose at all. Nothing in the Constitution requires a primary. Political parties are private associations and they can write their own rules, and the Republican Party writes its own too. My point has nothing to do with legality. A party that wants you to believe it is the last line of defense for the people’s voice handed the people a nominee the people never voted on, and then spent the fall lecturing everyone else about democratic norms. Slight oversight!
TAKING THE OTHER GUY OFF THE BALLOT
Then there is the move that made me put my coffee down.
In December 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ordered Donald Trump removed from the state’s presidential primary ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Nine days later, Maine’s Democratic Secretary of State, Shenna Bellows, did the same. In February 2024, an Illinois judge followed, though that order was put on hold. On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot enforce that provision against federal candidates. The result was nine to zero.
Their argument was the 14th Amendment, and a state supreme court agreed with it, so don’t tell me it came out of thin air. But look at the shape of it. The leading opposition candidate, with tens of millions of voters behind him, was removed from ballots by a court and an election official before a single voter in those states got to weigh in. The country’s highest court told them no, 9 to 0, and the same people went back to calling everyone else the threat.
Quinn’s Law Number Two: if you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse conservatives of doing.
THE TWO DAN SULLIVANS
Alaska’s Senate ballot has two men named Dan Sullivan on it. One is the Republican incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan. The other is Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., listed as undeclared. Mary Peltola is the Democratic candidate. I am not making up the name.
Here’s what is confirmed, and I’ll keep it separate from what is reported. On October 30, U.S. Attorney Michael Heyman told a press conference in Anchorage that a federal investigation has been running for months and that the New York Times reporting led to a surge of law enforcement assets in the state. AP, citing a person familiar with the matter, reported dozens of grand jury subpoenas this week. No charges have been reported, and Heyman did not say who the targets are.
Here’s what is reported. The New York Times reported that Peltola-aligned operatives and national Democratic campaign personnel worked to recruit potential spoiler candidates, including the similarly named Sullivan. Alaska Public Media said it hadn’t independently confirmed that. Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee deny involvement.
noted that recruiting a spoiler candidate is not illegal by itself. That tells you what the investigators have to find: money, false statements, or coordination across a statutory line.
There is also a civil lawsuit, filed October 22 by the Justice Department after Trump directed it to act. The judge, Sharon Gleason, pointed out that the case was filed after Alaskans had already started casting ballots, and nearly four months after the Alaska Supreme Court put the second Sullivan on the ballot. Alaska says the suit has no legal basis. I’ll give them their say. They’re positions, not rulings.
Now the arithmetic everyone gets wrong. Alaska uses ranked-choice voting. A ballot whose top choice is eliminated moves to its next usable choice, and a ballot with no further usable choice stops counting. So a look-alike’s first-place total does not equal the votes the incumbent lost, and anyone on my side who subtracts one from the other is committing post hoc ergo propter hoc, “after this, therefore because of this.” Kicking the hornet’s nest and then acting surprised by the buzzing is a bad look, but so is bad arithmetic. How many voters ranked the wrong Sullivan and never listed the right one? Nobody can honestly tell you before the count. That is why the ballots should be preserved, and why my read, and it is only a read, is that preserving them is a modest ask.
I laid out the Alaska ballot, the California list and the late-ballot rules in one place here:
https://x.com/i/article/2116572583470731264
The point for this article is the pattern. If it’s true, it’s the same instinct as the church in Detroit: manage what the voter is allowed to be confused about, and settle the rest in the lawyers’ conference room.
THE LAW THEY WON’T LET PASS
Here’s one that needs no leak.
The SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship when you register to vote in federal elections and a photo ID when you vote in person. The House passed it 218 to 213 on February 11, 2026. In the Senate, the motion to take it up squeaked through 51 to 48 on March 17, with Republican Lisa Murkowski voting no alongside the Democrats. Democrats have threatened a filibuster, and a photo-ID amendment from Sen. Jon Husted fell short on cloture, 53 to 47, because it needed 60.
Democrats call it Jim Crow 2.0 and say many Americans don’t have the documents. That’s their argument and it belongs in the record. Here’s mine. You need an ID to board a plane, to buy cold medicine and to open a bank account. The one transaction in American life that decides who writes the laws somehow can’t be trusted with the same piece of plastic.
I wrote the constitutional case for the SAVE Act here:
https://x.com/i/article/2019790373845913600
THE ARRESTS KEEP COMING
The justification for a fresh look keeps arriving on schedule. During the week of October 19, the Justice Department announced charges against 28 lawful permanent residents in California, from a list of more than 20,000 names, according to the release. A federal judge told the department it already has a remedy for crimes: indict. Then on October 26 came a second announcement: 48 people charged in five states, Pennsylvania, California, Florida, New York and Nevada. The department described 47 of them as lawful permanent residents and one as illegally present. The counts include voting by an alien, false claims of citizenship and false statements in naturalization paperwork. The California cases may overlap between the two announcements, so do not add 28 to 48. North Carolina is a separate story: on October 29, federal prosecutors there announced 18 more indictments tied to the 2024 election, bringing the state’s total to 30. The report I read describes most of the 18 as lawful permanent residents and one as undocumented.
Now the fairness paragraph, because it is long and I mean every word of it. Everyone named in those releases is accused, not convicted, and is presumed innocent. Most of them are green-card holders, not people who crossed the border illegally, and that distinction matters. Critics point out that noncitizen voting is rare and has not been shown to change a result. They are right about the second part: nobody has shown it did. Enforcement runs in both directions, too. On October 28, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, a Democrat, charged conservative activists James O’Keefe and Cam Higby with felony unlawful voting and identity theft. The complaint alleges that during a filmed stunt at the August primary they gave election judges the names of registered voters, some of them dead, without permission; neither man cast a ballot. They are accused, not convicted, same rule. I would rather see the law applied to my side than pretend it stops at the county line.
Here is my reading, and it is mine, not the Justice Department’s. Nobody knows the real total. I don’t, and neither does anyone else. These are the cases that turned up when somebody finally ran the names against the records, and in most places nobody ran them. Saying the number you can see is the whole number is the same as saying you checked the whole attic because the lamp in the corner was bright. The releases name the people who registered and voted. I haven’t seen a charge against anyone who helped them or looked the other way, so I’m not claiming one. If prosecutors bring those cases, the same rule applies.
And that is the argument for proof of citizenship at registration. Catching a noncitizen on a voter roll takes matching names against records, after the fact, one federal case at a time. Asking for a document at the front door is cheaper, and it is the same document you hand over to board a plane. Twenty-eight in a week is a pretty good answer to anyone who still calls the whole subject a myth.
THE PLATFORM THEY PUBLISHED
Not every attack on the republican form of government arrives as a leaked email. Some come with a table of contents.
In July 2026, the Democratic Socialists of America unveiled a platform called “Workers Deserve More.” According to VTDigger’s reporting, it calls for abolishing the Senate, the presidency and the Supreme Court, replacing the executive and the judiciary with versions chosen by and subordinate to Congress, and expanding the House to make room for multiple parties. The same report notes it would take a constitutional amendment. IBTimes UK reported that DSA leaders described the overhaul as a requirement for endorsed candidates, though that account doesn’t date the broadcast or name the speakers, and it also says candidates can associate with the platform without making every structural demand central to their campaigns. DSA co-chair Ashik Siddique defended the idea on C-SPAN, calling the Senate a very undemocratic institution.
Now the part that is true and that helps the Democratic Party, so I’m putting it in. Its senators ran from this. Bernie Sanders, asked about the proposal, said no. Sen. Mark Kelly said it isn’t a serious recommendation. Elizabeth Warren said she didn’t understand what it meant. John Fetterman criticized it, and Cory Booker called the amendment idea farcical. DSA is a faction, and I’m not going to pretend it is the whole party.
Here is my reading. The question for a Democratic voter is not whether the Senate caucus agrees with the platform. It doesn’t. The question is who on your ballot has been asked, on the record, whether they do. A president and a court that answer to Congress is a design with a name, and Madison had a sentence for it in Federalist No. 47: the accumulation of all powers in the same hands is the very definition of tyranny. I walked through the full platform and what it would mean in practice here:
https://x.com/i/article/2106230327165222912
THE SHADOW CAMPAIGN, IN THEIR OWN WORDS
Not every document on this list is a leak. One of them was a victory lap.
On February 4, 2021, TIME published Molly Ball’s account of the 2020 election, a behind-the-scenes history she warned would sound paranoid to some readers. Its subject was an informal alliance of labor, left-wing activists and big business, kept in sync by invitation-only weekly Zoom calls run by an AFL-CIO strategist named Mike Podhorzer, with hundreds of people on the line. Read it for how much was aimed at one man. According to the piece, the coalition got states to change voting systems and laws, helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding, including $300 million from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, and pressured social media companies to take a harder line on disinformation, starting with a November 2019 dinner at Mark Zuckerberg’s house with civil rights leaders. One group mailed absentee ballot applications to 15 million people in key states; 4.6 million came back. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, who agree on almost nothing, issued a joint statement on Election Day. Ball’s summary of the whole enterprise: “They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”
After the election, the effort moved to Michigan. The piece says activists tracked flight schedules to meet two Republican legislative leaders at the airports on their way to see Trump, and that a law professor’s op-ed warned the meeting could amount to bribery. It also records that former Rep. Mike Rogers wrote an op-ed urging Michigan officials to honor the voters’ will. That is the same Mike Rogers Haley Stevens stood beside on Sunday. Hold that thought.
In fairness, the piece says Republicans and nonpartisan groups took part too, the work happened in plain view, and nothing in it claims a vote count was altered. TIME presents all of it as protecting the vote from Trump’s attempts to overturn the result, and the article documents those attempts. A coalition lobbying a tech company is lobbying. It isn’t a crime.
My narrow point is about the double standard, and about scale. A year of coordinated effort, a $300 million foundation gift and pressure on the platforms, all pointed at one man. Call it heroism or call it a campaign, but it was organized, and the people who organized it say so. For years, anybody who noticed a coordinated network, platform pressure and private money flowing into election offices got filed under conspiracy theorist. Then the people who did it wrote the cover story themselves, and put a nice word in the headline. They didn’t bury the evidence. They framed it and hung it in the lobby.
THE LETTER FROM THE FIFTY-ONE
On October 14, 2020, the New York Post published emails from a laptop tied to Hunter Biden. On October 19, 51 former intelligence officials signed a public statement saying the story had the hallmarks of a Russian information operation. The same statement admitted they had no evidence of Russian involvement. Sit with that for a second: the disclaimer at the bottom, the headline at the top, and guess which part got repeated at the debate. Biden pointed to those officials while dismissing the story.
Then came 2023. Mike Morell, a former acting CIA director and one of the signers, told House Judiciary Committee investigators that a call from Antony Blinken, then a senior Biden campaign adviser, around October 17, 2020, triggered the letter. That is House Republicans’ account of the testimony. In fairness to the signers, nothing I found shows they didn’t believe what they wrote, and major news organizations later confirmed at least some of the laptop material was authentic.
The story isn’t about one laptop. When a campaign calls its credentialed friends and a statement full of “could be” gets treated by the public as “is,” the correction arrives on a slower horse.
ARCTIC FROST
The FBI opened a case code-named Arctic Frost in April 2022. According to the New York Post’s September 16, 2025 report on files released by Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, it scrutinized at least 92 Republican-linked groups and people, including the Republican National Committee and Turning Point USA. The case moved to special counsel Jack Smith that November.
On October 6, 2025, Grassley released an FBI document showing agents sought toll records for the personal cell phones of eight Republican senators and one House member covering January 4 through 7 of 2021, and obtained them in 2023. Smith’s lawyers answered on October 21, 2025. They called the subpoenas entirely proper, said they were narrowly targeted to that four-day window, and noted that the records show who called whom and when and contain no conversations.
Both sides are stating accurate facts. A toll record isn’t a wiretap. It is also the call log of sitting members of Congress, pulled for the days those members were deciding how to vote on certification. Article I, Section 6 protects members from being questioned about their legislative work, and whether this crossed that line is a real question for a court. I want the paperwork: who approved it, what standard they used, and who looked at the Speech or Debate problem before the subpoena went out. A smoke detector with no battery doesn’t count as an oversight process.
MUSKEGON: THE ADDRESS IS A PARK
On October 29, 2020, an FBI Detroit memo recorded that the Muskegon, Michigan city clerk had received packages of voter registration applications and judged some of them fraudulent: non-existent addresses, signatures that didn’t match, many in the same handwriting. A later Justice Department summary puts the total at roughly 8,000 to 10,000 applications from one company and says interviews indicated reloadable debit cards were used to pay the people bringing in the forms.
Agents ran the names. Of 107 applications checked, 91 returned no database results. Of the 16 that matched real people, only four had matching signatures. In a separate check of 20 randomly selected forms, seven were completely fabricated. One entry reads, simply, “Address is a park.” One canvasser told agents a coworker would sit in his car the whole shift and write down friends and relatives. Another said she took the job for easy money.
Now the half that doesn’t fit on a bumper sticker. Michigan’s Deputy Secretary of State said the fake registrants were never given ballots and no votes were affected. And when the FBI wrote it up, Justice Department prosecutors didn’t bite. In 2021 the department’s Public Integrity Section declined to approve a stand-alone voter-registration-fraud investigation. In 2023 it narrowed the scope, and another memo held canvasser interviews until after Michigan’s November 7 election. The agent wrote that he wasn’t comfortable closing the case. Public radio reporting in July 2026 says the FBI ended its investigation in 2025 with no federal charges.
This is registration fraud, a different animal from stolen votes, and I won’t dress it up as the second one. But a real scheme padded a city’s rolls with names that don’t exist, paid by the form, and an honest clerk caught it. The question I’d put to the Justice Department is the dull one: you were handed a pile of forms with an address that’s a park, and the follow-through was thinner than a church bulletin in August. Why? Switch the party labels on that canvassing firm and tell me you’d have heard about it for one week and not for six years. I went through the declassified files, including the Muskegon pages, and flagged where my own side overreached, here:
https://x.com/i/article/2078124234774106113
THE REPORT CARD
Here is the whole file in one place, with a grade on each line. The grades are my opinion. The facts underneath them are above, and you can check every one.
Dissent inside the party, Haley Stevens: F. One endorsement in one race and a membership revoked by announcement.
Choosing a nominee in 2016 and 2020: C-minus. Voters picked Clinton and Biden. The superdelegates, the leaked emails and the 72-hour narrowing of the 2020 field cost the grade. Choosing a nominee in 2024: F. Zero primary votes.
Ballot access: F. Two states tried to remove the leading opposition candidate before voters spoke, and the Supreme Court said no, nine to zero.
Alaska: Incomplete. The investigators will decide whether anything crossed a line, and I’ll accept what they find.
Proof of citizenship: D for the opposition. The party that wants an ID for every other transaction in life has not explained why this one is different, and the arrests keep arriving while it thinks.
Candor about 2020: A for confession, Incomplete for context. They told the story themselves. I’d like the same energy applied to Muskegon.
The letter from the fifty-one: D. A disclaimer in the footnote and a headline in the debate.
Arctic Frost: Incomplete until somebody shows me the Speech or Debate paperwork.
The DSA platform: F for the platform, and A for the senators who said no. Credit where it’s due.
Now my own side, same standard. The Justice Department filed its Alaska suit after Alaskans had started casting ballots, and the judge said so. Two conservative activists are charged in Minnesota over a stunt at a polling place, and I told you where I stand on that. Trump praised a Democrat for endorsing a Republican, which is politics, and politics is allowed. A republic does not require either party to be clean. It requires that when a party isn’t, somebody keeps score.
WHAT I AM NOT CLAIMING
Because the other side will read this closely, here is the fine print, with no apology attached.
I am not claiming the Democratic Party expelled Haley Stevens by a vote. The state chair announced it, and I have seen no process. I am not claiming Stevens said the party is anti-democracy; her reasons were the ad and being told to stay away. I am not claiming the caucus has acted against her, because it hasn’t, as of this writing.
I am not claiming the 2016 or 2020 primaries were stolen. Clinton and Biden won them. I am not claiming anyone was ordered to drop out. I am not claiming the Alaska spoiler scheme is proven, because nobody has been charged, and I’m not claiming the second Sullivan’s vote total equals the incumbent’s loss.
I am not claiming noncitizens decided any election. I am not adding the California and national numbers together. I am not claiming anyone has been charged for helping a noncitizen vote, because I haven’t seen it. I am not claiming the 2020 shadow campaign altered a vote count; the article I’m quoting says the opposite. I am not claiming Muskegon was stolen votes, because the state says no ballots went to the fake registrants.
What I am claiming is smaller, and I think harder to answer. A party that says it is the guardrail of democracy keeps treating the voter’s choice as a thing to manage: who gets to stay in the party, who gets to be the nominee, who gets to be on the ballot, what counts as proof that you are you. Those are the receipts. The conclusion is mine.
WHAT A REPUBLIC ASKS OF A PARTY
Yes, I know. The word democracy appears in the Constitution exactly zero times. Article IV, Section 4 guarantees every state a Republican Form of Government. Madison spent Federalist No. 10 on the danger of faction, and the whole design assumes that the people who want power will be tempted to manage everybody else’s choices. I explain the difference between “democratic,” an adjective, and “democracy,” a noun, because people who skip that distinction pass down errors that get believed for life. I’m using their word anyway, because they put it in their own name and sell it in every ad.
So grade them on their own label. A democratic party lets a primary rival say no without being told to leave. It lets voters choose a nominee. It doesn’t ask judges to remove the other side from the ballot. It doesn’t fight the one document that proves you are the voter you say you are, and it doesn’t wave off the arrests as a myth. And when its own coalition writes a magazine cover story about how it quietly steered the machinery in 2020, it should expect somebody to ask about the machinery.
I’ve written about January 6 and I’ll write about it again. This article is about the party that sells itself as the guardrail, and my standard is the same for everybody. Doesn’t it strike you that the loudest guardrail in the country keeps ending up on the wrong side of the road?
The longer version of this case is here:
https://x.com/i/article/2034698169313832960
The rest of the file, if you want the whole case: the Texas Senate race and Talarico’s theology is here,
https://x.com/i/article/2103262457833660416
, the Oct. 23 grading of the Ilhan Omar investigation is here,
https://x.com/i/article/2113643391510888448
, and what happens to a republic when members skip hearings and grandstand through the ones they attend is here,
https://x.com/i/article/2107858102435418112
But what do I know, I’m only a retired Army medic who checks the pulse before he believes the press release.
Mike Borowski is a medically retired Army combat medic with 23 years of service, including a combat deployment to Iraq, and a high school Anatomy and Physics teacher at a high-need Career Technical district in Northeast Ohio — where he also wrote and published the textbooks for both courses. He runs “Bski’s Classroom,” a platform dedicated to cutting through political noise with data, history, and the kind of blunt honesty that comes from someone who has seen both war and the American classroom up close.
—
X (Twitter): x.com/BskiMike22802
Substack: substack.com/@bskimike22802
YouTube: www.youtube.com/@BskiMike22802
AFNN: https://afnn.us/author/mikeborowski/
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA