GEORGE AND MCDUFFIE: A LIAR CAN BECOME DC MAYOR BEFORE A TRUTH-TELLER CAN PUT ON SHOES

 

GEORGE AND MCDUFFIE: A LIAR CAN BECOME DC MAYOR BEFORE A TRUTH-TELLER CAN PUT ON SHOES

Jonathan Swift, the 17th/18th century Anglo-Irish essayist, satirist, and political writer, wrote, “Besides, as the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…” Others say that Mark Twain, a greater writer than I, wrote, "a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth puts on its shoes". Today, I embark on a series of commentaries that places an investigative mirror to the faces of the current DC Democrat Mayoral candidates. The traditionalist, mainstream candidate Kenyan McDuffie, pressed and curled for CNN and the darling of the Radical Left, Janeese Lewis George, weaved and readied for the MSNOW crowd. I do this because there are two views of the City: a Christveiw of the virtuous yet disenfranchised minority and Worldview of the audacious and tyrannical, authoritarian majority. The majority has conquered the Nation's Capitol and secured it for the ultimate lust of the 1960's-Statehood. The Holy Grail of the Radical Left. DC has been governed by a local Democrat party machine since the 1973 Home Rule Act, which allowed for an elected mayor and council. However, federal control remains supreme; Congress and the President retain authority over the local budget and laws, and the city has not had a Republican mayor since the early 20th century. You only need to touch a live, damaged outlet once to get shocked. There is no "safe" number of times to touch it. Even a single, quick contact with a hot, ungrounded wire will cause an electrical shock, as it completes a circuit through your body. DC Voters continue to shock thenselves. For them, it's not about economics, education, taxes, snall business, public safety, or housing. Those are mere toys to entertain themselves until they have attained Statehood.

Rep. James Comer said Democrats want Statehood for two reasons: power and money. Comer proceeds, "This is not the first time D.C. has tried to become a state. In 1960, the Democrat-controlled House rejected statehood for the district. They instead settled on the 23rd Amendment, granting it votes in the Electoral College — which is now the principal constitutional obstacle for statehood. Congress rejected statehood again in 1993, with current Majority Leader Steny Hoyer voting no. Last year, the House passed a bill granting D.C. statehood, but that measure was also unconstitutional. Wisely, the Senate never considered it." Comer continues, "Robert F. Kennedy labeled these possibilities “an absurdity,” and it is why every Justice Department for the past 60 years has come to the conclusion a constitutional amendment is needed in order for D.C. to become a state." Comer cotinues, "Taxing non-resident income would add $55 billion to the district’s income tax base and would double all individual income taxes collected in the city. This money would not only represent higher taxes for those who work in the city, but it would come at the expense of the state budgets of Virginia and Maryland. The district would also be able to tax exempt properties such as hospitals, universities, and non-profit entities.

D.C. statehood is a perfect issue for national progressives and local leaders to rally around, but they are not being honest about what they actually want. H.R. 51 is all about consolidating Democrats’ power in Washington to ensure more government intrusion in Americans’ daily lives. H.R. 51 is unconstitutional and the wrong approach, and Congress must reject this bill."

The Conversation in "What would happen to Congress if Washington, DC became the 51st state?" makes it plainer, "If Washington, D.C. is granted statehood, its two senators will almost certainly be Democrats, giving the Democrats 49 out of the now 102 seats in the Senate. This will slightly reduce the Republican majority. The Democrats would now only need two more senators to have the same number as the Republicans.

In 2020, the Republicans will be defending 22 Senate seats and the Democrats 12 seats. The most vulnerable Republican seats, according to FiveThirtyEight, are Maine, Colorado and Arizona.

With the two new Democrats from Washington D.C., the Democrats would only need to win two of these Republican seats, and hold 11 of their 12 seats, to have a majority in the Senate.

Meanwhile, there are 435 seats in the U.S. House. Every state receives one seat automatically. The balance, 385 seats, are distributed according to the size of the populations of the states."

I thought this was about Janeese Lewis George and Kenyan McDuffey not Statehood, Ken? 

You have to kmow that the only thing that matters is Statehood. Not the People running or the people to be served but, the Holy Grail. The Great Dream of Marxist Utopia: Statehood.

Janeese Lewis George on DC Statehood: "DC is under attack and we need leaders that stand up and fight back, not shrink in the face of injustice. This starts with Janeese rescinding the MPD order that permits our officers to work with ICE, sharing information and transferring people to ICE custody. Janeese will use every tool we have to build coalitions locally and nationally to defend our community’s rights and values. She will work with DC’s delegate and Attorney General Brian Schwalb to protect Home Rule. She will walk the halls of Congress herself, and build relationships on both sides of the aisle, because that is our path to protecting DC autonomy and passing DC Statehood."

Kenyan McDuffie on DC Statehood: "Free DC’s values resonate with me because they go to the heart of what it means to be a Washingtonian: freedom, dignity, and self-determination. As a former DOJ civil rights attorney, I’ve spent my career defending constitutional rights. As a Councilmember, I’ve worked to make sure our government is worthy of the public’s trust—and that D.C. residents are treated as full

citizens. Statehood and Home Rule are not abstract concepts to me. They shape whether we can protect

our residents from federal interference, whether our locally enacted laws can stand, and

whether our budget can reflect D.C. priorities. That is why I have consistently supported

Statehood and why I believe D.C. must have the full right to govern itself."

Most voters are disenfranchised or disinterested in voting due to one party rule. DC functions under a Democratic-dominated local government while remaining under ultimate federal authority. The District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973 allows residents to elect a mayor and council, which are currently almost entirely controlled by the Democratic Party. However, Congress retains power to overturn local laws and budgets. China is a one-party socialist state governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which holds a monopoly on political power. The CCP dominates all aspects of the state, including the government, military, and economy. While eight minor, subservient political parties exist, they accept the CCP's leadership. Cuba operates under a strict one-party system, where the Communist Party of Cuba (PCC) is constitutionally recognized as the only legal political party and the "leading force" of the state and society. Since the 1959 revolution, no other political parties are allowed to compete for power, making it a single-party socialist republic. The Soviet Union (USSR) was a one-party state for almost its entire existence from 1922 to 1990. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) held a legal monopoly on power, governing all aspects of political, economic, and social life. This system was designed to enforce Marxism-Leninism, with other parties banned. What do they have in common: the pursuit of Marxism-socialism, choice, or communism, force. 

Karl Marx did not explicitly advocate for a modern "one-party state," but rather the dictatorship of the proletariat—a transitional, democratic rule by the majority (working class) to dismantle capitalism. He viewed the state as a tool of class oppression that would eventually "wither away" into a stateless, classless communist society. Since 1960, opposition to capitalism within Democratic circles has evolved from 1960s "New Politics" to a growing embrace of democratic socialism by groups like the Metro DC DSA. While the mainstream party largely managed capitalism through the 1990s, modern critics argue that unchecked capitalism fuels extreme inequality, environmental damage, and threats to democratic stability. After an extensive endorsement process, the Metro DC Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America has voted by 96% to endorse Janeese Lewis George for her reelection to Ward 4 of the DC Council. Metro DC DSA continues, "In her first term, she championed a tax on the wealthiest residents of DC, which funded direct payments to underpaid childcare workers. She has advocated to expand rent control in the city, led on a Green New Deal for Social Housing, and has introduced legislation to hold slumlords accountable for terrible living conditions."

As of November 30, 2025, there were 473,145 registered voters in the District. Between 2014 and 2020, voter registration steadily increased each election cycle, though has decreased since then (in part due to cleaning the voter rolls). According to Pew in "DC Dispatch: Dead Voters Off the Rolls" reported, "In Washington DC, over the two-year period from 2008-2010, nine of 10 voters removed from the city’s voter rolls were removed due to death." Pew continues, "According to Paul Stenbjorn, executive director of the DC Board of Elections and Ethics (DCBOEE), these numbers are due to a new list maintenance effort that is long overdue. At one point, the number of registered voters almost approached the number of citizens in DC, a clear warning sign that DC’s data had grown dusty over time." An estimated 92% of DC’s adults are registered to vote based on the most recently available data. As of 2024 single year estimates (the most recent available in 2026), the District’s citizen population aged 18 and up was approximately 515,772 with 473,145 residents registered to vote as of November 30, 2025. Approximately 50% of registered DC voters are Black, 31% white, 6% Latino, and the remaining 13% other or unknown race. These estimates are within five or six points of the District’s overall population, but do not reflect voter participation rates. In primary cycle 2024, 92% of registered voters were Democrats, 6% were Republican and 1% or fewer each were Libertarian or Statehood Green. Party affiliation across the wards was relatively consistent, only wards 2, 3, and 6 had more than 10% of their voters register for a party other than Democrat (11%, 11%, and 12% respectively). 

Year         Total Votes Notes

2020 344,356         This was a significant turnout amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting a                                             66% voter turnout.

2022 181,642         Turnout was affected by midterm voting patterns, typically lower than                                                         presidential elections.

2024 325,869         A notable increase from 2022, corroborating strong voter engagement in                                                     presidential elections, with 70.8% turnout reported.

The rabid Democrats enjoyed the Trump elections and profited in rhetoric return of political investment with voter turnout in 2020 and 2024.  Following the start of his second term in January 2025, Democrat leaders and organizations, particularly in DC have strongly criticized President Donald Trump's actions, policies, and rhetoric. In response to Trump targeting the DC police department and National Guard, critics called it a "destabilization" of public safety, with one official stating, "Donald Trump has no basis to take over the local police department. And zero credibility on the issue of law and order. Get lost".

Statehood, yearned for DC Democrats and Radical Leftists, failed when Democrats had power in Congress and the White House. President Barack Hussein Obama had the best opportunity-a Democrat House and Democrat Senate. Sarah Anne Hughes in "Obama On D.C. Statehood: ‘I’m For It’" wrote, "During an appearance at a D.C. school, President Barack Obama openly supported the city’s statehood effort for the first time.

“I’m in D.C., so I’m for it,” Obama said at the Walker Jones education campus, according to a White House pool report. “I think I’ve long believed that D.C. pays — folks in D.C. pay taxes like everybody else. They contribute to the overall well-being of the country like everybody else. They should be represented like everybody else. And it’s not as if Washington, D.C. is not big enough compared to other states. There has been a long movement to get D.C. statehood and I’ve been for it for quite some time.”" No Statehood. Blame Trump.

Zachary B. Wolf in "Why Biden flipped a 180 on DC’s ability to self-govern" wrote, "President Joe Biden is siding with Republicans and moderate Democrats to slap down local leaders of Washington, DC, as they try to update a 100-year-old criminal code that is showing its age.

Progressive Democrats are furious about the message this sends on criminal justice reform, and some DC residents feel betrayed by the president who lives in their midst.

But the headline version of this story, while it neatly fits the Republican political narrative that American cities are crime-infested and rotting, is incomplete."

Wolfe continues, "While Democrats want to make DC a state, the Constitution gives Congress control over the federal district that houses the seat of the US government.

Republicans in Congress, joined by some Democrats, have vowed to use their power over the capital city to throw out the criminal code reform.

Under the home rule law that gave DC’s local government more autonomy back in the ’70s, Congress can review legislation passed by the city council, and simple majorities can reject anything."

Wolfe observed, "Biden could allow the new criminal code to take effect by vetoing the measure running through Congress. It would only take 34 Democrats to sustain the veto. Instead, he’s made it clear he’ll kill the new criminal code reform.

Here’s how Biden explained his position in a tweet, as noted in the last edition of What Matters, but which is no less hard to follow today:

I support D.C. Statehood and home-rule – but I don’t support some of the changes D.C. Council put forward over the Mayor’s objections – such as lowering penalties for carjackings.

If the Senate votes to overturn what D.C. Council did – I’ll sign it."

No Statehood. Blame Trump!

Mass hysteria (or mass psychogenic illness) is a phenomenon where groups of people experience shared, irrational fears or physical symptoms (fainting, rashes, dizziness) without an organic cause, often driven by high stress, anxiety, and rapid, repetitive information spread. It acts as a conversion disorder that spreads through, and is amplified by, social, digital, and mainstream media, transforming localized anxieties into widespread societal norms or panic. The Marxist Utopian Pursuit of Statehood suffers the Democrat one-party ruled voters of DC. Deception is widely considered an enduring, structural component of politics, used throughout history to gain power, manage public opinion, and navigate international relations. It manifests through lies, omissions, and spin to shape the "information environment". While often seen as corrosive, some argue it is necessary for statecraft or achieving political goals. Since 1960, Democrats have been radicalized and made to forfeit improving the daily lives of citizens in Pursuit of Statehood. For 60 years, the Democrats have promised to make fruitful the citizens of DC and to be prudent caretakers of the Nation's Capitol. Name the issue or the topic, it has worsened over 60 years: housing, education, economics, public safety, etc. There is no will to change for the good. All for Statehood and to Hell with the people and their issues. Marx would be proud! And the people yearn to be deceived and blame a boogeyman. The boogeyman is a mythical, shapeless figure used globally to terrify children into good behavior, originating from the Middle English bugge ("frightening spectre"). Often depicted as a dark, nocturnal entity with claws or horns, this "nursery police" figure has evolved from folklore warnings into modern horror cinema and pop culture, embodying universal fears of the unknown. If you empower the Republicans or leave the Democrat Party, the boogeyman will make you slaves again. The Democratic Party was the party that largely supported and defended the institution of slavery before the Civil War. The Republican Party was founded in the 1850s specifically as an anti-slavery party and spearheaded the Reconstruction-era amendments that abolished slavery and established civil rights for Black Americans. Or the Democrat rhetoric that Republicans will send Blacks back to Africa. 

Deception is fundamentally driven by fear—specifically, the fear of loss, rejection, judgment, or negative consequences, causing individuals to use lies as a defensive mechanism to protect their emotions or safety. This "detection apprehension" (fear of being caught) can create anxiety, leading to verbal or nonverbal leakage, such as higher-pitched voices or increased blinking. We will show in this series, the ardent and arrogant deception of George and McDuffie of DC Voters to maintain the Marxist Pursuit of the Holy Grail-Statehood.

The rebuff of a Radical pursuit of governance was to be done by the Press and the Church. Unfortunately, the DC citizen can rely on neither. Some will ask, "What about DC journalists like Tom Sherwood?" Many media outlets and religious institutions in the District tend to lean liberal. Journalism is the professional practice of gathering, verifying, editing, and distributing news and information about events, issues, and people to the public. It acts as a watchdog to hold power accountable, providing citizens with accurate, objective information necessary to function in a democracy. Yellow journalism is a style of late-19th-century sensationalist reporting that prioritized eye-catching headlines, scandals, and emotional, often exaggerated stories over factual accuracy to boost newspaper circulation. Pioneered by rivals Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, it heavily influenced public opinion and contributed to the Spanish-American War. Sherwood is a puppet of the DC Left. Jeremy Conrad in "From Statehood to Stadium: Local Journalists Share Insights Into Top Issues Facing D.C." reports, “The short answer is that there’s no political will to do it,” said Julia Karron, senior producer at City Cast DC.

WAMU political analyst and Washington City Paper contributor Tom Sherwood agreed, noting that statehood would result in the District’s ability to tax out-of-state residents working in the District. The result would be a significant loss in tax revenue for other jurisdictions, creating a significant disincentive, even for those that otherwise support extending franchise to the District."

Conrad further reports, "Sam P. K. Collins, writer for the Washington Informer, suggested that other barriers to statehood exist, including a gap in generational perceptions, particularly in the Black community, regarding the need for independence. Younger generations are less motivated to push the issue, Collins said.

“With what D.C. has gone through in the past 50 years … even with [recent] Black political representation, there are still Black people in the trenches going through it,” Collins added. “There are people who don’t trust the government because they’ve seen what the government has done to them […] they can’t even talk out loud at Council meetings, which is understandable, but if the government and the system have been against you for so long and you can’t express yourself, what’s the point of even doing it?”

The puppets of the Left can at times make truthful revelations. The Democrats say, "Nothimg to see here. Move along!"

The landscape of churches in DC is characterized by a mix of progressive, socially active congregations and historically rooted, often segregated or racially stratified, institutions. Despite the city's overall diversity, many churches in DC still reflect historical racial divisions in their membership, even when pursuing progressive social causes. In the 1960's, many churches and religious institutions—including those in the DC area—became heavily influenced, challenged, or directly involved with radical, anti-war, and civil rights movements. Black churches were central to the civil‑rights movement and voter‑mobilization efforts in the 1950s–60s; they hosted meetings, organized marches, and helped translate community leadership into formal political roles. In DC specifically, churches and clergy often served as community power centers that endorsed candidates, hosted campaign events, and mobilized congregations — especially in city and mayoral politics from the 1960s onward. That looks like recruitment and political grooming. Churches in DC have been politically active since before 1960 and played a major role in recruiting, mobilizing, and launching community leaders (many progressive on civil‑rights and social‑justice issues) into public life. The "New Left" saw the mainstream Democratic Party as part of the establishment. In your church, the worry was no longer if you were aligned with Christ but if you were aligned with the Democrat Party. Simply, Mother's Day became a celebration of International Women's Day. Father's Day became Domestic Abuse Sunday or Question Your Sexuality Sunday. 

Research indicates that the decline in Black male church attendance in the United States, including in urban centers like DC became evident from the 1960s onwards. Coincidently, and just coincidentally, the Great Society and War on Poverty began in the 1960's. Great Society welfare programs (1960s) contributed to the breakdown of the American family by creating financial incentives, such as welfare eligibility, that often required the absence of a husband/father. This structure, intended to reduce poverty, inadvertently encouraged the separation of men from households and increased fatherlessness. 

• Financial Disincentives to Marriage: Programs like Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) often provided more generous benefits if a father was absent, essentially paying for the separation of families.
• "Man in the House" Rule: Welfare, in some cases, incentivized mothers to keep fathers away to avoid losing benefits, and caseworkers sometimes checked for the presence of men.
• Impact on Low-Income Families: This dynamic is widely believed to have severely impacted the nuclear family structure, particularly within black communities, by diminishing the role of the father.
• Long-Term Consequences: Critics suggest that while aimed at poverty reduction, these policies contributed to generations of families growing up without fathers, resulting in higher rates of crime, poverty, and dependency.

Steve Bannon, host of the War Room podcast and former White House strategist, is known for the phrase, "There are no conspiracies, but there are no coincidences". This philosophy suggests a, calculated, non-coincidental nature to political events, which he often leverages to drive narratives. 

Slowly, in DC and around the US, the "I don't need a man" hymn became an often chosen and sung tune.  The prevalence of the "I don't need a man" sentiment in society began to rise significantly during the 1960s–1980s, driven by a wave of radical feminism, which advocated for legal, financial, and reproductive autonomy. Suddenly, men were ushered out the door and the Radicals invited into the pulpit. As well, the ultimate question was brought to the floor, "Who is my provider? God or the State?"

Remember Walter E. Fauntroy from my writing, "'WE THE PEOPLE' MUST END NANCY CROW, WIFE OF JIM CROW AND SISTER-IN-LAW TO JANE CROW". He was a Christian Socialist like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He wrote the Home Rule Act but preferred Statehood. Fauntroy, a key civil rights leader and the first non-voting delegate to Congress for DC, reflected on his experience with the Democratic party, specifically regarding the challenges of navigating a party with conservative Southern elements. In an interview regarding his time in Washington, he noted that early in his career, the city was controlled by "Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans who... did not want us to vote in the District of Columbia because the District of Columbia was too urban, too liberal, too democratic and too black".

• On the political atmosphere of D.C. (1960s/70s): "I used to tell Dr. King that we would not be free to govern ourselves in the District of Columbia until Black people were free in the South to register to vote," he said, highlighting his struggle against Southern Democrats like John McMillan, who chaired the District committee and blocked home rule for decades.
• On the struggle for rights: "Our people are no longer asking for equality as a rhetorical promise," he noted during his tenure, emphasizing the need for concrete action from his party. 

The seeds planted. And the Harvest have not changed its rhetoric or Marxist Utopian Pursuit of Statehood. Fauntroy said, "I was taught in elementary school how beautiful the American Dream is that you are ruled by people whom you elect to organize and run the government. When I got to the seventh grade in junior high school, my civics teacher said that applies to everybody except those of us who live in the District of Columbia. I really got sort of angry with it. I said, why? And he very astutely said to me something I didn’t understand then. He said the city is controlled by Southern Democrats and conservative Republicans who … do not want us to vote in the District of Columbia because the District of Columbia was too urban, too liberal, too democratic and too black.

I had met Martin Luther King Jr. in my first year of college at Virginia Union University. So when I became pastor in 1959, and he learned about it, he said, Walter, I want you to be my personal representative in Washington because you know the government. I said wonderful, I am going to work with you because if we get our rights in the South, the first thing we’re going to do is get me Home Rule because I can’t even vote."

So why join the Democrats, they were the Party of Racism, the Party of Jim Crow, and the Party of Slavery?

The Democratic Party solidified its stance as the main proponent of D.C. statehood, particularly after 2016, following a 2016 referendum where 85% of residents voted in favor of becoming the 51st state. While earlier efforts saw mixed support, the party aligned uniformly around this issue around 2019-2020, with H.R. 51 (The Washington, D.C. Admission Act) passing the House in 2020 and 2021. Although DC residents have long sought statehood, the party's lockstep approach is a relatively recent development. In 1993, a D.C. statehood bill failed with significant Democratic opposition (151 for, 105 against). Following the 2016 DC vote, the Democratic platform began overwhelmingly supporting the cause. By 2019, all major Democratic presidential candidates endorsed the initiative, and the Association of State Democratic Committees passed a resolution in support.

So why did Urban Blacks join the Democrat Party?

Urban Black Americans shifted to the Democratic Party primarily during the 1930s and 1940s, driven by the economic relief of the New Deal, disillusionment with Republican inaction during the Depression, and the influence of the Great Migration. FDR’s policies provided tangible aid, while key figures and later civil rights initiatives solidified this partnership. Like Esau and Jacob, Urban Blacks gave up their "natural rights" for the "promise of government-secured economic freedom". When easily deceived, prepare to be deceived again. Sy Landy in "Democratic Party: Disaster for Blacks" writes, "But hardly an article is written today on black politics which does not quote some politician or minister asserting the blacks have learned to “play the game” and that they have “matured.” The present leadership meetings consist of Democratic Party politicians and influential organizational and ministerial leaders, and are far less varied than, for example, the conferences in the 1970’s whose attendees included proponents of radical action. Today, advocates of strategies more radical than electoralism exist only on the periphery of the black leadership; center stage is accorded to the camp followers of the Democratic Party. And their politics fit the mold."

Landy continues, "It was in this period, up through the early 1970’s, that the political establishment began to dole out concessions to blacks under the threat of mass struggles. Of course, as with all concessions and reforms, the bourgeoisie did it in its own way. It chanelled the fund so as to build up a leadership in the communities that would have actual clout among black workers through its brokerage role. This meant recruitment into the various programs, projects, plans, community-elected boards, etc., of elements who were radical enough (often sincerely so, for what that’s worth) to gain a response. Thus, painstakingly, a new leadership (including some elements of the old) was slowly forged. The, remaining prosperity, although imperiled by the increasingly dangerous crisis of capitalism which resurfaced in the late 1960’s, was sufficient to dole out enough gains to provide hope for masses of blacks. This response to mass pressure came at a time when blacks, fed up with liberal promises, were voting less and less and were becoming more and more contemptuous of the Democratic Party."

Landy and I wouldn't share the same pew for the next Adam Smith Conference, however, I extend great applause for this revelation, "Let us sum up. The Democratic Party has never been the source of black gains. At times it disburses the gains actually won by mass challenges to the system. Its function is to allocate these gains through a system of brokers (leaders) who have or who have been given clout within specific sectors organized as “interest groups.” The Democratic Party delivers only to the degree that capitalism can afford to. It could never, even at the height of a prosperity greater than any prosperity that ever occurred in the history of the world deliver enough to feed, clothe, and house its entire working class. Now that the bubble has burst and the chronic, mortal crisis has resurfaced, the sops are tinier and the many previous gains are eroded or taken entirely away.

The Democratic Party is the institution within which the various sectors are forced to exercise their clout against each other for a portion of the small take. Not only does the party mechanism, with its rewards dependent upon votes and maneuvers, encourage sectors to vie with each other for scarce sops—but within each group, separate interests are forced to clash in order to maximize their take. Democratic Party politics internally—with city pitted against city, region against region, state against state, Hispanics against blacks against Poles against Italians against Irish against Jews for a piece of the federal budget action—is the war of all against all which mirrors life under capitalism. That is the purpose of the Democratic Party. Through the allocation of sops and reforms, it is designed to divide, conquer and destroy, existing or potential mass movements. (No wonder the present dispute within the black leadership is so hostile."

The Churches and the Press were radicalized as managed by the Democrat Party. The Civil War isn't over. They seek the destruction of the Constitution and are willing to offer Holy Grails in doing so. The Holy Grail of Statehood is an irrestible force for DC Democrats. An irresistible force is an unstoppable, overwhelming power that cannot be prevented, often used to describe intense desires, natural disasters, or the legal concept of insurmountable, unavoidable events (force majeure). It is famously paired with an "immovable object" in a philosophical paradox questioning what happens when the two meet. The immovable object is our Constitution. The lens of a Christian view on politics has been smudged by the Worldveiw of Radicalism. The Loser in all of this is the Black Voter in DC.

"We the People" must rise-up to take back our Nation's Capital. In this series, I will give you insights on the promises of George and McDuffie, something you won't see in your Left-leaning Press. I will show you their deceptions to make you keenly aware of why they are not entitled to the post of Mayor and that their election will only bring you misery. Imagine being called a "reckless driver" for driving 25 mph in a 20 mph speed zone. Or your son or daughter killed by an illegal alien and DC Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) tell you they can't arrest because the illegal alien has immunity. Don't imagine anymore because it could be one vote away.  

The Founding Fathers emphasized character, principle, and wisdom over factional loyalty when selecting leaders. A key guiding principle, often cited from early American thought, is: "In selecting people for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate – look to his or her character". 

Key insights on candidate selection from the Founders include:

• Character and Morality: Voting for someone with "known immorality" is considered a betrayal of public trust and the nation's interest.
• Wisdom and Discernment: Federalist No. 68 suggests selecting individuals with the "information and discernment" needed for complex governance.
• Patriotism over Ambition: Samuel Adams warned against "vain and aspiring men" taking office, advocating for "experienced patriots" to prevent ruin.
• Capacity for Judgment: The goal was to find leaders capable of "analyzing the qualities adapted to the station".

George Washington said, "Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for ’tis better to be alone than in bad company."

Choose your representative wisely.