Do Democrats hear themselves? * WorldNetDaily * by Laura Hollis
wnd.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 2:29:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S. Elections & Voting Rights, Media Coverage & Press Relations, Democratic Party Responses
Vice President JD Vance's handling of the press is masterful, and some of his interactions with them have taken on iconic status.
For example, in January, Vance was being interviewed by Margaret Brennan on "Face the Nation." While asking Vance about the Trump administration's immigration policies, Brennan protested that Afghan refugees who were not being allowed to come to the United States had been "heavily vetted." Vance pushed back, pointing out that an Afghani man who had planned a terrorist attack in Oklahoma was said to have been "properly vetted." When Brennan countered, saying that it wasn't clear whether that immigrant had been "radicalized" before or after he came to the U.S., Vance cut her off: "I really don't care, Margaret," he said. "I don't want that person in my country, and I think most Americans agree with me."
That exchange became an instant meme.
Vance is only continuing the straight-talking style he utilized on the campaign trail. Last October, in an interview with Vance, ABC News' Martha Raddatz downplayed the threats posed by the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gangs in Aurora, Colorado, which then-presidential candidate Donald Trump had characterized as having "overrun" the city.
"The incidents were limited to a handful of apartment complexes," Raddatz insisted.
Those "incidents" - not only in Colorado but other states where TdA operates - included widespread sex trafficking and forced prostitution, arms and drug dealing, contract killings, automobile theft, violent assaults and extortion.
Vance's response was perfect. "Martha, do you hear yourself? Only 'a handful of apartment complexes' in America were taken over by Venezuelan gangs, and Donald Trump is the problem? ..."
"Do you hear yourself?" hasn't gone viral the way "I really don't care, Margaret" did. But it should. In fact, it should be Republicans' primary campaign theme as they move toward the 2026 midterms, because Democrats' statements, their policies, the groups they defend, and their knee-jerk opposition to anything and everything President Trump does make them sound just as ridiculous as Raddatz trying to hand-wave over the violent crime caused by a foreign gang in a Colorado city.
The first few months of the Trump administration provide countless examples.
This week, Trump sent the National Guard into Washington, D.C., after a series of high-profile attacks - including murders of a congressional intern and two Israeli embassy workers earlier this year in the nation's capital. Despite a reduction in violent crime since its all-time high in 2023, D.C.'s crime rate is still high. (And some of the reduction is attributable to gentrification of the city's poorest areas.)
You'd think that efforts to make the city safer for its residents, lawmakers and their staff, foreign diplomats and hundreds of thousands of tourists who visit each year would be something about which Republicans and Democrats could agree. But no. Democrats like D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser are more interested in bashing Trump. Bowser called Trump's action "authoritarian." D.C. Police Chief Pamela Smith couldn't even provide a response when a reporter asked what the new chain of command would be with the National Guard involved in D.C. policing; she said, "What does that mean?" New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries said, "Donald Trump ... has zero credibility on the issue of law and order. Get lost." Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to dredge up her lies about having the National Guard in D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021.
Do Democrats hear themselves? Their tone-deaf comments are constant.
Law-abiding Americans have to worry about their safety because Democrats' policies favor criminals, both foreign and domestic.
While Americans are outraged about crimes committed by people here illegally - crimes that include drunk driving, violent assault, rape and murder - Democrats express deep concern about those criminals being sent back to their home countries or to a maximum security prison in El Salvador.
While Americans who own businesses suffer retail theft that costs them (and the country) tens of billions of dollars each year, Democrats like those in California advocate for policies that reduce shoplifting to a misdemeanor and give thieves a slap on the wrist. (And that is if they are prosecuted at all.)
Democrat-controlled legislatures in New York and Illinois enacted laws eliminating cash bail. In some cities (including Washington, D.C.), Democrat prosecutors have bonds set ridiculously low - or refuse to prosecute certain crimes at all. As a result, criminals are back on the street.
Similarly, Americans watch in horror as downtowns in our major cities are destroyed by homelessness, filth and rampant, open drug use. Those situations were created or exacerbated by policies Democrats called "compassionate."
Across the country, Democrats purport to be incensed about Republicans redrawing congressional districts, even though Democrats have used their political power to gerrymander voting districts to favor Democrat candidates for decades. In Texas, Democratic Party legislators illegally left the state, trying to prevent the legislature from acting. This is apparently something Democrats do when they don't have a majority; Wisconsin Democrats pulled a similar stunt in 2011.
Haven't Democrats been saying for years that subverting the legislative process is "dangerous to our democracy"?
When Republicans try to pass - and enforce - common-sense laws that protect election integrity (requiring voter identification, proof of citizenship, postmarks and matched signatures on mailed-in ballots), Democrats throw hissy fits, claiming that the laws disenfranchise legitimate voters. That's complete garbage. You have to have an ID to buy a beer, drive a car or board an airplane. The real problem is that it prevents noncitizens from voting, improper ballot harvesting and absentee voting fraud.
Democrats are so hell-bent on opposing Trump that they have reduced themselves to caricatures. Their policies are antithetical to the safety and prosperity of Americans. They have lost the plot and - according to recent polls - the confidence of the American public.
If other Republicans are as adept as Vance at calling out the lunacy on the left, Democrats will lose more elections as well.
Sign Our PetitionIn analyzing the recent article from WorldNetDaily by Laura Hollis, it's essential to unpack the underlying narratives and political strategies being employed, particularly through the lens of historical context and the ongoing social struggles that shape contemporary discourse. The article seeks to portray Vice President JD Vance as a master communicator, highlighting his confrontational exchanges with mainstream media figures regarding immigration and crime. However, the framing of these issues merits a closer examination to understand the broader implications and the potential for perpetuating divisive ideologies.
Historically, the rhetoric surrounding immigration in the United States has often been steeped in xenophobia and fear-mongering. Vance's comments regarding Afghan refugees and the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gangs demonstrate a continuation of this tradition, where immigrants are framed as threats to national security. This aligns with a long-standing narrative that seeks to dehumanize marginalized populations, casting them as scapegoats for complex societal problems. By emphasizing isolated incidents of crime associated with specific immigrant groups, the article distracts from systemic issues such as poverty, lack of access to education, and economic disenfranchisement—root causes that are often conveniently overlooked in favor of sensationalized anecdotes.
Moreover, the focus on crime in urban areas, particularly in contexts of gentrification, raises critical questions about who benefits from these narratives. While the article suggests that crime is a pressing issue in cities like Washington D.C., it fails to acknowledge that the reduction in crime rates can often be attributed to broader socio-economic shifts, including gentrification. This phenomenon frequently displaces lower-income communities and exacerbates existing inequalities, leading to further marginalization of vulnerable populations. Ignoring these dynamics while blaming immigrants for crime serves to reinforce existing power structures that perpetuate inequality, rather than challenging them.
The exchange between Vance and the media further illustrates a deeper strategy to obfuscate responsibility and deflect criticism from systemic failings. By adopting a confrontational style and framing dissent as absurd, Vance and his allies seek to galvanize a base that thrives on a sense of grievance and victimhood. This approach not only stifles constructive dialogue but also undermines the potential for bipartisan solutions to pressing issues such as crime and immigration. Engaging in an honest examination of these topics, which includes acknowledging the contributions of immigrants to society and the economy, would serve to foster unity rather than division.
Furthermore, the article's suggestion that Democrats' responses to crime and immigration sound "ridiculous" highlights a strategic attempt to delegitimize opposing viewpoints by framing them as out of touch with the supposed sentiments of "most Americans." This tactic is reminiscent of historical smear campaigns that seek to silence dissenting voices by portraying them as elitist or disconnected from the concerns of the average citizen. In reality, many Americans recognize the value of diversity and the importance of humane immigration policies, which contribute to a vibrant and resilient society. Engaging with this majority perspective can empower advocates for social justice to counter narratives that seek to divide and demonize.
In conclusion, the article by Laura Hollis serves as a critical reminder of the need to interrogate the narratives surrounding immigration and crime within the political landscape. By understanding the historical context and ongoing social struggles that inform these discussions, advocates can engage more effectively in dialogue with those who hold opposing views. Empowering voices that advocate for justice, equity, and compassion is essential in challenging the divisive rhetoric that seeks to fracture communities and perpetuate inequality. Ultimately, fostering a more inclusive and informed discourse will pave the way for progress in addressing the multifaceted issues that impact society as a whole.
The article from WorldNetDaily touches upon several themes that resonate deeply within the current political climate: immigration, crime, and the media's portrayal of these issues. At its core, the piece seeks to elevate the rhetoric of a specific political narrative, one that positions the Republican Party as the champions of national safety amidst what they depict as an immigration crisis. This narrative, while compelling to a segment of the population, often overlooks the nuanced realities of immigration policy and community safety. To engage with this topic, it is important to unpack the historical context of immigration in the United States, the implications of framing immigration as a threat, and the constructive actions we can take to foster a more informed dialogue.
Historically, the U.S. has been a nation shaped and enriched by waves of immigrants, often portrayed as the "melting pot" of cultures. However, the narrative surrounding immigration has shifted dramatically over the decades, especially post-9/11 and during the Trump administration. The framing of immigrants as potential threats has been a cornerstone of certain political strategies, which serve to instill fear and rally support around stricter policies. It is essential to recognize that this perspective not only dehumanizes individuals seeking refuge but also ignores the contributions that immigrants make to society. For instance, studies have shown that immigrants are vital to economic growth, filling essential roles in various sectors, including healthcare, agriculture, and technology.
In the context of the article, the rhetoric used by figures such as Vice President JD Vance serves to diminish the complexities of immigration and crime. By focusing on isolated incidents of violence or crime linked to specific immigrant groups, the narrative becomes reductive, failing to consider the systemic issues that contribute to crime, such as poverty, lack of access to education, and structural inequalities. It is crucial to counter this narrative by emphasizing the importance of comprehensive immigration reform that prioritizes both national security and human rights. Engaging in discussions about the socioeconomic factors that drive crime can help shift the conversation towards policies that address root causes rather than scapegoating entire communities.
What can we, as engaged citizens, do to challenge these narratives? First and foremost, we can strive for education and awareness. Hosting community forums, workshops, or discussions that delve into the realities of immigration and the contributions of immigrants can help counter misinformation. Additionally, supporting policies that embrace immigrant rights and advocate for humane treatment, such as pathways to citizenship and access to legal resources, can foster a culture of inclusivity. It is also imperative to engage with our local representatives and push for legislative changes that reflect a commitment to human dignity and community safety, rather than punitive measures that disproportionately affect marginalized populations.
Furthermore, engaging with media literacy is essential. The way news is framed can significantly influence public perception. Encouraging critical thinking about the sources of our news and the narratives being presented can empower individuals to question sensationalized accounts of crime that disproportionately target immigrant communities. By fostering a more nuanced understanding of these issues, we can collectively challenge the oversimplified narratives perpetuated by certain political factions.
In conclusion, while the article highlights a provocative exchange within the political arena, it is vital that we approach the subject of immigration and crime with a critical lens. By understanding the historical context and recognizing the contributions of immigrants, we can better engage in a dialogue that promotes safety, understanding, and justice for all. As we move forward, let's harness the collective power of informed discourse to advocate for policies that reflect our values of empathy, equity, and community cohesion.
Analyzing the article reveals several key issues that resonate deeply with many individuals concerned about societal safety, immigration policies, and the political landscape. Here are actionable steps that can be taken to voice concerns, advocate for change, and foster a community dialogue on these issues.
### What Can We Personally Do About This?
1. **Engaging with Local Representatives:** - Write to your local and state representatives to express your concerns about immigration policies, crime rates, and how these issues are being politicized. - Example Representatives: - **Your State Senator** (Find your senator's contact through the official state government website). - **Your House Representative** (Find your representative at [house.gov](https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative)).
2. **Petition Initiatives:** - Start or join petitions that focus on immigration reform, support for refugees, and public safety strategies that prioritize community well-being over political rhetoric. - Example Petition Platforms: - [Change.org](https://www.change.org) - [Care2 Petitions](https://www.thepetitionsite.com/start-a-petition/)
3. **Community Organizing:** - Participate in or organize community meetings to discuss local crime and immigration issues. Encourage open dialogue that includes various perspectives and seeks constructive solutions. - Collaborate with local advocacy groups focused on immigrant rights, community safety, or social justice.
### What Exact Actions Can We Personally Take?
1. **Contacting Officials:** - Write to the following officials regarding your concerns: - **Your Governor**: Ensure they are aware of local sentiments regarding crime and immigration. - Example: **Gavin Newsom (California)** - Email: [governor@gov.ca.gov](mailto:governor@gov.ca.gov) - Mailing Address: State Capitol, Sacramento, CA 95814 - **Your State Attorney General**: Advocate for a balanced approach to safety and immigration. - Example: **Letitia James (New York)** - Email: [contact@ag.ny.gov](mailto:contact@ag.ny.gov) - Mailing Address: 28 Liberty St, New York, NY 10005
2. **Online Campaigning:** - Use social media platforms to raise awareness about the issues discussed in the article. Share informative content, organize online discussions, and promote petitions that align with your views. - Example hashtags: #CommunitySafety, #ImmigrantRights, #ResponsiblePolicing.
3. **Writing Letters to the Editor:** - Submit letters to local newspapers expressing your views on the issues raised in the article. Highlight the importance of addressing crime and immigration in a humane and responsible manner.
4. **Participating in Local Government Meetings:** - Attend town hall meetings and public forums to voice your concerns and ask questions about how local leaders are addressing crime and immigration issues. Encourage dialogue that seeks solutions rather than division.
### What to Say
When contacting officials or participating in public discussions, articulate your thoughts clearly and respectfully. Here are some key points you might include:
- **Express Concern:** "I am deeply concerned about the current immigration policies and their implications for community safety. It’s crucial that we approach this issue with empathy and a focus on public welfare." - **Advocate for Solutions:** "I believe we need comprehensive immigration reform that provides pathways for refugees and those seeking asylum while ensuring community safety through smart, evidence-based policies." - **Call for Dialogue:** "It is vital that we foster discussions that unite rather than divide us. We must ensure that all voices in our community are heard and considered in the policymaking process."
By taking these steps and engaging actively in your community, you can contribute to a more informed and compassionate dialogue around the topics raised in the article.