Black conservatives perennially face the slur that they’re “not really black” if they aren’t on the left. Not only that, they are tools of white racists if they dissent from the NAACP hard line. When the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn a racially gerrymandered congressional district in Louisiana, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, was outraged by the local Deseret News in Salt Lake City prominently featuring an Associated Press photo of a lone black protester in front of the court holding a sign that said, “Thurgood is watching you, Clarence.” That implied Thurgood Marshall was disappointed in Clarence Thomas. Lee tweeted: “They’re going after Justice Thomas for being conservative while Black. That’s racist. And it’s very, very wrong.” He added: “It’d be absurd to assume that Justice Alito should agree with the late Justice Brennan because he’s white. It’s racist and offensive for @Deseret to suggest that Justice Thomas should agree with the late Justice Thurgood Marshall because he’s Black.” Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, a black conservative, seconded that thought: “When the Left can’t beat a Conservative Black man’s argument, they attack his Blackness.” For example, the Congressional Black Caucus has a membership of 60 Democrats, but none of the five black Republicans in Congress. This kind of slur greeted Thomas when he was nominated for the Supreme Court in the summer of 1991. NBC reporter Bob Herbert uncorked a commentary underlining “David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan leader, is crazy about Clarence Thomas.” Columnist Carl Rowan wrote Thomas had no talent, only the ability to “bootlick” Reagan and Bush, that “If you gave Clarence Thomas a little flour on his face, you’d think you had David Duke talking.”  That same spirit continues today, as the ladies on ABC’s “The View” were upset with Thomas. Joy Behar complained he “didn’t stick up for his own.” Two years ago, Behar complained that Sen. Tim Scott doesn’t understand being black, “the systemic racism that African Americans face in this country and other minorities. He doesn’t get it. Neither does Clarence. And that’s why they’re Republicans.” At the time, Scott tweeted: “When a Black conservative who believes in the future of this nation stands up to be counted, they lose their minds.” The standard leftist line is represented by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., pushing hyperbolic lies. “Morning Joe” championed his tweet that Thomas & Co. gave “a green light for unconstitutional attacks on the voting rights that generations of Americans bled and died to secure.” But no one has been denied the right to vote. The Left insists that unless blacks get to elect other blacks, they have no voting rights. So, what happens when a majority-black district elects a white guy (Steve Cohen in Memphis) or an Indian guy (Shrinivas Thanedar in Detroit)? Did their voting rights disappear? It got worse. Booker told MS NOW’s Jonathan Lemire that the Court’s verdict is “eliminating black representation, disenfranchising African American voters by drawing creative districts that completely take away any kind of representation.” So, all 65 black members of Congress are going to lose their seats? Or too many Democrats might? It’s also bizarre that Booker would talk about “drawing creative districts,” when that is exactly what many majority-minority districts look like on a map—as it was in this court case, the 6th District of Louisiana, which looks like a squashed centipede intersecting the district of Speaker Mike Johnson. Black conservatives aren’t in favor of “eliminating” black legislators or “disenfranchising” black voters. But leftists will villainize them like this because negative campaigning can work. Pretending only black Democrats are black isn’t going away. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

Massive sums of money are being spent on the midterm elections to determine control of Congress. As groups spend record money on ads and donations to support candidates across the country, here are some key trends that could help determine the balance of power in Washington after November. MAGA INC. President Donald Trump’s allies have amassed a huge war chest ahead of the midterms. MAGA Inc., a pro-Trump political action committee, had almost $350 million on hand at the end of March. How the group chooses to spend the money could have a major effect on the outcome of critical races. So far, the group has been relatively conservative in its spending. In 2025, however, the group spent $1.7 million in support of Rep. Matt Van Epps, R-Tenn., to hold onto the seat of retiring Republican Rep. Mark Green. Democrat Senate Candidates Democrats need to net four additional seats in order to gain control of the Senate. And so far, they’re fundraising effectively. In the first quarter of 2026, Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico brought in over $27 million. Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., seeking to hold onto his seat, also raked in over $14 million. The high individual fundraising numbers for Democrat candidates do not paint the full picture, however, as the National Republican Senatorial Committee outraised its counterpart, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, in 2025, and candidates such as Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, have brought in significant funds through authorized fundraising committees. Ad Spending Records Spending on political ads for this midterm cycle is through the roof. A study from S&P Global Market Research projects “local TV political ad revenue reaching $4.02 billion in 2026.” This would be a 15% increase from the last midterm cycle in 2022. That means political ads are likely to crowd the airwaves unlike in any other midterm cycle to date. Big Tech Money Big tech players are spending big in 2026. In the first quarter of 2026, Leading the Future, a pro-tech super PAC supported by the tech company Palantir’s co-founder Joe Lonsdale and the investment firm Andreessen Horowitz, raised over $15 million. Leading the Future has funded candidates in both parties.

“Duty to Disobey,” a documentary examining the experiences of U.S. service members who refused the COVID‑19 vaccine mandated by former President Joe Biden’s secretary of defense, is set to hit theaters in June. The film details what happened to men and women in uniform who declined the mandate. It explores physical injuries linked to the vaccine among some service members, and it frames their experiences as a case study in civil liberties, constitutional limits on government authority, and the costs of dissent within hierarchical institutions. Featuring testimony from former and active-duty service members across multiple branches and ranks, “Duty to Disobey” argues that the stories matter to all Americans. The filmmakers highlight what they describe as courage under pressure, institutional failures within the military, and what they call the often-unseen boundary between lawful authority and unlawful orders. One of the featured testimonies is from former Army Specialist Karolina Stancik, who says she suffered “a debilitating heart condition.” According to the film, the Army acknowledged the condition in a memorandum stating it was linked to the COVID‑19 mRNA vaccine. “I was left behind and trampled,” Stancik said in an interview posted on social media. “They watched it, they came back, walked all over me, then left again.” Another individual featured in the documentary is Nick Kupper, a retired airman who served more than 20 years in the U.S. military. The film states that Kupper nearly lost his career—and faced the possible loss of medical benefits for his disabled daughter—after refusing the COVID‑19 vaccine. Kupper ultimately remained in the service following a 2023 injunction filed against the Department of Defense by Children’s Health Defense, according to the documentary. He later retired on his own terms and now represents Arizona’s 25th District in the state House of Representatives, where he advocates against vaccine mandates. Similarly, Lt. Col. Carolyn Rocco, U.S. Air Force, refused the COVID‑19 vaccine and was not forced out of the service. According to the film, she continues to serve in a special assignment in Washington, D.C. Others, however, were not as fortunate. John Frankman, a retired U.S. Army captain, was separated from the military in the summer of 2023 for refusing the COVID‑19 vaccine mandate. A former Special Forces Green Beret, Frankman has since spoken publicly about his experience and advocates on behalf of other service members that he says were harmed by what he describes as an unlawful mandate. Frankman is now running to represent Florida’s 1st Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is positioning himself with characteristic flair for a national run in 2028, but at least one major obstacle stands in his way: his radical wife. Movie-star good looks, smooth delivery, and nearly a decade as California’s governor have made Newsom the early Democrat front-runner. He has spent the Trump years delivering fierce attacks on the administration while dropping hints about the White House. Yet, presidential success requires more than style. Candidates need a spouse who humanizes them, softens edges, builds bridges to skeptical voters, and projects steadiness in crisis. America’s most effective first ladies have quietly performed that work. Abigail Adams gave candid counsel. Eleanor Roosevelt served as FDR’s eyes and ears. Jackie Kennedy brought grace after tragedy. Dolley Madison showed resolve in 1814: As British troops advanced on Washington, she refused to flee until George Washington’s portrait was cut from its frame and saved. These women often compensated for their husbands’ shortcomings with warmth, courage, and relatability. Newsom needs that asset. His California record is elite failure writ large: homelessness exploding, businesses and families fleeing in record numbers, punishing taxes, rolling blackouts, and cities turned into open-air drug markets and tent encampments. These failures repel voters beyond coastal enclaves. His own gilded lifestyle only heightens the detachment. A wife who could connect authentically and show quiet strength would help mask those liabilities. Instead, he has Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Siebel Newsom consistently comes across as sharper, more condescending, and more ideologically extreme than her husband. Where successful first ladies softened edges, she sharpens them. She cannot be kept in the background. The latest example came right after the third assassination attempt on President Donald Trump. On April 25, 2026, a gunman breached security at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in a clear bid to kill the president.  A day later, Trump sat for a tense “60 Minutes” interview with Norah O’Donnell. When she read from the alleged shooter’s manifesto calling Trump a “pedophile, rapist, and traitor,” he pushed back forcefully. In any normal climate, an attempt on the elected leader’s life would prompt basic decency or shared rejection of violence. Siebel Newsom responded differently. Within hours, she posted on X that her family watched, “shocked.” She ignored the assassination attempt and instead attacked Trump’s “level of contempt” toward the female journalist, his “pattern of misogyny,” and its effects on boys and men. An attempt on the president’s life became another lecture on patriarchy. The timing exposed a profound disconnect: when the nation faces real peril, California’s first partner chose moral scolding aimed at the victim. This fits her pattern. A resurfaced clip shows her describing a family trip through Southern red states as a mission to expose her children to racism, misogyny, and sexism so they could “be the change.” Ordinary Americans became exhibits for her Bay Area kids. The condescension stunned observers like Scott Jennings—especially from a state drowning in its own dysfunction. She has labeled Jordan Peterson “alt-right extreme” hate speech and demanded tech censorship. In 2022, she dismissed evangelicals and conservatives as trapped in a “silo”, dragging America backward. Tens of millions of religious Americans were written off as obstacles. That is not empathy—it is contempt. Her activism—gender as a spectrum, dolls for boys, pronoun stories, anti-patriarchy lectures—comes with serene certainty while California families endure the highest cost of living, unreliable power, and streets full of tents and needles. Her nonprofit, The Representation Project, has paid her roughly $150,000 annually plus millions more to her company, while taking donations from interests with state business. The optics scream elite double standards. Effective first ladies rarely insulted broad swaths of the country. They offered steadiness in crisis. Siebel Newsom amplifies coastal elitism, never more glaringly than by pivoting from an assassination attempt to score points against its target. Newsom’s children have reportedly urged him to delay presidential ambitions for family time. They may sense how toxic their mother’s clips will be nationally. Newsom faces a clear liability: a wife whose persona feels more radical than his record and whose instincts in crisis reveal a deep disconnect from ordinary Americans. He cannot sideline her without losing his activist base. Those viral moments—the red-state tour, Peterson attack, evangelical dismissal, and post-assassination lecture—will loop endlessly in primary states. Voters spot condescension. Jennifer Siebel Newsom radiates it. Gavin Newsom is a smooth operator. Yet no polish can overcome the constant reminder from his closest partner that much of America—and the survival of its president—is viewed with disdain by the coastal elite. In the end, his national story may be less about a flawed record than failing to overcome his wife.

Many of us grew up in times when our public workers were deservedly revered. This was because they were positive and helpful despite being both overworked and underpaid. Those days are long gone. Today, most public employees seem either apathetic or simply unwilling to help the taxpayers who pay their salaries. To make matters worse, today they are paid much better than their private industry equivalents. That was colorfully announced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in a recent news release. The statisticians responsible told taxpayers that private industry employees make an average of $32.37 per hour, and that their counterparts in state and local governments make $40.24 per hour. This difference is more significant when benefits are added to the picture. Each private industry employee receives an average of $13.68 per hour in benefits, compared to $25.04 per hour for the poor, humble public employee. That is an overall cost of $46.05 vs. $65.28 for our public employees. That is a whopping difference. The disparity is dramatically illustrated by the Los Angeles Unified School District’s move to give starting teachers an annual pay rate of $77,000 and 15-year veterans pay of $125,156. That is before a rich benefits package and on top of the perk of having summers off. Meanwhile, the district is an overstaffed operation with shrinking enrollment that matriculates poorly educated students. Those figures are for the period ended September 2025. You might notice that federal employees are not included in this study, meaning the pay disparity between them and private sector workers might be even worse. Think of it this way: When you go to the Department of Motor Vehicles to be harassed and ignored, the worker behind the counter is making more than the average person pleading to escape the DMV’s dysfunctional dystopia. The BLS also released regional analyses of employee costs across the country for private industry. I asked a highly placed source in the Department of Labor why there are no similar regional studies for public employees, and I was told the sample size was too small. I observed that there are 23.3 million public employees, 14% of all employees in the U.S. Twenty million are local and state employees. The response I got was simply, “You have a good point.” In addition, many public employees don’t pay into the Social Security system because they are covered by a richly funded pension program. All government employees are required to pay the Medicare tax of 1.45%. In states like California, Ohio, and Massachusetts, teachers, police, and firefighters don’t pay into the Social Security system. Many of these public employees receive retirement benefits through a defined-benefit plan, while almost all of private industry employees have been converted to a defined-contribution plan. The most prevalent pension plan today is the 401(k) plan. Employees with this kind of plan make contributions out of their earnings, often at least partially matched by the employer. Each account is in an individual employee’s name, who has control over it. Defined-benefit plans, on the other hand, are made up entirely of employer contributions. Most public employees participate in these plans, in which the employer (the taxpayer) pays all the contributions, and the employee receives benefits based on time and service. These plans are often richly funded by elected officials voted in by the public unions. Instead of giving current raises to the employees, they increase these pension benefits, which are paid with future tax dollars. These employer-funded benefits are not included in the above-cited calculations by the BLS, since they are somewhat nebulous and in the future. Minnesota pension plans are currently underfunded by $17.5 billion, and California plans are underfunded by $300 billion. Yet these benefits continue to grow for former public employees and have been ruled by judges as “non-negotiable obligations.” Public employees also receive lifetime health care benefits that were described to me by one spouse of a public employee retiree as “a Cadillac plan.” Some of the additional benefits public employees enjoy are more holidays than private industry. In California, they receive a total of 12. I know for a fact that one major company with largely unionized employees provides eight. One of the days that only public employees get off is the holiday formerly known as Cesar Chavez Day. Your head may have been spinning with how fast Democrats tossed Chavez out once allegations of sexual improprieties were brought forth 30 years after his death. Since then, his day has been known as “Farmworker Day,” ensuring all public employees continue to enjoy this day off while farmworkers continue their daily labor. Even the calculations by the BLS don’t begin to touch the real compensation differential between public employees and private industry ones. Our country still fosters this illusion of the public servant. Some public employees do provide essential services that require great personal sacrifice, such as police and firefighters, but that is a small portion, even if pro-tax politicians regularly shove them in our face.. Most—including schoolteachers—are better paid than the public they serve without commensurate performance standards and with little chance of being relieved for poor performance. They are now underworked and overpaid. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.