Democrats
Blue Stronghold Crumbles: Virginia GOP Flips County Seat After Democrat’s Social Media Scandal
In a stunning upset that has sent shockwaves through the Commonwealth’s political establishment, Republican challenger Marcus Thornton has successfully flipped a deep-blue county seat in the heart of Northern Virginia. The victory comes after a chaotic special election cycle that saw the Democratic incumbent, Julian Vance, implode following the release of resurfaced racist and inflammatory social media posts. At The Modern Memo, we break down how a double-digit Democratic advantage vanished overnight and what this bellwether win says about the limits of identity politics in 2026. The Scandal That Sank the Campaign Just two weeks before the polls opened, a series of posts from Vance’s private archives—dating back to the mid-2010s—began circulating on X (formerly Twitter) and local community forums. The content, which included derogatory racial slurs and disparaging remarks about minority communities in Virginia, stood in stark contrast to the “progressive champion” image Vance had spent years cultivating. The Response: Vance initially dismissed the posts as “youthful indiscretions” and “out-of-context screenshots,” but as more evidence emerged, his support among key constituencies evaporated. The Fallout: Prominent Democratic leaders, including Governor Abigail Spanberger, were forced to distance themselves from the embattled candidate, leaving Vance’s campaign in a tailspin during the critical final days of early voting. Thornton’s “Kitchen Table” Surge While the Democratic camp was mired in damage control, Marcus Thornton focused his campaign on a disciplined, “back-to-basics” message. Focus on Policy: Thornton leaned heavily into concerns over the rising cost of living in Northern Virginia and the local impact of federal spending. The “Character” Contrast: Without making the Vance scandal his only talking point, Thornton effectively framed himself as a steady, transparent alternative. “Voters are tired of being lectured by people who don’t live up to their own standards,” Thornton said during his victory speech. “Tonight, this county chose common sense over performative politics.” A Warning Shot for 2026 Midterms This flip is being viewed by national strategists as a significant warning sign for Democrats heading into the 2026 midterm elections. Suburban Shift: The precinct-level data shows that Thornton didn’t just win by turning out the GOP base; he made massive inroads with independent suburban voters who traditionally skew blue. The Vetting Crisis: The Vance scandal has reignited a debate within the Democratic Party about the vetting process for local candidates in an era where digital footprints are permanent and increasingly scrutinized by a vigilant public. Final Word The GOP’s victory in this Virginia stronghold is a textbook example of how a candidate’s hidden history can override even the strongest partisan advantage. When you look past the campaign slogans and focus on the data—the cratering of Vance’s support and the surge of independent voters toward Thornton—you gain a clearer picture of an electorate that values authenticity over rhetoric. Quality information replaces the noise of partisan spin with the clarity of election results and verified digital evidence. It allows you to see this flip not as a fluke, but as a demand for higher standards in public service. By choosing to analyze these shifts through the lens of voter behavior rather than just party loyalty, you align your perspective with the evolving reality of Virginia’s political landscape. Where Facts, Context, and Perspective Matter At The Modern Memo, our goal is simple: to provide clear, well-researched reporting in a media landscape that often feels overwhelming. We focus on substance over sensationalism, and context over commentary. If you value thoughtful analysis, transparent sourcing, and stories that go beyond the headline, we invite you to share our work. Informed conversations start with reliable information, and sharing helps ensure important stories reach a wider audience. Journalism works best when readers engage, question, and participate. By reading and sharing, you’re supporting a more informed public and a healthier media ecosystem. The Modern Memo may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. 📩 Love what you’re reading? Don’t miss a headline! Subscribe to The Modern Memo here!
Standing Firm: DHS Shutdown Looms as Democrats Reject White House Enforcement Offer
The clock is ticking toward a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with funding set to expire at midnight on Friday, February 13, 2026. Despite a significant legislative offer sent by the White House overnight—which administration officials describe as a “serious, good-faith effort” to address recent tragedies—Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has issued a “firm no,” pushing the government to the precipice of a funding lapse. At The Modern Memo, we analyze the administration’s offer, the Democratic rejection, and the high stakes of this “Valentine’s Day” deadline. The White House Offer: Concessions or “Hollow” Vows? In an effort to avoid the shutdown, the Trump administration transmitted a detailed counterproposal late Monday night. Administration sources highlight several key concessions intended to bridge the gap with the minority: Accelerated Body Cameras: The White House proposed an enforceable timeline to ensure 100% of ICE and CBP agents are equipped with body-worn cameras by the end of 2026. Enhanced Use-of-Force Training: The offer included a permanent funding increase for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) to implement mandatory de-escalation certification for all agents in the field. Targeted Enforcement Pledges: The administration offered to codify internal memos that prioritize high-threat criminal aliens, a move aimed at addressing concerns about “indiscriminate” arrests. However, the administration remained firm on several “non-starters,” including the Democratic demand for judicial warrants for all residential enforcement, arguing it would grind the legal system to a halt and allow dangerous criminals to evade capture. Schumer’s “Firm No” and the Minneapolis Crisis Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was quick to dismiss the offer as “incomplete and insufficient.” The impasse is rooted in the political fallout from two fatal shootings in Minneapolis last month involving federal agents—the deaths of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, and Renee Good, a mother of three. Demanding “Binding” Reforms: Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are insisting on a list of 10 formal demands, including a ban on agents wearing masks, a requirement for visible badge numbers, and the preservation of state power to investigate federal agents. The Leveraging of Funding: Schumer told reporters on Wednesday, “If they don’t add things that will rein in ICE, they are not getting our votes. Plain and simple.” The Counter-Narrative: While Democrats cite the Minneapolis incidents as proof of “lawless conduct,” Republicans have pointed out that agents often wear masks to prevent “doxing” by radical activists and that the fatal incidents are still under investigation. The Shutdown Reality: Who Actually Stops Working? As the Friday midnight deadline approaches, the practical impact of a DHS shutdown is more nuanced than typical government closures. Essential Personnel: Over 90% of DHS employees, including Border Patrol agents, ICE officers, TSA screeners, and Coast Guard personnel, are considered “essential” and would continue to work without pay until a deal is reached. The $75 Billion Cushion: Under the massive funding bill passed late last year, ICE maintains a $75 billion “enforcement fund” that does not lapse with the annual budget. This means mass deportation operations and border security functions will largely continue uninterrupted, even during a formal shutdown. The Furloughs: Roughly 10,000 to 15,000 “non-essential” administrative and support staff would be sent home, potentially causing delays in visa processing and E-Verify services. GOP Strategy: “Security is Not a Bargaining Chip” House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune have signaled they are prepared to weather a short-term DHS-only shutdown rather than agree to what they call “radical” restrictions on law enforcement. Protecting Agents: “We will not unmask the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect our borders,” Speaker Johnson stated. “The Democrats are holding the safety of American citizens hostage to protect people who have no legal right to be here.” The Next Move: The Senate is expected to hold a procedural vote today on a full-year funding bill, though it is almost certain to be blocked by the Democratic filibuster, setting the stage for a Valentine’s Day lapse. Final Word Staying informed on the DHS shutdown deadline isn’t just about watching a political standoff—it plays a powerful role in your understanding of the “checks and balances” currently testing the federal government. When you look past the drama of a “firm no” and focus on the data of the $75 billion enforcement cushion and the specific policy disagreements over “judicial warrants,” you gain a clearer picture of the stakes for national security and the rule of law. Quality information replaces the noise of partisan rhetoric with the clarity of legislative text and budgetary reality. It allows you to see this shutdown not as a total collapse, but as a high-stakes negotiation over the future of American immigration enforcement. By choosing to follow the facts of the White House offer rather than the slogans of the protesters, you align your perspective with the realities of the current political climate and support a more informed, resilient society. Where Facts, Context, and Perspective Matter At The Modern Memo, our goal is simple: to provide clear, well-researched reporting in a media landscape that often feels overwhelming. We focus on substance over sensationalism, and context over commentary. If you value thoughtful analysis, transparent sourcing, and stories that go beyond the headline, we invite you to share our work. Informed conversations start with reliable information, and sharing helps ensure important stories reach a wider audience. Journalism works best when readers engage, question, and participate. By reading and sharing, you’re supporting a more informed public and a healthier media ecosystem. The Modern Memo may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. 📩 Love what you’re reading? Don’t miss a headline! Subscribe to The Modern Memo here!
Kamala Teases 2028 Run — Democrats Scramble for Strategy
Kamala Harris has once again thrown Democrats into confusion. In a recent BBC interview, she hinted that she might run for president in 2028. Her vague, awkward answers quickly sparked speculation. Harris didn’t officially announce a campaign, but her tease made it clear she isn’t stepping away from the national spotlight anytime soon. That single comment set off a chain reaction across both parties. Democrats suddenly face a difficult question: do they rally behind her again or move on? Republicans, meanwhile, seem thrilled by the prospect of another Harris run. (MORE NEWS: Rebuttal to Hakeem Jeffries: When Your Own Words Go Too Far) What Harris Said — And Why It Matters Harris didn’t offer any solid vision or policy direction. When asked about poll numbers and the future of her party, she brushed it off with what many observers called “nonsense.” The exchange ended awkwardly, giving critics more ammunition to question her communication skills and overall readiness. Still, the tease served its purpose. It reminded the public she’s still here — and that she might want another shot. But it also forced her party to confront its leadership vacuum and unsettled identity. 🚨 JUST IN: Kamala Harris declares to America that she’s “not done” and might run for president in 2028 to quash the MAGA movement. 😂pic.twitter.com/NUDzqXAO7J — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 25, 2025 Democrats’ Growing Problem Kamala Harris’s comments exposed a deeper issue for Democrats: they don’t have a clear successor or a unified message. After years of internal fighting between progressives and moderates, the party looks divided and uncertain. If Harris runs, she risks reigniting old rivalries from her previous campaigns. If she doesn’t, the scramble to find a new face could create chaos. The Democratic bench is thin, and enthusiasm among younger voters has dropped. That’s not a great position for a party hoping to hold the White House in 2028. Republicans Smell Opportunity While Democrats argue about who should lead them next, Republicans are celebrating. Harris has become a favorite target for conservative media and party strategists. They see her as an easy opponent — one who stumbles in interviews and struggles to connect with voters. (RELATED NEWS: 2025 Elections: Five Key Races to Watch) GOP strategists are already giddy at the thought of a 2028 matchup between Vice President J.D. Vance and Kamala Harris. They believe her candidacy could energize conservative voters while dividing Democrats further. Book Tour Effect Harris’s ongoing book tour has become a stage for speculation. Every weekend, new clips and awkward soundbites circulate online. While the tour promotes her memoir, it also serves as a soft campaign — keeping her visible, drawing media attention, and testing public reaction. Critics argue she’s trying to rewrite her political image without addressing the failures that defined her last run. Supporters say she’s simply staying relevant. Either way, the timing of the tour aligns perfectly with a pre-campaign strategy. Possible 2028 Democratic Contenders As Harris toys with another run, other Democrats are circling. Here’s who might step in the race: Kamala Harris – She’s the default option, but also the most polarizing. Her record and communication style still divide voters. Gavin Newsom – The California governor has built a national profile, but his leadership of a state facing homelessness, crime, and cost-of-living crises could weigh him down in a general election. His critics also fault him for the devastating fires in January 2025. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) – A hero to progressives and a lightning rod for critics. Her inexperience, strong ideological positions, and social media presence could alienate moderate voters. Josh Shapiro – The Pennsylvania governor’s traditional stance could alienate progressives. He also faces a party increasingly skeptical of centrists and full of antisemitism. He is Jewish, and that could play a role in the outcome of a primary. Many say that is ultimately why Kamala did not select him for her Vice Presidential candidate. Andy Beshear – A Democrat winning in a red state sounds good on paper, but his low national visibility and cautious tone might not inspire a national movement. Key Takeaways If Harris runs, the field may clear for her, even if many Democrats aren’t excited about it. If she doesn’t, figures like Newsom or Shapiro may step forward, but both face heavy scrutiny. Progressive voters might rally around AOC, creating more tension between party factions. Moderates may turn to Beshear or another governor to find someone “safe” — though that might not be enough to excite voters. What It All Means The tease wasn’t just a moment of media buzz — it revealed the Democrats’ biggest weakness: uncertainty. The party is struggling to balance progressive energy with electability concerns. It’s unclear who can unify those factions or inspire the kind of national enthusiasm needed to win. If Harris runs, Democrats could relive the internal divisions that cost them before. If she doesn’t, the vacuum might be even worse. Either way, Republicans will be ready, organized, and eager to exploit the chaos. The 2028 race hasn’t even begun, but Harris’s offhand comment might have just kicked off the first round. Unmask the Narrative. Rip Through the Lies. Spread the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t polish propaganda — we tear it to shreds. The corporate press censors, spins, and sugarcoats. We don’t. If you’re tired of being misled, silenced, and spoon-fed fiction, help us expose what they try to hide. Truth matters — but only if it’s heard. So share this. Shake the silence. And remind the powerful they don’t own the story.
Democrats Fume as Trump’s Crime Crackdown Delivers Results
Outrage From the Left Democrats are in full meltdown mode over President Trump’s aggressive move to take on crime in Washington, D.C. They accuse him of overreach, authoritarianism, and election-year grandstanding. But beneath the outrage lies a deeper fear: that his approach might work—and that he plans to replicate it in other Democrat-run cities. From Capitol Hill to city halls in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore, Democrat leaders are scrambling to frame Trump’s actions as dangerous. Instead of celebrating safer streets in the nation’s capital, they appear more determined to deny Trump a victory than to bring relief to their own communities. (RELATED NEWS: Crime in D.C.: Trump’s Historic Action to Restore Order) Trump Points to Falling Crime Trump is already claiming success. He cites plunging homicide numbers and dramatic drops in carjackings since federal forces entered D.C. His allies argue the crackdown proves what voters have long suspected: when leaders back police and enforce the law, crime falls. That puts Democrats in a bind. Their opposition isn’t just to Trump—it looks like opposition to public safety itself. And it comes at a time when voters across the country list crime among their top concerns. HOME RULE: Democrats claimed crime was not an issue in DC, but given the fact homicides in Washington DC plummeted 71% and robberies by 60% following the takeover by President Trump i hope we can all agree they were lying. pic.twitter.com/f63wZ2hSvI — @amuse (@amuse) August 30, 2025 Expanding Beyond Washington The bigger story is Trump’s stated plan to bring the same strategy to other cities. He has publicly named Chicago, Baltimore, New York, and Los Angeles as possible targets. These are places long plagued by violent crime and failed leadership. For residents in those cities, the results in D.C. are hard to ignore. Trump’s message is simple: if Democrats won’t protect their own people, the federal government will. Democrats Circle the Wagons The response from blue-state leaders has been swift and furious. California Governor Gavin Newsom said Trump’s approach was “militarizing American cities.” Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker claimed it could be a plot to interfere with elections. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an order blocking local police from cooperating with federal troops. None of those responses directly address the falling crime numbers. Instead, they show Democrats more focused on preserving political power than on delivering peace and safety to neighborhoods desperate for both. (MORE NEWS: Minneapolis: Innocent Lives Lost and a Culture in Crisis) Mayor Bowser’s Balancing Act D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser illustrates the Democrats’ dilemma. At first, she denounced Trump’s move as authoritarian and even backed lawsuits against it. But as crime dropped, she began acknowledging the benefits of federal support. Bowser now tries to walk a tightrope—criticizing Trump’s methods while cautiously welcoming the results. “We greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been able to do in this city,” she said during a Wednesday press conference. “We know that when carjackings go down, when the use of gun goes down, when homicide or robbery go down, neighborhoods feel safer and are safer. So, this surge has been important to us for that reason.” Her shifting tone reflects what many Democrat officials likely recognize: opposing Trump outright risks alienating residents who want results, not political posturing. How Trump Did It For context, Trump invoked Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act, placing the Metropolitan Police Department under federal control. He deployed about 800 National Guard troops along with other federal law enforcement to flood the streets. Critics call it unconstitutional. Supporters call it overdue. Whatever the label, it delivered a visible law-and-order presence in the capital—something voters notice. Voters See the Contrast Polling shows most D.C. residents opposed losing local control. But nationwide, support for Trump’s move runs higher, particularly among Republicans and independents. Democrats are left trying to argue process while Trump points to outcomes. That contrast—safer streets versus political bickering—could shape how voters see both parties heading into 2026. Trump frames himself as the man who gets results. Democrats risk looking like leaders more worried about denying him credit than keeping their own citizens safe. The Bottom Line The fight over D.C. isn’t just about one city. It’s about the future of law and order in Democrat-controlled areas across the country. Trump has made it clear he’s ready to act where local leaders refuse. Democrats, meanwhile, continue to shout about overreach and lawsuits, even as the numbers in Washington shift in Trump’s favor. Voters will decide which matters more—process or results. Right now, Trump is betting that safety on the streets will outweigh partisan talking points in the minds of everyday Americans. Unmask the Narrative. Rip Through the Lies. Spread the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t polish propaganda — we tear it to shreds. The corporate press censors, spins, and sugarcoats. We don’t. If you’re tired of being misled, silenced, and spoon-fed fiction, help us expose what they try to hide. Truth matters — but only if it’s heard. So share this. Shake the silence. And remind the powerful they don’t own the story.
AOC’s 2028 Dreams Derailed as New Poll Shows Support Crumbling
This article was written by Jason Walsh for WokeSpy. New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has suffered another major setback in her dreams to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2028. According to a new poll from Echelon Insights, conducted between July 10–14, a familiar cluster of names have emerged atop the list of preferred candidates for Democratic primary voters. (RELATED: Newsom’s Press Office Attacks Victims Of Palisades Fire For Demanding Answers) The most preferred candidate is currently Vice President Kamala Harris, garnering support from 26 percent of respondents. However, Harris’ figures slipped six percentage points compared to the poll’s previous result. In second place was former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg with 11 percent, up a single percentage point from the last survey. Both Harris and Buttigieg have polled as frontrunners across a number of pollsters throughout the early weeks and months of President Donald Trump’s second term. Greasy Gavin Surges Ahead The biggest winner was California Governor Gavin Newsom. According to the latest Echelon Insights poll, Newsom was named the preferred candidate by 10 percent of respondents. That figure is up five percentage points from the previous result and comes as the far-left governor has embarked on a podcast tour aimed at portraying himself as a moderate. In fourth place was Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), with seven percent. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez came in fifth place with just six percent of the vote. This represents a decline of two percent from the previous survey, and comes as pro-communist New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani found himself under the national spotlight.(RELATED: USAID Quietly Sent Thousands Of Viruses To Chinese Military-Linked Biolab) Ocasio-Cortez has emerged as one of Mamdani’s primary benefactors and has held multiple rallies in support of his candidacy. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro received support from four percent of Democratic primary respondents. Shapiro is widely perceived as a moderate and has enjoyed high favorability ratings in the key swing state. Others included Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and businessman Mark Cuban — each of whom received three percent of the vote. Other Options? Governors Andy Beshear (Kentucky) and JB Pritzker (Illinois), both of whom have signaled serious interest in a White House bid, each received two percent, as did Senators Chris Murphy (D-CT) and John Fetterman (D-PA). Meanwhile, Maryland Governor Wes Moore, U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Daily Show host Jon Stewart, and longtime ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith each received one percent of the vote. Read more at WokeSpy.com
‘This Is Anarchy’: John Fetterman Rips Fellow Democrats For Not Condemning LA Riots
By Daily Caller News Foundation news reporter Mariane Angela Democrat Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman took to social media Monday to criticize his fellow Democrats for not denouncing the violent riots that broke out in Los Angeles after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raid. In a post on X, Fetterman said he was disappointed in his party’s failure to take a firm stand against the destruction, calling the situation “anarchy and true chaos.” He said that the Democratic Party risks losing its moral high ground when it fails to unequivocally condemn such actions. “I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that. This is anarchy and true chaos,” Fetterman wrote. “My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement.” I unapologetically stand for free speech, peaceful demonstrations, and immigration—but this is not that. This is anarchy and true chaos. My party loses the moral high ground when we refuse to condemn setting cars on fire, destroying buildings, and assaulting law enforcement. pic.twitter.com/pPYbvP6xR0 — U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) June 10, 2025 President Donald Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles Saturday after riots erupted following an ICE raid at a Home Depot. On Friday night, around 1,000 individuals caused chaos in the city, surrounding a federal building, attacking ICE agents, deflating tires, and vandalizing government property, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The unrest led to significant damage and severe traffic disruptions, halting traffic on several critical city roads. Trump authorized the National Guard’s deployment on Saturday night to assist local law enforcement and warned Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom that the federal government would step in if local authorities failed to restore order. (RELATED: Will Summer 2026 Be The Season Of The Blackout? Energy Grid Fails In Major US City) In response, California filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday, challenging the deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to the immigration riots. Attorney General Rob Bonta and Newsom said that federalizing 2,000 California National Guard members without Newsom’s consent exceeded the president’s authority. GOP Are Fighting DNC Control With Their Own Playbook, And It Might Be Working | @VoicesMillion @SteveHiltonx https://t.co/MiFj3YMl7o — Kay Hill (@KaySmythe) June 10, 2025 A few Democrats criticized the use of federal troops in Los Angeles to address the riots. Democratic California Rep. Linda Sanchez called the deployment “authoritarian flexing” and said it did not improve public safety. She claimed that most demonstrators had remained peaceful. Democratic California Rep. Maxine Waters also weighed in, claiming Monday that “no violence” occurred in Los Angeles, despite footage showing cars set on fire and at least one attack on federal agents. Waters then disagreed with Los Angeles Police Department Chief Jim McConnell’s characterization of increasing violence. (RELATED: Turns Out There’s A Catch To California’s Rosy Population Stats (+BONUS ANALYSIS)) “Well, I was surprised at the way that the police chief was describing all of this,” Waters said. “There had been no violence where anybody that was protesting hit anybody, shot anybody, threatened anybody. Nothing had happened. And so he doesn’t know what to do, probably, because this is a sanctuary city, and the police don’t have the authority. All that he’s got to do is work with the governor.” TMM Analysis It is always nice to see our elected officials speak the truth. It happens so infrequently that we often forget to applaud those who see the light. Even though we’re not in a major election year, your state government can still destroy your life to the same extent as those in California. The most nefarious actors in government are those purchasing politicians from behind a veil of pro-social causes. But you can kick each and every bad politician out of their position of power by simply using your voice. Your elected officials don’t want you to know this, so get involved to learn more today.
Indian-Born Congressman In A Wig Can’t Name Cities In His District
This op-ed was written by Josh Slocum for WokeSpy. Click here to read in full. The “anything goes” and “you do you” attitude that’s prevailed for the last 15 or so years has brought us all sorts of public behavior that no one wanted. The Human Resources dictum to “bring your whole self to work” has given permission for staff to bring their marital and emotional problems to the office so what used to be private business is now everyone’s concern. Have you noticed how there are also no grooming standards anywhere anymore? If you’re in your late 40s or 50s, you remember a time not long ago when you were expected to comb your hair, tuck in your shirt, and-gasp!-even wear a clean uniform. That’s been replaced by hairy guts hanging out below food-stained T-shirts (men) and literal prostitute-wear (women). People’s faces are full of metal like nose rings and painful lip piercings, and even middle class women are covered with the kinds of tattoos formerly seen only on bikers, prisoners, and psychopaths. This strange behavior goes on in the elite classes, too. Consider ShriThanedar, an immigrant from India who represents Michigan’s 13th district in the House of Representatives. There’s no “nice” way around this: the man looks like a creation from Jim Henson’s Muppet Studios. It’s obvious from his photographs over the years that he’s been heavily reliant on makeup and hairpieces. When you look at his Congressional portrait, you imagine that Thanedar walked into a Baltimore wig emporium and said, “I’ll take the Carol Brady in brunette.” (MORE NEWS: Kay Hill On America’s Spiritual Revival & The Battle With Secular Power) Then there’s the obviously drawn-on (tattooed?) eyebrows. Recently, they’ve taken on the in-vogue square shape, the kind that looks like they were drawn on with a Sharpie. Of course, we’re not supposed to comment on how people look, even when they choose their look specifically to get attention, as Thanedar appears to have done. So let’s examine his political actions. Thanedar has a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and recently put up a video announcing his articles of impeachment against President Trump. Take a look and a listen to this weird dude. His odd priorities are not a one-off. Recently a citizen reporter interviewed Thanedar and asked him to specifically name prominent cities in the Congressional district he represents. Thanedar couldn’t do it, begging off by saying “I’m not here to answer a quiz.” Take a look. Shri’s Impeachment Vaudeville Has Been a Big Flop The congressman’s “Impeachment Town Hall” last weekend had only 27 attendees and less excitement than an AA meeting By Charlie LeDuff (@Charlieleduff) Lincoln Park — Congressman Shri Thanedar doesn’t like DOGE. He doesn’t like… pic.twitter.com/G3CeP7wCmK — Michigan Enjoyer (@mich_enjoyer) May 14, 2025 TMM Analysis: Don’t Pick Political Celebrities Surely, we can all agree that Slocum’s writing style is arguably one of the funniest around right now, even if some of us vehemently disagree with his stance on tattoos and piercings? Beneath Slocum’s wit is a very real issue: for too long we’ve normalized making celebrities out of our politicians, to the point that our politicians now look and act more likely stupid celebrities than actual leaders. Every elected official is paid for by you. Every elected official is chosen for their job by you. At no time should a politician refuse to answer a question that relates to their position. It’s just that simple. You need to stop choosing political celebrities over the folks who just want to make America a better place for all of us. Usually, the underdog — the quietest, most under-funded name in the race — is the one who deserves the chance to lead us. As we grow, The Modern Memo will be elevating the most important voices for the social sustainable future of American society. We will elevate good people, great ideas, and stuff our editorial team finds interesting, funny, or valuable to you, dear readers. At the same time, we will never be above calling out wrongdoers, stupid ideas and the things that endanger our survival as a society and species. If you’d like to be more involved, contact us today to learn more.