stock here: The real story here is NOT the accelerating loss of magnetic shield, but the main stream “take”on things. I’ll explain more after I post the backgrounders. Here is Ben Davidson, seems like he is back in his Mojo flow. LOL A-Eye first downplays the effect of the last weeks super high 10MEV Proton influx….and then once I provide more…it confirms exactly that…..that’s at the far bottom
aurora is usually red and green, but there was a lot of blue in last weeks aurora, thinking the earth weakening mag field is a contributor, deep dive on known science.Thought for 21s
Blue/purple aurora is real physics — but most of the time it’s not telling you “the geomagnetic field suddenly got weaker last week.” It’s mainly telling you something about (1) which atmospheric species were excited, (2) at what altitude, and (3) how energetic the precipitation/heating was, plus (4) what your camera sensor did to the color balance.
1) What sets aurora color (the core physics)
Aurora is light from excited atoms/molecules relaxing after collisions driven by incoming charged particles (mostly electrons) or strong ionospheric currents.
Green (most common)
Atomic oxygen O(¹S→¹D) at 557.7 nm (“green line”).
Typically strongest in the ~100–150 km region (often quoted ~110–120 km in statistical studies).
Red (often diffuse, higher)
Atomic oxygen O(¹D→³P) at 630.0 nm (“red line”).
Favored at higher altitude (~200–300+ km) where collisions are rarer, so the long-lived excited state can radiate instead of being quenched.
Blue / violet
Dominated by molecular nitrogen ion N₂⁺ “first negative” band, especially 427.8 nm (deep blue/violet).
Produced by more energetic electron precipitation and/or certain scattering processes; it’s a standard auroral emission line family.
Blue emissions often peak at similar “E-region” heights (~100–120 km), but they tend to “pop” when the energy spectrum favors N₂⁺ excitation or when the event geometry/intensity makes it visible.
Magenta / pink
Usually a mix: red oxygen + blue/violet N₂⁺ can look magenta.
There are recent peer-reviewed analyses of “magenta/blue-dominant” mid-latitude aurora tied to strong storms and N₂⁺ emissions.
2) Why you saw “a lot of blue” last week
In practice it’s usually a combination of these:
A) The event had a harder (more energetic) particle spectrum
Higher-energy electrons penetrate deeper (denser air) and can enhance N₂ / N₂⁺ emissions (blue/violet) relative to oxygen green/red. Blue at 427.8 nm is specifically associated with N₂⁺ excitation by energetic electrons (and in some contexts resonant scattering).
B) You may have been seeing STEVE (purple/white ribbon) mixed with aurora
A lot of people describe “weird blue/purple” nights that are actually STEVE (a subauroral arc) and its green ‘picket fence’ structures, which is distinct from normal aurora curtains and tied to intense ionospheric flows/heating (SAID), not the usual auroral oval precipitation picture.
C) Cameras strongly over-report blue/purple compared to your eyes
Even if you “saw” blue, it’s common that the camera made it look much bluer because of:
Long exposure (seconds) integrating faint 427.8 nm light
So “blue-dominant in photos” can happen even when the human-eye impression is mostly green.
3) Does a weakening geomagnetic field make aurora “bluer”?
Not directly in the way people usually mean it.
What’s well-supported:
Earth’s dipole moment has been decreasing ~5–7% per century since ~1840 (order-of-magnitude; different reconstructions vary), and the field has become more asymmetric (e.g., South Atlantic Anomaly).
A weaker dipole changes the coupled magnetosphere–ionosphere–thermosphere system (how currents close, how the atmosphere responds over long time scales).
What it doesn’t imply:
It does not mean that a specific week’s storm becomes “blue” because the main field weakened recently. Main-field evolution is slow, and storm-time aurora color ratios are dominated by storm driver + particle energy + altitude chemistry + viewing/sensor effects.
Where weakening could matter (second-order effects):
Over decades/centuries, a weaker field can slightly alter where aurora is possible (equatorward boundary statistics), and it can influence radiation belt/precipitation access in certain regions. That’s a “probabilistic geography” effect, not “blue vs green” on a given night.
Bottom line: blue aurora is mostly an “energy/altitude/species + camera” story, not a “field collapse” signature. The field trend is real, but it’s not the clean lever for the color you saw.
4) How to sanity-check what you saw (quick diagnostics)
If you want to interpret your own photos like a scientist:
Purple ribbon east–west, narrow, equatorward of main aurora → likely STEVE.
Magenta wash → mixed emissions; modern analyses explicitly connect magenta/blue dominance to N₂⁺ bands under storm conditions.
—————————-
Aurora, Protons, and Magnetosphere: Four Key Q&A
How much does ionospheric conductivity change during SEP (>10 MeV proton) events?
During SEP events, increased proton precipitation dramatically raises ionization in the polar ionosphere, especially in the D- and E-regions. This can increase Pedersen and Hall conductivities by factors of 2–10 locally, reducing effective resistance and allowing much stronger field‑aligned and horizontal currents to flow. This enhanced conductivity conditions the ionosphere for stronger auroral currents rather than discharging it.
How do electron aurora and proton aurora differ spectrally and physically?
Electron aurora dominate visible displays and produce the familiar green (557.7 nm oxygen), red (630.0 nm oxygen), and blue/violet (N₂⁺ at 427.8 nm) emissions. Proton aurora occur when precipitating protons undergo charge‑exchange, becoming fast neutral hydrogen atoms that later emit Balmer‑series hydrogen light (often faint and reddish). Proton aurora mainly modify ionization and conductivity; electrons do most of the visible glowing.
What role do Birkeland (field‑aligned) currents play in aurora?
Birkeland currents are large electrical currents flowing along Earth’s magnetic field lines between the magnetosphere and ionosphere. Downward currents accelerate electrons into the upper atmosphere, creating aurora, while upward currents carry ions away. These currents maintain charge separation, transport energy, and couple solar‑wind power into atmospheric light and heating.
How do geomagnetic storms induce currents in the ground?
Rapid changes in ionospheric and magnetospheric currents during storms create time‑varying magnetic fields. By electromagnetic induction, these changes drive telluric (ground‑induced) currents in the Earth’s crust and in long conductors such as power lines and pipelines. This is why geomagnetic storms can stress power grids and why surface–ionosphere electrical coupling is a real engineering concern.
stock here: I’ll do a full report on Fuji, once back in my main office. Before you start ragging that this is WTMI, way too much information, keep in mind, for me too….this blog started as my scrap book to log interesting information so I didnt lose it or it wasn’t memory holed by that questionable technocrats that be.
Curious that the deeper you dig, the deeper the hole, LOL. The great 1707 Earthquake of Japan, about 8.6 or so, was exactly 49 days before the greatest known eruption of Fuji. Odd number. I copied a lengthy discussion from a new to me website. At the far bottom. He ties in big events and a 179 year solar cycle.
The angle of repose, means the slope angle. Fuji is really sloped. A-Eye background information——
—————————-
1. Mount Fuji — material makeup & mechanics
Fuji is a basaltic-andesitic stratovolcano
Fuji is compositionally intermediate, not purely basaltic.
Typical magma chemistry
Basaltic andesite → andesite
~52–60% SiO₂
Higher Al₂O₃, Fe, Mg than continental andesites
Moderate dissolved volatiles (H₂O, CO₂)
Key structural components
Fuji is a layer cake of:
Scoria and cinder fall
Ash (tephra)
Agglutinate
Interbedded lava flows
Reworked volcaniclastic debris
This is crucial.
Why Fuji is so steep (high angle of repose)
Not because lava is stable—but because the mountain is mostly granular solids, not lava sheets.
Mechanics
Scoria & ash behave like angular frictional materials
High internal friction angle (≈30–40°)
Repeated explosive eruptions pile loose material directly on flanks
Lava flows act as cementing ribs, not the bulk mass
Fuji is mechanically closer to a giant sand pile with lava buttresses than a lava shield.
2. Kilauea — material makeup & mechanics
Pure tholeiitic basalt
~48–50% SiO₂
Extremely low viscosity
Low volatile retention
Hot (~1150–1200 °C)
Depositional style
Effusive, not explosive
Lava flows travel kilometers before cooling
Minimal tephra accumulation
Resulting geometry
Slopes: 2–5°
Shield shape governed by lava rheology, not repose
Lava spreads until gravitational stress < yield stress
Kīlauea is a fluid-dynamics problem, not a granular mechanics problem.
3. Mauna Loa — material makeup & mechanics
Even purer basalt than Kīlauea
Massive volume
Extremely hot, low-viscosity magma
Minimal explosive behavior
Slope mechanics
Slopes: 3–6°
Built almost entirely from overlapping lava sheets
Angle limited by flow length, not pile stability
Mauna Loa is effectively a planetary-scale lava pancake stack.
4. Direct comparison — materials science view
Feature
Mount Fuji
Kīlauea
Mauna Loa
Volcano type
Stratovolcano
Shield
Shield
Dominant material
Ash, scoria, lava
Lava
Lava
SiO₂
52–60%
48–50%
48–50%
Viscosity
Moderate
Very low
Very low
Eruption style
Explosive + effusive
Effusive
Effusive
Angle of repose
30–35°
~5°
~5°
Governing physics
Granular friction
Lava rheology
Lava rheology
5. Addressing your hypothesis directly
“Since the angle of repose is so high on Fuji, it seems to be made of stable basaltic magma, slow cooled in many instances.”
Correction with nuance:
Fuji’s steepness is not due to slow-cooled basalt
It is due to repeated explosive deposition of granular volcanics
Basaltic lava alone cannot build steep slopes
Slow cooling matters locally (lava ribs), but not globally
Key insight
Fuji stands tall because it throws rocks into the air and lets them fall where they land. Hawaiian volcanoes pour syrup downhill until it stops.
Mount Fuji is a friction-dominated granular pile reinforced by lava ribs, while Kīlauea and Mauna Loa are viscosity-dominated lava accumulators constrained by fluid mechanics.
If you want, next we can:
Quantify repose angles vs grain size & vesicularity
Compare Fuji to Mount St. Helens or Etna
Or model slope stability under seismic loading
sure what other volcanos are kind of like fuji, and indicate their angle of repose
Below are volcanoes that are genuinely “Fuji-like” in materials, construction mechanics, and slope behavior, followed by typical flank angles (angle of repose / effective slope). Values are ranges because these edifices are composite structures (lava + tephra), not single-material piles.
What “Fuji-like” means (mechanically)
A volcano earns this label if it has:
Basaltic-andesite to andesite magma
Frequent explosive (Strombolian–Vulcanian) phases
Large volumes of scoria, ash, and agglutinate
Interbedded lava ribs (structural reinforcement)
Steep, symmetric cone morphology
These are granular-friction–dominated edifices, not lava-flow–dominated shields.
Prime Fuji analogs (ranked)
Mount Mayon
Angle of repose:35–40° Why it’s the closest match:
Often cited as the most perfect cone on Earth
Basaltic-andesite magma
Thick scoria blankets + lava buttressing
Extremely steep, metastable slopes
➡ Mechanically the closest cousin to Fuji.
Mount Etna
Angle of repose:30–35° Notes:
Basaltic but volatile-rich
Continuous cone rebuilding
Multiple parasitic cones
Slightly broader than Fuji but similar physics
Mount Merapi
Angle of repose:32–38° Key difference:
Andesitic
Lava dome growth + collapse
Pyroclastic density currents reset slopes frequently
➡ Fuji without the symmetry, but with higher instability.
Mount Vesuvius
Angle of repose:30–34° Notes:
Composite cone inside Somma caldera
High tephra fraction
Comparable repose but smaller scale
Mount Hood
Angle of repose:28–33° Notes:
Andesitic
More erosion and glacial modification
Structurally similar but older and weathered
Mount St. Helens (pre-1980)
Angle of repose:30–35° Important caveat:
Prior to sector collapse
Demonstrates the failure mode of Fuji-type edifices
Quick comparison table
Volcano
Magma type
Dominant material
Typical flank angle
Mount Fuji
Basaltic-andesite
Scoria + ash + lava
30–35°
Mount Mayon
Basaltic-andesite
Scoria-dominated
35–40°
Mount Etna
Basaltic (volatile-rich)
Lava + tephra
30–35°
Mount Merapi
Andesite
Dome + ash
32–38°
Mount Vesuvius
Andesite
Tephra-rich
30–34°
Mount Hood
Andesite
Lava + ash
28–33°
Key physical takeaway (important)
30–40° is not a lava property — it is a granular friction limit.
Once a volcano:
ejects fragmented material
deposits it ballistically
and only later “cements” it with lava
…it becomes angle-of-repose limited, not viscosity-limited.
That is the fundamental distinction between Fuji-type stratocones and Hawaiian shields.
If you want to go deeper next
We can:
Quantify grain size vs repose angle
Compare Fuji vs Mayon stability margins
Model seismic or rainfall-triggered slope failure
Tie this to lahar risk vs shield-volcano flank slumps
———————————-
Below is a chronological list of the last ~10 recognized eruptions of Mount Fuji, ordered most recent → oldest, with each described first by magnitude, then by eruption style / material.
⚠️ Important context up front: Fuji has not erupted since 1707–1708. The record before that becomes increasingly fragmentary, based on tephra layers, lava stratigraphy, and historical chronicles, not continuous observation.
Last 10 eruptions of Mount Fuji
1. 1707–1708 — Hōei Eruption
Magnitude:VEI 5 (large) Nature:
Explosive Plinian–Vulcanian
Massive ash and scoria fall
No summit eruption — lateral flank vents
Ash fell as far as Edo (Tokyo) (~100 km)
Created Hōei Crater on SE flank
Magma: basaltic andesite → andesite
Triggered by the 1707 Hōei megathrust earthquake
➡ This is the defining Fuji eruption and a textbook example of a granular-load–building event that steepened Fuji’s flanks.
2. 1511 — Late medieval eruption
Magnitude:VEI 3–4 (moderate) Nature:
Strombolian to Vulcanian
Scoria cones on upper flanks
Limited lava effusion
Local tephra blankets
3. 1435–1436
Magnitude:VEI 3–4 Nature:
Explosive scoria eruption
Short-lived
Minor lava flows
Tephra-dominated deposition
4. 1300–1301
Magnitude:VEI 4 Nature:
Strong explosive activity
Significant ashfall east of Fuji
Likely multiple vents
Contributed materially to cone steepening
5. 1033
Magnitude:VEI 3–4 Nature:
Strombolian eruption
Scoria accumulation
Minor lava flows
Limited regional impact
6. 937
Magnitude:VEI 4 Nature:
Explosive eruption with widespread tephra
Ash layers identified in surrounding plains
No known large lava flows
7. 864–866 — Jōgan Eruption
Magnitude:VEI 4 (large for Fuji) Nature:
Effusive-dominant basaltic eruption
Produced the Aokigahara lava flow
Lava dammed rivers and formed lakes
Minimal ash compared to Hōei
➡ This eruption flattened local slopes rather than steepening them — the opposite mechanical effect of 1707.
The 1707 Hōei earthquake, which occurred at 14:00 local time on October 28, 1707, was the largest in Japanese history until the 2011 Sendai earthquake surpassed it. It caused moderate to severe damage throughout southwestern Honshu, Shikoku and southeastern Kyūshū. The earthquake and the resulting destructive tsunami, caused more than 5,000 casualties. This event ruptured all of the segments of the Nankai megathrust simultaneously, the only earthquake known to have done this, with an estimated magnitude of 8.6 ML. It may also have triggered the last eruption of Mount Fuji some 49 days later.
Mount Fuji (富士山 Fuji-san?, IPA: [ɸɯꜜdʑisaɴ] ) is the highest mountain in Japan at 3,776.24 m (12,389 ft). An active stratovolcano that last erupted in 1707–08,
The Hōei Eruption of Mount Fuji (Hōei dai funka) started on December 16, 1707 (23rd day of the 11th month of the year Hōei 4) and ended about January 1, 1708 (9th day of the 12th month of the year Hōei 4) during the Edo period. Although it brought no lava flow, the Hoei eruption released some 800 million cubic meters of volcanic ash, which spread over vast areas around the volcano, even reaching Edo almost 100 km away. Cinders and ash fell like rain in Izu, Kai, Sagami, and Musashi provinces.
The eruption occurred on Mount Fuji’s east–north-east flank and formed three new volcanic vents, named No. 1, No. 2, and No. 3 Hōei vents. The catastrophe developed over the course of several days—an initial earthquake and explosion of cinders and ash was followed some days later with the more forceful ejections of rocks and stones. Mount Fuji has not erupted since. […] In the year following the Hōei eruption, a secondary disaster occurred when the Sakawa flooded due to sediment build-up resulting from the ash fall.
Volcanic sands fell and widely covered the cultivated fields east of Mount Fuji. To recover the fields farmers cast volcanic products out to dumping-grounds and made sand piles. The rain washed sand piles from the dumping grounds away to the rivers again and again and made some of the rivers shallower, especially into the Sakawa, into which huge volumes of ash fell, resulting in temporary dams. Heavy rainfall on August 7 and 8, 1708, the year following the Hōei eruption, caused an avalanche of volcanic ash and mud and broke the dams, flooding the Ashigara plain.
So, is this perhaps what is yet to come? A large quake closer to Fuji, then a pause, and the giant awakens?
Ash fall and more?
Could there be anything ELSE linked in this kind of chain?
The 1700 Cascadia earthquake was a magnitude 8.7 to 9.2 megathrust earthquake that occurred in the Cascadia subduction zone in 1700. The earthquake involved the Juan de Fuca Plate underlying the Pacific Ocean, from mid-Vancouver Island in British Columbia, Canada, south along the Pacific Northwest coast as far as northern California, USA. The length of the fault rupture was about 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) with an average slip of 20 meters (22 yards).
The earthquake caused a tsunami that struck the coast of Japan, and may also be linked to the Bonneville slide.
Well, now THAT is an interesting teleconnection…
TWO places having “megaquakes” on the SAME “ring of fire” subduction margin, within 7 years of each other. Then BOTH quiet until now. One, just having given a 9.0 quake.
Next?
The geological record reveals that “great earthquakes” (those with moment magnitude 8 or higher) occur in the Cascadia subduction zone about every 500 years on average, often accompanied by tsunamis. There is evidence of at least 13 events at intervals from about 300 to 900 years with an average of 590 years. Previous earthquakes are estimated to have occurred in 1310 AD, 810 AD, 400 AD, 170 BC and 600 BC.
They have a chart next to the text with the same numbers in it.
So, back at my “solar cycle” spreadsheet, are there any dates close to a “179 year” Solar Cycle (S.C.) count?
600 BC – 665 BC S.C. 170 BC – 128 BC S.C. 400 AD – 409 AD S.C. 810 AD – 767 AD S.C. 1310 AD – 1304 AD S.C. 2011 AD – 2020 AD imputed peak S.C. and B.E. Zero.
These Solar Cycle dates are created by the expedient of just adding 179 repeatedly. Better dates would come from actual cycle data.
BUT, even with these crude methods, it is “odd” that we’re inside 50 years on a lot of those dates, and within single digits on ‘a few’… (And those that are off are off by a very ‘resonant’ quantity…)
Anomalous…
Just sayin… “The facts just are. -E.M.Smith” …. What are the odds?
Update
I’ve added this image so you can see the present “Triad” of mag 6+ quakes all about 50-120 miles from Tokyo…
stock here: the last “good hearted nurse” carrying just a phone, and shot in MN, well…was carrying a gun and extra clip, Sig, which is one of the best hand guns, and was a member of a funded and organized anti-Fed group. I have to post ZH articles….but here you go. Check out the manual.
stock here, I’ll be out of touch for the most part. But compiling a master class of photos and will post 15 or 20 of the best once boots on the ground in Hawaii. In the meanwhile, keep a close Eye on Kilauea Volcano. After that massive solar storm, we expected nothing less from Madam Pele.
stock here: They were not able to take my plane down, although we had 1000 miles of severe bumpiness….likely do to the hugest solar storm since probably 1972
These criminals at AAP have doubled and tripled down and have complete control over the algorithm at complicit Facebook (also known as LifeLock). They may be digging their own grave.
This other story on childhood transgender shows not just the greed, but also a fair amount of evil.
This lawsuit, drafted by California attorney Rick Jaffe, is without exaggeration, one of the most important lawsuits ever filed in modern medical history. I explain why in this must read article.
Do you understand the context? And yet he gets a pass. Why?
Gavin Newsom would appreciate it if you didn't retweet this video of him apologizing for getting caught sleeping with his campaign manager's wife pic.twitter.com/yMHKxNzLaK
stock here: flying to Japan tomorrow. Worst case scenario…..on Delta. Idea was to use all my Delta miles and then close that credit card and mileage program. Delta is woke as hell….so I hope their big Jet Pilots for the international 767 flight, are the best ones….not the DEI hires, not 26 YO females. But just for so photo artistic eye candy, at the bottom is a photo I call simply “the girl in the wave”. And at far bottom “The Spaceweather Woman”
Below is a comparative, discipline-based explanation of how two different schools of handwriting analysis would typically interpret Donald J. Trump’s signature, using his well-known signing style as the reference point. This is descriptive of the schools’ frameworks, not an assertion of fact about the individual.
School 1: Traditional Graphology (Personality-Interpretive)
(Common in Europe; used in coaching, HR, and popular psychology — not considered a hard science)
A graphologist would focus on symbolism, exaggeration, and stroke dynamics.
Likely interpretations
Oversized, dominant capital letters
Interpreted as strong ego projection, need for recognition, and self-assertion.
Highly stylized, logo-like signature
Seen as deliberate branding rather than self-disclosure.
Suggests the signer wants the public image to dominate over the private self.
Angular strokes and sharp points
Read as combativeness, decisiveness, or confrontational energy.
Illegibility / abstraction
Often interpreted as a desire to control access to the individual; “you know the name, not the person.”
Forward movement and pressure
Taken as indicators of drive, urgency, and confidence.
Summary (graphology lens)
The signature would be described as assertive, performative, image-driven, and dominance-oriented, emphasizing projection of power over introspection.
⚠️ Important: Graphology explicitly accepts symbolic interpretation and does not claim empirical validation.
School 2: Forensic Handwriting Examination
(Used in courts, law enforcement, and document authentication — evidence-based, non-psychological)
A forensic examiner does not infer personality at all. They analyze mechanics and consistency only.
Likely observations
High repeatability
Trump’s signature is notably consistent over decades, suggesting strong motor memory.
Simplified letter forms
Indicates an automated, practiced signature, not one produced slowly or self-consciously.
Strong rhythm and speed
Suggests fluency, not hesitation or disguise.
Stylization stability
The exaggerated forms are stable, which helps authenticate genuine signatures vs. forgeries.
No tremor or retouching
Consistent pressure and stroke order indicate non-forged execution.
Summary (forensic lens)
The signature would be described as highly practiced, motor-stable, and easy to authenticate, with no diagnostic claims about character, ego, or psychology.
Key Contrast Between the Two Schools
Aspect
Graphology
Forensic Examination
Purpose
Personality symbolism
Authentication & authorship
Claims about character
Yes
No
Scientific standing
Disputed / non-empirical
Court-accepted
View of exaggeration
Psychological signal
Neutral stylistic habit
Focus
Meaning
Mechanics
Bottom Line
Graphology would interpret Trump’s signature as a deliberate projection of power and identity.
Forensic analysis would treat the same features as neutral, repeatable motor behavior useful for verification — nothing more.
If you want, I can also:
Compare this signature to other presidents’ signatures across the same two schools
Explain why very powerful figures often develop logo-like signatures
Or analyze how signatures evolve when someone transitions from private citizen to public symbol
stock here: Most organizations and people are so easily influence by money….simple as that….find a way to steal money, think NGOs, and then buy influence. This can also happen after mRNA vaccines and blatant abuse occurs.
The shift you’re noticing in the ACLU—from a “neutral” defender of free speech to an organization more aligned with specific progressive causes—is a topic of significant debate among legal scholars and even former ACLU leaders.
While there wasn’t a single “coup,” analysts point to a few key turning points that changed the organization’s DNA.
1. The “Trump Surge” and the Pivot to Resistance
The biggest shift happened around 2016. Following Donald Trump’s election, the ACLU saw an unprecedented explosion in funding and membership.
The Funding Influx: Donations skyrocketed from roughly $4 million to over $120 million in the year following the election.
The “Resistance” Mandate: This new donor base largely viewed the ACLU as a frontline defense against the Trump administration’s policies on immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and reproductive health. To maintain this massive new funding stream, the organization shifted its messaging to be more overtly political and “advocacy-focused” rather than just strictly legalistic.
2. The Internal Struggle: Liberty vs. Equity
Historically, the ACLU followed a “civil liberties” model: they defended everyone’s rights (including Nazis, the KKK, and the NRA) on the principle that if one person’s speech is censored, everyone’s is at risk.
The Shift to Civil Rights: In recent years, a younger generation of leadership and staff has pushed for a “civil rights” or “social justice” model. They argue that defending the speech of “oppressors” or “hate groups” actively harms marginalized communities.
Case in Point: After the 2017 Charlottesville rally, the ACLU faced intense internal and external backlash for defending the white nationalists’ right to march. Shortly after, they issued new guidelines suggesting they would weigh the “potential impact” of a case on “marginalized communities” before deciding to defend free speech.
3. Change in Leadership Priorities
Under Executive Director Anthony Romero (who has led the group since 2001), the ACLU moved away from being a purely reactive legal organization.
Political Spending: The ACLU began spending millions on political ads and “voter education” campaigns that resembled partisan GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts.
The Case for Trans Youth: The ad you mentioned featuring Megan Rapinoe and Elliot Page is part of a deliberate strategy to use “cultural influencers” to shape public opinion, a tactic traditionally used by political campaigns rather than constitutional law firms.
4. Criticism from Within
This evolution hasn’t happened without protest. Former ACLU President Nadine Strossen and other “old guard” members have publicly worried that the organization is abandoning its “viewpoint neutrality.” They argue that by becoming a “mouthpiece” for one side of the aisle, the ACLU loses its credibility when it needs to defend the Constitution in a truly non-partisan way.
The ACLU today largely views itself not just as a defender of the Bill of Rights, but as a political force for “systemic change.” This explains why they now produce celebrity-heavy ads for specific social causes, which would have been rare for them 30 years ago.
Would you like me to look into how other legacy organizations, like the Sierra Club or the SPLC, have undergone similar shifts in their missions?
By the way, to unlock the full functionality of all Apps, enable Gemini Apps Activity.
Historians of the future, grilling beaver-tail paninis over their campfires, will look back in wonder and nausea at the madness of America — and other regions of Western Civ — in the raging 2020s. It will be clear by then that it was largely a female hysteria, like other departures from social sanity in the annals of the Homo sapiens, such as the outbreak of witchery in the Massachusetts Colony, 1692, the Dancing Plague of Strasbourg, 1518, and the lunacy of Meowing and Biting Nuns that spread through the convents of Europe in the 1400s.
The Lefty-left has devised what’s called a “permission structure” for women to take the lead in acting-out the concocted grievances of their show-runners in the Democratic Party who, in times gone by, once had a coherent political program, but are now chiefly concerned with staying out of jail. I speak of those two orbiting moons, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and their many subalterns, such as John Podesta, Lisa Monaco, Norm Eisen, Adam Schiff. . . you know the huge cast of characters.
In 2020, they put their African-American clients in the vanguard, hoping to provoke Mr. Trump into a bloody suppression of the George Floyd riots. Didn’t really work, though the riots were a grand distraction from Marc Elias’s behind-the-scenes nefarious setup to queer the balloting process in that year’s election — a thumping success! All that mischief propelled brain-dead “Joe Biden” into the Oval Office, the perfect stooge to front for Hillary and Obama in their campaign to disorder the US body politic.
Hilarious that they choose a “woman of color” to lead the charge. And they pretend that the success of republicans stands solely on “hyper partisan voter registration MACHINE”.
My name is Lorenza Ramirez, and I’m the National Organizing Director at the DNC. And today, I’m going to be very direct with you: Democrats have lost major ground to MAGA with young people. Unless we act now, we’ll be at a disadvantage for decades.
It’s my job to make sure that Democrats are reaching as many voters as we can, in communities all over the country.
I’m the first in my family to go to college, and it shaped how I see this work: Access matters. Winning back young voters won’t happen by accident. It will require intentional investment and a willingness to build new organizing programs that make getting involved in politics more accessible for young people who have felt left out.
So the DNC is taking charge. Through a first-of-its-kind partisan registration push, which we’re calling When We Count, we’ll register hundreds of thousands of new Democrats this year and train the next generation of organizers to do it. Take a look:
DNC Announces Brand New Voter Registration Program in Preparation for the 2026 Midterms
In a second, I’m going to ask you to make your first contribution of 2026 to help fund this work, but first let me explain why this is so important:
Democrats have lost ground because in the last few years, we’ve largely approached voter registration as a nonpartisan initiative. All the while, MAGA has built a hyper-partisan voter registration machine.
That ends now. The DNC is taking the lead in solving this problem and doing what it takes to reverse these registration trends in flippable congressional districts across the country.
If we’re successful, this might just help us flip Congress in November, Steven. We could win critical races, from your local school board all the way up to the Senate. The electoral consequences could be massive, but this program won’t be cheap. And the scale of our investment depends directly on grassroots support.
That’s why I’m asking you to chip in $7 today.
$7 to help us register thousands of new voters.
$7 to ensure Democrats make inroads in every community this year.
$7 to support work like this election cycle after election cycle — so we can take back Congress, and ultimately, the White House.
None of this is organic. The Left is staging a Bolshevik takeover. Probably won’t succeed, too many are aware now; but the invaders & identity politics they’re stirring may yet destroy America.
