Rip’s Newsletter
August 5, 2026
Compiled and Edited
by
Jim Reynolds
Editor’s Note
In today’s edition of Rip’s Newsletter, I’d like to share a quick note on where I’m drawing material from. I pull from a mix of outlets so readers can see the broader conversation around a topic, not just one isolated take. Some are fast-moving news and opinion sites, while others are places I go for longer, more in-depth reporting and analysis. If you like the deeper reads, you’ll find them especially at City Journal, The Federalist, The American Mind, Issues & Insights, and The American Spectator. The point is simply to give you more context, more perspective, and more choice in how you follow along.
Here’s a quick look at the kinds of sources I use:
MS NOW / ms.now/opinion: Mainstream left-leaning news and opinion. I use this site exclusively to see how the other side is framing today’s stories.
American Greatness: Conservative, populist commentary.
Townhall: Big conservative news and opinion site.
Power Line: Old-school conservative blog commentary.
FrontPage Magazine: Hard-edged conservative culture-war commentary.
The Federalist: Polished conservative commentary on politics, culture, and religion.
RedState: Combat-ready conservative political commentary.
Patriot Post: Constitutional, patriotic conservative digest. One of Rip’s favorites.
The American Spectator: Long-running conservative magazine with a sharp voice.
Gatestone Institute: National security and foreign policy commentary.
City Journal: Policy-heavy, center-right analysis from the Manhattan Institute.
Issues & Insights: Pro-market, limited-government commentary with a data-driven tone.
American Thinker: Broad conservative opinion site.
Washington Free Beacon: Investigative conservative reporting and commentary.
The American Mind: Claremont Institute commentary on politics, culture, and American identity.
And now to today’s stories ...
Articles in This Issue
Victor Davis Hanson - Is ‘Communist’ No Longer a Slur?
John C Eastman - 1776, Not 1608: What the Supreme Court Got Wrong on Birthright Citizenship
Lars Moller - Socialist Revival In Academia
Jack DeVine - Looking Back
Jared Stepman - The Fall of a DEI Darling Reveals Why Universities Won’t Reform Themselves
Jim Reynolds - Why Socialism Will Never Work Voluntarily
Overview
I’m seeing a common thread in today’s pieces: a growing alarm that institutions are drifting leftward while insisting they’re merely evolving.
Several of these essays argue that socialism is no longer a fringe label but an increasingly open political project, whether in the academy, in activist rhetoric, or in the assumptions shaping public debate.
At the same time, there’s a strong countercurrent of institutional critique, from the Supreme Court’s historical reasoning on citizenship to the failures exposed by COVID-era leadership and university self-policing.
What ties it all together is a deeper question about whether our major institutions still correct themselves—or whether they now protect the very ideas and errors they once claimed to resist.
Is ‘Communist’ No Longer a Slur?
By: Victor Davis Hanson American Greatness
Date: 2026-08-04 · Words: 1,772
Victor Davis Hanson argues that the Democratic Party’s socialist wing has stopped hiding its radicalism and now openly embraces policies he characterizes as communist: rejecting capitalism, seizing private property, dismantling constitutional institutions, and expanding state control over major sectors. He singles out New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s proposed surtax on second homes as a punitive, quasi-revolutionary measure that publicly targets property owners, reverses the presumption of innocence, and could force a fire sale in the housing market. Hanson also points to Kamala Harris’s support for court-packing, adding states, ending the filibuster, and abolishing the Electoral College as evidence that mainstream Democrats are adopting the same anti-constitutional playbook. He extends the critique to immigration and voting rules, arguing that the Left uses border chaos and election changes to build a dependent voting bloc and accelerate social transformation. The article concludes that once socialists gain power, they abandon moderation and move toward destruction of borders, norms, and institutions in pursuit of a fundamentally different America.
This story matters because it frames today’s left-wing politics as a direct threat to property rights, constitutional order, and the stability of American civic life.
🅱️ This one’s got receipts and a memory like an elephant—calls out the Marxist cosplay for what it is, with names and numbers. It’s a wake-up slap for anyone pretending the new boss isn’t the old commie in a fresh suit. If you’re not worried after reading this, you’re not paying attention.
Reader Experience: ★★★★☆ Minor clutter but easy reading.
Read the original article HERE
1776, Not 1608: What the Supreme Court Got Wrong on Birthright Citizenship
By: John C Eastman American Mind
Date: 2026-08-05 · Words: 1,820
John C. Eastman argues that the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship ruling in Trump v. Barbara asks the wrong historical question by tracing citizenship to English common law in 1608 rather than to the American Revolution in 1776. He says Chief Justice Roberts correctly shows that England recognized jus soli, but fails to prove that the United States intended to constitutionalize royal subjectship after rejecting monarchy and allegiance to the Crown. Eastman contends the Declaration of Independence established a new theory of political membership grounded in consent of the governed, and that the 14th Amendment should be read as restoring that American principle after Dred Scott, not reviving British doctrine. He emphasizes that the Citizenship Clause’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was meant to require complete political allegiance, not mere obedience to U.S. law, and argues that the majority’s reading makes the clause do too little work. He also says Wong Kim Ark is narrower than the Court suggests and did not decide the status of children born to temporary visitors or those unlawfully present.
This story matters because it frames birthright citizenship as a foundational fight over whether American membership is defined by revolutionary consent or inherited imperial law.
🅱️ Roberts is playing British lawyer while the country he’s judging for was built to ditch kings and their rules. This piece remembers what the black robes forgot: America’s not just England with better teeth, it’s a whole new deal. The essay’s a history lesson with a backbone—reminds you why the Founders didn’t want us stuck with the old world’s baggage. If only the Court read this before they started quoting monarchs.
Read the original article HERE
Socialist Revival In Academia
By: Lars Moller American Thinker
Date: 2026-08-05 · Words: 1,290
The article argues that elite universities are fostering a revival of socialist and anti-Western ideology among students who are detached from the historical record of communist mass death and repression. It cites estimates of tens of millions killed under Soviet, Maoist, Khmer Rouge, North Korean, Ethiopian, and other Marxist regimes, framing these outcomes as inherent to forced collectivism rather than implementation errors. The piece also links campus leftism with anti-colonial politics and tactical alliances with Islamist movements, saying both share an authoritarian impulse that subordinates the individual to a larger collective or divine-political order. It points to 2024 campus protests and encampments at schools like Columbia, Harvard, and UCLA as evidence of growing hostility toward Israel, liberal norms, and free expression, while noting accusations of antisemitism and administrative crackdowns. The author warns that historical amnesia, cancel culture, and curriculum trends are producing a generation more likely to repeat the failures of socialism and to erode academic freedom and liberal democracy.
This story matters because it frames campus ideology as a direct threat to historical memory, free speech, and the durability of liberal institutions.
🅱️ This one reads like a wanted poster for every utopian who ever got a faculty lounge. No weasel words, just a body count and a warning: forget the past, and you’ll get to live it again—gulags included. The only thing missing is a list of the tenured who’d call this ‘problematic.’ History’s not just repeating, it’s being graded on a curve—and the curve’s a mass grave.
Reader Experience: ★★★☆☆ Moderate ads and interruptions.
Read the original article HERE
Looking Back
By: Jack DeVine The Patriot Post
Date: 2026-08-05 · Words: 1,163
The article argues that looking back at past failures is essential for learning, using the COVID-19 response and the 2020 election as case studies. It says Dr. Anthony Fauci, though a respected infectious-disease expert, was overmatched when elevated into a broad policy role during the pandemic, where his judgment, openness to dissent, and candor allegedly fell short. The piece also contends that Joe Biden’s rise exposed a deeper problem in how the political system selects leaders, portraying him as a weak executive propelled by party maneuvering, media support, and a Senate career that did not prepare him for the presidency. The author frames both episodes as evidence that the country repeatedly elevates the wrong people for high-stakes jobs, with damaging consequences for public health, immigration, and governance. The central lesson is that leadership selection matters more than rhetoric, and that bureaucratic or political longevity is no substitute for executive competence.
This story matters because it argues that America’s biggest failures often begin long before a crisis, when the wrong people are put in charge.
🅱️ Reads like a post-mortem for the last decade’s clown show. Nails the bureaucrat problem—Fauci and Biden both got promoted for surviving, not leading. Could use more bite, but the receipts are there. If only the folks in charge looked in the rearview before driving us off a cliff.
Reader Experience: ★★★★☆ Minor clutter but easy reading.
Read the original article HERE
The Fall of a DEI Darling Reveals Why Universities Won’t Reform Themselves
By: Jared Stepman American Greatness
Date: 2026-08-05 · Words: 1,070
A scandal at Cambridge involving professor Jason Arday, long celebrated as a DEI success story, has raised serious questions about plagiarism and the accuracy of his personal biography. The Telegraph reported that his PhD thesis contained 188 sentences identical or highly similar to another student’s work, and it also found his claim that he appeared on the original “Seven Up” documentary was impossible. Arday has not denied the plagiarism allegations, attributing mistakes to autism, while saying the scrutiny is racially motivated and aligned with ableism; Cambridge has called the accusations a “vile smear campaign,” and thousands of academics have signed a solidarity letter. The article argues that the episode shows how DEI culture prioritizes identity over merit, discourages internal criticism through fear of being labeled racist, and allows fraud to flourish. It says real reform in universities comes only from outside pressure, pointing to U.S. funding threats and legal enforcement under the Trump administration as the reason DEI has retreated there, unlike in the U.K. and Canada.
This story matters because it argues that universities will not police DEI excesses on their own, making external accountability the only force capable of restoring merit and integrity.
🅱️ DEI’s not dying of natural causes—it’s getting dragged out by the heels, and only when someone outside cuts the funding. The essay nails the scam: institutions won’t fix themselves because the grift is the point. If you think the system’s embarrassed, you’re not paying attention—they’re just mad you noticed.
Reader Experience: ★★★★☆ Minor clutter but easy reading.
Read the original article HERE
Why Socialism Will Never Work Voluntarily
By: Jim Reynolds www.reynolds.com
Date: 2026-08-04 · Words: 1,010
The article argues that socialism cannot remain stable if participation is truly voluntary, because people naturally seek opportunity, respond to incentives, compare outcomes, and leave systems that feel unfair or restrictive. It frames this as a “voluntary test”: if a political philosophy requires penalties, police, or barriers to exit in order to survive, the flaw lies in the system rather than in the people. Using the United States as the clearest example, the piece says mobility across states makes it especially hard to sustain redistribution, since workers, entrepreneurs, investors, and retirees can relocate when taxes, regulations, or burdens rise. It contends that attempts to stop this “leakage” usually lead to tighter controls, which further undermine voluntariness and fairness. The core claim is that socialism may be imposed, but it cannot endure as a free choice because human nature eventually reasserts itself.
This story matters because it argues that the real test of any economic system is not whether it can be enforced, but whether ordinary people will still choose it when they are free to leave.
🅱️ This one doesn’t just poke holes—it lets the air out of the whole balloon. Cuts through the academic fog with a crowbar and a punchline. Reminds you why people pack up and leave, not just their wallets. If you need a SWAT team to keep folks in paradise, maybe it ain’t paradise.
Reader Experience: ★★★★★ Clean Substack. No ads. Fast loading.
Read the original article HERE
Jim,
Thanks. I believe we’re building something very unique here. I sift through a wide range of articles, select the strongest ones, and present readers with the very best. That means you don’t have to wade through dozens of pieces to find the worthwhile ones.
As a writer myself, I’m looking for more than just interesting topics. I’m looking for writers who communicate clearly, make persuasive arguments, and leave the reader thinking. Good writing matters just as much as good ideas.
My goal is to make each edition worth your time, whether you read only the summaries or decide to dive into the full articles that interest you most. As Tony Bennet sang: “Time is a thief!” We just don’t have enough of it.
Based on facts only. History has shown that Communism does not workout, has not worked out and never will work out for a free Society. Zero elections in those type of countries prove that!