On Friday, I wrote about the obviously professional PR campaign launched last week against the rapid development of so-called "artificial intelligence," kicked off by the resignation of mid-level AI employee Jacob Coxon.
Coxon came out of nowhere, almost literally. He worked at OpenAI training "frontier models" (the most sophisticated and up-to-date at any time), then moved to Anthropic and worked there for a few months before resigning. He announced his resignation on X, using an account with almost no activity or followers, and it took off after top AI company executives promoted it.
Coxon warned darkly that AI could kill us all—a common-enough worry and articulated by many people far more prominent and interesting than a 27-year-old AI trainer, and hence unremarkable in itself — but somehow the Wall Street Journal had the "exclusive" story before the X post even went up. Almost every tech company CEO has said the same thing many times, but for some reason Coxon's warning became a top national story.
Coxon's resignation has kicked off a firestorm, and it's clear that it wasn't really Coxon who lit the match. His resignation was the hook, but it was used to push a narrative that had been pre-positioned for some time to fundamentally reshape the AI industry. Whether Coxon's resignation was staged or not, the PR campaign around it certainly isn't spontaneous.
The CEOs of OpenAI and Anthropic seized on Coxon's warnings, agreeing that everything must change; Democrats proposed legislation to ban "superintelligence" and jail anyone for up to 20 years for pursuing it, and both OpenAI and Anthropic argued for massive government regulations and...the hamstringing or outright banning of their competitors.
He goes on CNN and says nothing new. He has zero evidence or documentation to back up any of his claims. He struggles so hard to find examples that he has to use the Hugging Face one from OpenAI, not Anthropic. Which we already know about.
— Gregory Kennedy (@gregorykennedy) September 10, 2026
It's all conjecture and wild claims…
He goes on CNN and says nothing new. He has zero evidence or documentation to back up any of his claims. He struggles so hard to find examples that he has to use the Hugging Face one from OpenAI, not Anthropic. Which we already know about.
It's all conjecture and wild claims from the same people who have been wrong over and over.
Remember when Andrew Yang and others claimed all the truck driving jobs would go away? That was 10 years ago.
Remember when Dario said unemployment would hit 50% in 18 months? Well, we don't have 50% unemployment, and it's been more than 18 months.
It's obvious this is an attempt to ban open-source AI so the new "FAA of AI" can control AI. Even if it's as dangerous as they say, they have no way to control what China does. Which means this campaign for regulation won't actually meet any of their stated aims.
Not themselves, of course. In exchange for inviting the government to oversee their businesses, which would become effective monopolies, they also wanted the government to cripple "open-source" AI models that threaten their business monopolies.
And here we see the real point of this story, and possibly Coxon's very public resignation. Nobody believes that the AI race can be halted — even if everything were shut down in the US, no lawmaker here could stop China or other countries from racing ahead. The race is on, and nothing will stop it, even if we should.
“Tell that dude we hired 6 weeks ago to post that thread about how AI is going to kill everyone. Great. Have the alignment team repost it. Wow, didn’t think it’d go that viral. Feed the NYT a story about us stopping bioweapons. Perfect. Finalize the S1 IPO docs for next week.” https://t.co/uBW6s86A1f pic.twitter.com/bIMshIAHsM
— Trung Phan (@TrungTPhan) September 10, 2026
What we are seeing is a massive, pretty obviously coordinated campaign by AI researchers, companies, NGOs, and politicians to strangle competition in an industry and, as I will show, save the financial bacon of the top AI companies that are vastly overextended financially because they have made contractual commitments that they simply have no prospect of paying for.
The Background:
AI companies are in deep financial trouble, though the financial hype machine doesn't want anyone to think so. AI has uses, and companies have customers. I often use AI for basic research and to collect sources quickly and efficiently, but I never trust it to tell me what the sources actually said. I use Grammarly to spell-check and catch obvious errors. All our search engines are backed by AI tools, mostly for the better, sometimes for worse. AI is now built into many products without our even realizing it.
AI is here to stay, and so is AI development. Trillions of dollars are already at stake, and national governments are deeply invested in pushing the technology forward. The only question is who pays for what, who gets paid, and which companies will dominate an industry still in its infancy. And which countries, because even if we slow or stop AI development here, China will not.
Just revealed 👇
— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) September 13, 2026
Perfectly explains Dario's motivation: Slow down research to cut compute spending that is spiraling out of control, so he can IPO. pic.twitter.com/GCw4k4V7Em
The problem, though, is that the resources to make it all work cost far more than customers are willing to pay, so AI companies are bleeding cash at a rate not yet seen in financial history. The top two AI companies have made spending commitments for "compute" power from the top "hyperscaler" companies totaling over a trillion dollars over the next few years, and the bills will start coming due next year. Some estimates put $1.5 trillion in capital expenditures in the works. Nobody knows the exact number, but it is astronomical and beyond anything ever seen in history.
That's what the data center siting arguments are all about: where the infrastructure already ordered will be sited. Those data centers are wildly expensive, and if the AI companies can't pay the people who are building them, a house of cards collapses, along with the stock market.
Anthropic and OpenAI delaying their IPO, because their S-1 will reveal that they are bleeding money, and have no path to profitability.
— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) September 12, 2026
Solution? "AI slowdown", so they cut costs for training new models.
It has everything to do with IPO, and nothing to do with safety.
To put this all in context: somewhere around 50 percent of the value of the S&P 500 today is directly impacted by the AI investment bubble, with everything from Nvidia to Microsoft to Amazon and all the other data center providers' values tied to an assumption that AI profits will magically appear between now and 2030, but the actual current revenue numbers are minuscule.
Spending is counted in the hundreds of billions and even trillions. Profits are negative, and cash flow is measured in billions. Everything else is debt.
The CEO of AI startup Anthropos told me he thinks this week's threat to humanity warnings are politically motivated.
— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) September 14, 2026
"There are multiple things that we could be doing... like engaging more open source AI," Stefano Bellasio said.
He noted Europe has delayed some regulations: pic.twitter.com/r06qJeYiru
The revenue, while measured in the billions, is dwarfed by the costs of generating it. And there is no prospect that the costs for providing services or "compute" will do anything but increase, since data centers need expensive upgrades regularly. Unlike most technology, upgrades get more expensive over time, not less.
IT's the opposite of the software industry, where the more customers you get, the lower the cost of providing your service.
Every added user for an AI company that provides little to no revenue also costs them even more. Every time you use ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude, those companies are spending money, and the chances you paid them anything are vanishingly small. These companies have very few actual paying customers, and the few they have can't spend the hundreds of billions the AI companies need to run their businesses.
Worse, competition is fierce as companies fight for market share. Every company has to invest more and more to differentiate itself from competitors selling essentially similar products, which means releasing new, better models at a breakneck pace; and since the cost to switch services is almost nil for most people, falling behind means losing customers.
DARIO: “It has always been very strange that this technology is being built by a private company.”
— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) September 13, 2026
CBS: “Would you be willing to give up
the technology to the government?”
DARIO: “To the to the right combination of governments.” pic.twitter.com/UWphJTUqqs
Switching from ChatGPT to Claude or Grok isn't difficult for almost anybody except the highest-end users; switching from PC to Mac imposes enormous time and learning costs, as does switching from Android to iOS. Software companies lock you in because switching costs for changing how you work are very high; switching from Claude or ChatGPT to another chatbot is almost effortless for most people.
Switching to Grok or Gemini? Nothing. For most people, it's the same product. A few companies may build specific AIs into their workflow, but their pockets aren't deep enough to fund them. It's a horrible business model.
Venture capital funds are almost tapped out and are starting to demand returns, so these companies need to go public to keep the money rolling in. But AI companies' financials are a disaster zone. Their business models don't work as is, and competition from "open source" (read: free, if you run it on your own hardware) is a huge threat.
Today's "bull market" is almost exclusively driven by the rapid rise of AI-adjacent companies, and if the AI companies can't deliver massive growth, all these other companies are cooked as well. Data centers will have no customers, cloud compute will have nothing to do, and Nvidia chips won't be worth 10x gold.
And unlike a lot of stranded resources such as excess fiber optic capacity in 2000 after the dot-com bubble burst, it will become worthless in little time. When the transcontinental railroad bubble burst, many investors lost massive amounts of money, but the country still had railroads that continued to benefit the country forever; if the AI and data center boom busts, those data centers will lose value quickly.
What to do? If the bubble pops, there will be a lot of losers. And they'll lose hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars.
The Game Changer
Anthropic and OpenAI both want (read: NEED) to go public to access ordinary investors' cash and keep the VCs happy, so they need to present a business model that works. And that business model, it seems, is to become regulated utilities with government-backed monopoly power. And, likely, massive government bailouts based on national security arguments to pay for the data center buildout that is likely to bankrupt these companies without more cash than they can generate.
What better argument than "unless we become regulated industries, the world will end?" It's very similar to "if you don't subsidize my windmills and solar panels, the oceans will boil," or "unless you fund this untried technology, COVID will kill us all."
Anthropic CEO Declares 'We Must Slow the Pace' of AI Advancements While Warning the Tech Could 'Take Over' the Internet in Months https://t.co/ZMsp0jk2hq
— Mediaite (@Mediaite) September 12, 2026
If competition and price pressures are the problem, regulatory capture and "fencing" out competitors is an obvious solution. Regulated industries get guaranteed profits, guaranteed customers, and guaranteed monopolies. And the best way to rush the process is to present an apocalyptic scenario that demands a quick solution.
None of these companies is suggesting that AI be shut down; they are asking for a massive regulatory infrastructure that works with them, reduces their costs, possibly subsidizes their investments, and destroys competitors as insufficiently careful and secure.
How to kill open source models in 3 simple steps:
— Matteo Pellegrini (@matteopelleg) September 12, 2026
- Create panic about frontier models.
- Have the biggest AI companies help write the “safety” rules. ← WE’RE HERE
- Make those rules so burdensome that open source can’t compete.
Art of the deal. pic.twitter.com/t4OXXMxnB8
When Jacob Coxon issued his warning, the CEOs of Anthropic and ChatGPT echoed it and argued they needed to "slow down" (read: quit spending so much money) model development and invite government regulators to oversee it. In startup history, begging for government regulation is, shall we say, rare. As rare as startups spending trillions of dollars they don't have, in fact.
This is an industry that claims its potential market is $30 trillion (the nominal GDP of the US is $32 trillion, so OpenAI is claiming its market is basically the entire worth of the US economy), but suddenly they are arguing for a slowdown and massive regulation.
That is unheard of, and it signals that their model for tapping into that market is fundamentally flawed. Because it is. These companies are grossly overvalued, even if they have a useful product. There is currently no path to profit or even breaking even in sight.
Fourteen moves in eight days
— Kevin Bass (@kevinnbass) September 12, 2026
The psyop to create hysteria to manipulate Congress into regulating AI.
Almost everyone involved is affiliated with Coefficient, Open Philanthropy, Anthropic, and/or OpenAI -- all who serve to benefit financially from creating regulation. pic.twitter.com/p0Uuzol9kp
For fun, I asked Grok to outline the developments in the days after Coxon announced his resignation, and the pattern that emerges is striking:
OpenAI’s U-turn — September 9
Chris Lehane, OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, published “The AI policy window is open. We need to act.” The company that spent years warning that heavy federal rules would cede the race to China now wants binding national law before Congress adjourns.
The prospect of AI-accelerated AI development demands more than voluntary commitments. The United States needs mandatory, capability-based national regulation that can evolve as the technology does.
— Chris Lehane, OpenAI, September 9, 2026
A national framework should be strong but carefully targeted. Frontier safety requirements should apply to the handful of well-resourced laboratories developing the most capable systems—not to startups, small developers, or researchers operating nowhere near the frontier.
— Lehane, same essay
We will advocate for compatible international approaches to measuring capabilities, managing risk, preserving human control, and determining when and how development should slow or stop, even if that means slowing the advancement of model capabilities.
— Lehane, same essay
Read the targeting clause twice. Rules that apply only to the “handful of well-resourced laboratories” sound like they spare startups. In practice they define a licensed club. Anyone who wants to train at the actual frontier must join the club or stay under the line. OpenAI also endorsed four additional California bills on independent assessments and AI-auditor standards — the plumbing of a permission regime.
Anthropic’s pacing plan — September 12
Dario Amodei published “We Must Pace the Frontier” and posted the plan on X. Anthropic commits first; government is asked to compel the rest.
Over the last few months, I have become convinced that fully addressing the risks requires even more prudence — not just investing in risk prevention, but pacing the rate of capabilities advancement so that risk prevention has time to keep up. We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models.
— Dario Amodei, September 12, 2026
The first step is something Anthropic is unilaterally committing to (and calls on governments to require other frontier companies to match).
— Amodei, same essay
For antitrust reasons, it’s helpful for the US government to mediate or at least enable these discussions — they don’t need to participate, but do need to issue a narrow waiver for certain kinds of safety conversations.
— Amodei, same essay
That last sentence is the cartel tell. Competitors who want to agree on a speed limit need the state to bless the conversation. Amodei is asking for it in writing.
Crack down on unauthorized distillation by companies in authoritarian countries. Distillation of frontier models allows lagging companies to narrow the gap using a fraction of the cost it would take to develop their own AI independently.
— Amodei, “We Must Pace the Frontier,” September 12, 2026
Sam Altman replied within hours:
I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier. This has been a primary topic of discussions we’ve had at OpenAI in recent weeks. Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same.
— Sam Altman (@sama), September 12, 2026
Elon Musk wrote, “Dario is right.” Anthropic public-policy chief Sarah Heck added the enforcement version: the government should block advanced-chip sales to China and enact “a national law requiring testing of frontier models, with the power to block the most advanced models that prove to be unsafe.”
Basically, what top AI executives are discussing is a government-blessed cartel, justified by the fear that failing to set it up (and slow AI progress in the United States) will kill us all.
It's a pretty neat trick. Under the guise of being "responsible" citizens, these AI companies are asking the government to create a cartel, reduce their training costs (i.e., "pacing"), and ban the advance of open-source AI available to the masses.
They aren't offering to sacrifice for humanity's good; they are begging for a bailout.
Unsurprisingly, politicians joined in almost immediately with prepared proposals that dovetail nicely with these AI companies' desires. VCs, who also need AI companies to succeed in a way their current business model almost certainly cannot, joined politicians in pushing massive regulations that mirror the needs of the top two AI companies.
They're doing so while claiming to "reign in" the AI companies, but what they are delivering is exactly what the industry needs to survive. These companies face a financial apocalypse; what you are seeing is a lobbying campaign to save them.
So far, at least 22 politicians responded directly to this tweet with calls for legislation to regulate AI:
— Michael Adams (@m_adams) September 9, 2026
2 governors, 7 senators, and 13 representatives. Highly partisan - all democrats except for three.
Here's the full list:
- Governor, IL (JB Pritzker - D)… https://t.co/owcrDOAlri pic.twitter.com/ouCtkISZuc
So far, at least 22 politicians responded directly to this tweet with calls for legislation to regulate AI:
2 governors, 7 senators, and 13 representatives. Highly partisan - all democrats except for three.
Here's the full list:
- Governor, IL (JB Pritzker - D) https://x.com/GovPritzker/status/2097715871309312220?s=20
- Governor, NY (Kathy Hochul - D) https://x.com/GovKathyHochul/status/2097823061491732729?s=20
- Senator, AZ (Mark Kelly - D) https://x.com/SenMarkKelly/status/2097779067109900749?s=20
- Senator, DE (Lisa Rochester - D) https://x.com/SenLBR/status/2097747156908011765?s=20
- Senator, CT (Chris Murphy - D) https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2097669346814304677?s=20
- Senator, VT (Bernie Sanders - D) https://x.com/BernieSanders/status/2097705093520863568?s=20
- Senator, WA (Patty Murray - D) https://x.com/PattyMurray/status/2097721427348611452?s=20
- Senator, TX (Ted Cruz - R) https://x.com/SenTedCruz/status/2097727324011536877?s=20
- Senator, MD (Chris Van Hollen - D) https://x.com/ChrisVanHollen/status/2097759332305715241?s=20
- Congressman, IL (Bill Foster - D) https://x.com/RepBillFoster/status/2097791328319152411?s=20
- Congresswoman, IL (Delia Ramirez - D) https://x.com/repdeliaramirez/status/2097822197821661436?s=20
- Congresswoman, FL (Anna Luna - R) https://x.com/RepLuna/status/2097641199196684682?s=20
- Congressman, CA (Ro Khanna - D) https://x.com/RoKhanna/status/2097754129489596612?s=20
- Congressman, TX (Nathaniel Moran - R) https://x.com/RepNateMoran/status/2097728437741879709?s=20
- Congressman, VA (Don Beyer - D) https://x.com/RepDonBeyer/status/2097728914906869764?s=20
- Congressman, PA (Chris Deluzio - D) https://x.com/RepDeluzio/status/2097690483497578605?s=20
- Congresswoman, WA (Pramila Jayapal - D) https://x.com/RepJayapal/status/2097695262051369070?s=20
- Congresswoman, AZ (Yassamin Ansari - D) https://x.com/RepYassAnsari/status/2097721236839162155?s=20
- Congressman, CA (Dave Min - D) https://x.com/CongressMin/status/2097690443358073241?s=20
- Congresswoman, MA (Lori Trahan - D) https://x.com/RepLoriTrahan/status/2097641446983528943?s=20
- Congressman, TX (Greg Casar - D) https://x.com/RepCasar/status/2097685220442923030?s=20
- Congressman, CA (Ted Lieu - D) https://x.com/RepTedLieu/status/2097730021733400740?s=20
- Senate Candidate, MI (Abdul El-Sayed - D) https://x.com/AbdulElSayed/status/2097627961671217446?s=20
- Congress Candidate, CA (Connie Chan - D) https://x.com/conniechansf/status/2097537934430015687?s=20
- Congress Candidate, CA (Scott Wiener - D) https://x.com/Scott_Wiener/status/2097804845772353768?s=20
- Governor Candidate, CA (Xavier Beccera - D) https://x.com/XavierBecerra/status/2097724590592327877?s=20
- British MPs Ian Byrne and Darren Jones https://x.com/IanByrneMP/status/2097667731961078121?s=20 and
https://x.com/darrenpjones/status/2097605098411077991?s=20
Nobody has answered the obvious question: if AI really IS the existential threat claimed here, how does any of this change the game? After all, these are NATIONAL policies, likely to include a ban on non-US AI in the United States, and will do nothing to actually stop the development of AI models anywhere else.
Read that again: none of this will "save the world" because the US doesn't control the world. It's as useful as the UK reducing its CO2 emissions while China keeps expanding its own emissions. Ask any UK politician about what exactly the UK's green policies accomplish, and they blather about "leadership" while ignoring the fact that global temperatures have zero correlation with UK policies.
UK Green energy companies do well off it, but climate change hasn't changed one bit.
Damn somehow I missed that Bernie's AI bill proposes to sentence developers & researchers working on "advanced AI" to 20 years in prison (!!) pic.twitter.com/u5hfMrv6hC
— Justine Moore (@venturetwins) September 11, 2026
As we have seen, China is moving fast and breaking things, and until about five minutes ago, the biggest threat was losing the AI race to China. No amount of American regulation will stop China from developing models, so every one of the proposals serves only to shape the US AI market, and in a way that effectively bans the use of personal AI (by banning the development of "distillations," which are open-source models that are built on prior work) on local computers.
The cartel would control the entire US market and need not compete with anyone else. They can cut expenditures by slowing AI development, gain financial breathing room, and secure a government-backed market.
Their IPOs suddenly look much more attractive, don't they?
Fun fact #1: They both want to IPO. They both need to slash model training costs to show a path to profitability. An AI development slowdown serves exactly that purpose.
— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) September 12, 2026
Fun fact #2: China has bridged the gap with the US. Any US slowdown would hand AI supremacy to China.
_ pic.twitter.com/kxEwZ4vH8s
Local LLMs are exploding in use because most AI use cases don't require the "frontier" models developed by the top companies. For a few thousand dollars, you can set up a Mac Studio or even a MacBook Pro and have the equivalent of last year's ChatGPT sitting in your office, and you can feed it everything you want free of charge.
Apple's entire new lineup of computers is being designed around local AI sitting right in your home, and the results are fantastic. My wife and I are thinking of creating that setup to index our writing and research, mine what we have done in the past, and automate some tasks. That, and I like to tinker with cool stuff.
If free models keep getting better and smaller, and they ARE, the frontier model companies will lose most of their customers. Even your phones will have AI capabilities today that were cutting-edge four years ago. These guys want to stop people from benefiting from open-source models and are asking the government to mandate it.
Existential Threat
I can't say whether the rapid pace of AI development today will somehow threaten the world, although I am skeptical. Large Language Models (LLMs) are unlikely to become independently intelligent because they are inference machines, not conscious entities.
That doesn't mean that they present no threat. They don't have to be conscious to do damage. Bad actors can create agents that make hacking easier, design scary bioweapons, or even accidentally do enormous damage.
If they do something awful, and they could, it will be because a human being (accidentally) told it to. The Hugging Face hacking incident, by the way, started when the LLM was told to find network vulnerabilities, and the programmers underestimated how good it could be at doing so.
The potential for harm is real. This "solution" is not.
Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.
— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) September 13, 2026
You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier…
Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.
You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.
I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.
But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.
Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.
Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.
So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.
If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.
The solution is to ensure companies face liability for any damage they cause. Government regulators are utterly incapable of regulating anything as massively complicated and rapidly developing as AI, but you can be darn sure that if these companies face multi-billion-dollar liability claims, they will be quite careful about what they release.
Which do you trust more: a GS-12 based in Washington assigned to evaluate a model he could never understand, or a bank of lawyers warning CEOs that screwing up could cost them $20 billion?
Dario Amodei warned in an essay that swarms of rogue AI agents could take over the internet in as little as six months from now. https://t.co/yGTVSBrnYD
— Axios (@axios) September 12, 2026
Since I can't mind-read, I can't say whether the top AI CEOs really believe that their products are an existential threat to humanity, but if so, they aren't willing to volunteer to close their companies to avoid it. What they are willing to do is beg the government to bail them out by killing their competitors, reducing their AI-training costs, guaranteeing their customer base, and turning them into regulated utilities.
That's what all this is about. And we know that because nothing that US politicians or regulators can do will induce China or anybody else to stop their own AI push. Making noises about asking China to join in an AI slowdown is, to be frank, a joke. They will not, and everybody knows that. Just as we have been all-in on AI, they have been as well.
Will AI kill everybody off at some point in the future? I doubt it, but I can't say for sure. What I can say with certainty is that AI companies, because of their own financial mismanagement, face an existential threat and want (NEED) the government to bail them out, and need an excuse to get it to do so.
What you saw in this week's frenzy is the excuse they chose.
Editor's Note: The Democrat Party has been infected by socialism, and it's spreading FAST. Democrats are claiming there's nothing to worry about, but we know the truth.
Help us continue to shine a light on the socialist takeover by joining HotAir VIP. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member