Category Archives: Politics

Posted on by

Some common sense concerning the Louisiana v Callais decision. This might not be quite the result for which Republicans hoped

The two pages of the Congressionally-signed original of the Fourteenth Amendment in the National Archives, written with iron gall ink on parchment. It was last publicly displayed in 2013. As of 2025, it is stored in the research wing of the archives inside a boxed book of Acts of Congress from its 39th session.

Our good friends on the left, who have been so supportive of the Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” must grant automatic citizenship to the “anchor babies” of people in our country illegally, they have not been nearly as thrilled with the Equal Protection Clause, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” when that clause says, essentially and throughout dozens of decisions, that Americans may not be treated differently based upon their race. Oh, the left certainly doesn’t want white Americans to be given a legal advantage, but legal “remedies” to “past discrimination” to assist black Americans meet with their approval.

After a Supreme Court ruling that was an affront to history, some states can’t wait to turn back the clock on voting rights | Editorial

After long ago overcoming racist efforts to dilute the power of voters of color, the conservative justices have unreasonably made it more difficult to challenge discriminatory legislative maps.

by The Editorial Board | Monday, May 11, 2026 | 5:01 AM EDT

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. — George Santayana

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the U.S. Supreme Court giving its seal of approval to Republican attempts to turn back the clock on voting rights in America is that, after long ago overcoming racist efforts to dilute the power of voters of color, we now see similar vipers slithering past the corroded gates of hell that were supposed to hold them in check.

The court defied reason with an opinion that, in essence, neutered the 1965 Voting Rights Act by ruling government efforts to remedy past racism, which tipped the scales in favor of white political candidates, are also racist — unless those remedies can be tied to specific acts of past discrimination that made them necessary.

The decision has opened the door for states to attempt to invalidate any congressional district lines drawn to favor candidates of color.

Note what appalls The Editorial Board, that they might lose “congressional district lines drawn to favor candidates of color.” The Board are specifically asking for districts which favor non-white candidates. This would be the same Editorial Board which wrote last January:

The president has also successfully lobbied some Republican-controlled states to remake congressional maps to favor the GOP, regardless of their potential illegality. In Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed 2025 redistricting maps to be used for the upcoming election, even as a legal challenge moves forward over racial gerrymandering.

It seems that the Board approve of racial gerrymandering, an attempt to create, again in their words, “congressional district lines drawn to favor candidates of color,” but are diametrically opposed to district boundaries which favor Republicans.

There is a strong bias on the part of the Board. It would seem that black Americans, in their view, can only be represented by black representatives, but if anyone were to suggest that black representatives cannot represent white Americans, they’d be among the first to scream that’s racist. If someone stated that only a white candidate could reasonably represent a majority white district, they’d also claim such was racist.

Conservatives have long fought against the reverse racism which has been used, but electorally, the Louisiana v Callais decision might not be the win they think. Blacks are the Democrats most loyal voting Demographic, frequently giving 90% of their ballots to Democrats. Creating majority black districts had the effect of making neighboring districts safer for Republican candidates. If those majority black districts are phased out, spreading heavily black areas back into other districts, Republican candidates might fare more poorly, and close races more likely to elect the Democratic candidates. The Editorial Board might be appalled if fewer black Democrats were elected, but I’m sure that they’d trade black Democrats for white Democrats if it meant fewer Republicans of any color were in office.

Posted on by

No matter how much you hate the credentialed media, you do not hate them enough!

When it comes to posts on Twitter, I have gotten away from doing the easy thing and embedding them to taking screenshots and then embedding the links to them. I use them for illustrations on my site, because tweets are not copyrighted, and because they serve as a permanent record.

Well, apparently Bethany Allen, whose Twitter bio states that she is “Head of China investigations @aspi_cts. Was @axios, @foreignpolicy, @yale, @HopkinsNanjing. Author BEIJING RULES, FT Best Books 2023. bethanyallen AT aspi org au” isn’t quite as intelligent and educated as she thinks she is, because Stephen Miller did the same thing, and took a screenshot of his response to her now deleted tweet.

This site has made considerable fun of CNN’s Jake Tapper and his co-author Alex Thompson for their non mea culpa est book, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, and now we’re seeing supposedly professional journolists[1]The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their … Continue reading trying to tell us that it’s not their fault that they didn’t report on the perv from the Pyrite State, Rep. Eric Swalwell and his proclivity for sexual assault. No, they knew about it, but it wasn’t their beat, you know?

Steven Tavares of the East Bay Insider admitted that he knew about it as well, since 2013, screenshot here, and also kept his mouth shut.

Well, Mr Tavares is stuck in the area around the city of my birth — Go Oakland, never Las Vegas, Raiders! — and Miss Allen lives in Taipei, far, far away from the corridors of federal power in Washington, DC, and even they had heard about what has been described as an ‘open secret’ concerning Mr Swalwell. So how is it that The New York Times — “All the News That’s Fit to Print” — and The Washington Post — “Democracy Dies in Darkness” — found news about the Distinguished Gentleman from California not fit to print, found it too dark to illuminate for democracy? Do the voters of California’s 14th congressional district not deserve to know this about their representative in Congress? Do the voters in the United States, frequently subjected to Mr Swalwell’s attacks on President Trump, and his attempts to derail the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, not deserve to know what a huge hypocrite was making those allegations?

We have previously noted the losses and layoffs at the Post, but stories about Mr Swalwell’s proclivities had been circulating long before those layoffs, and still the Post never reported on it. There were plenty of stories, including the Post’s Taylor Lorenz’s doxxing of Chaya Raichik, an attempt to expose the previously anonymous producer of the Twitter site Libs of TikTok, hoping to get Miss Raichik to lose her day job or get run out of town, or something else horrible to happen to her, Miss Raichik having done nothing more than to have exposed the idiocy of the #woke[2]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading, but expose an actual predator in Congress? Maybe if he’d been a Republican, yeah, but a prominent Democrat? Nope, not happening.

But let’s tell the full truth here: former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy knew, which means most if not all Republicans in the House of Representatives knew as well, and they didn’t expose Mr Swalwell either. Either they were just fine with the pervert from the Pyrite State’s continued attacks on President Trump, or they didn’t want the light of truth shone on themselves, and both possibilities could be true.

Jeff Bezos, you’ve got some work to do! You want to revive The Washington Post, to get it back to where it was? Get your reporters on the case, get them to document and expose all of the members of Congress who are abusing their power and positions! No one will ever believe that your reporters haven’t heard the rumors about Mr Swalwell, and that there aren’t other possible abusers out there.

References

References
↑1 The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity.
↑2 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues. By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.
Posted on by

Citius, Altius, Fortius Girls can't be boys and boys can't be girls, no matter how much a few of them don't like it

The Nation is one of our oldest political commentary journals, dating from 1865, and these days it is charitably described as “progressive,” though far-left and #woke[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading would be more accurate. They’re just another bunch who’ve fallen for the idiocy that girls can be boys and boys can be girls.

The Olympics Is Repeating One of Its Worst Mistakes

The IOC’s new anti-trans testing regime revives some of the most discredited and discriminatory policies in the history of the games.

Michael Waters | Holy Thursday, April 2, 2026

In 1967, a Polish sprinter named Ewa Kłobukowska sat for a mandatory DNA test. Kłobukowska, a rising track star, had won a gold and a bronze medal at the 1964 Olympics in Tokyo. Now, a new policy required all women track-and-field athletes to be screened for the presence of X chromosomes. Kłobukowska was probably shocked to learn that the test had placed her on the wrong side of the gender binary. Exactly what happened is hazy—news reports claimed that Kłobukowska was discovered to have “one chromosome too many,” without further explanation—but the consequences were immediate. Kłobukowska was banned from the Olympics. Her sporting career was over.

Now why would the Olympics be running DNA tests back in the mid 1960s, before there was any such thing as “transgenderism”? It’s simple! Female athletes in international competition from the Soviet bloc nations, the USSR and the satellite countries in the old Warsaw Pact, sure looked as though there were some men in drag competing in women’s sports. They were cheating, no surprise during the Cold War and the Soviets’ attempts to persuade the civilized world that Communism was somehow superior.

Track-and-field officials framed this as an unmitigated triumph, proof that DNA testing had weeded out an athlete who was “not truly female.” But even at the time, some onlookers could see that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was going down a dark road of gender policing, weeding out women who had always understood themselves as female based on some arbitrary biological marker. The head of the Polish Olympic Committee, perhaps radicalized by the dismissal of one of his top athletes, called DNA testing a “form of discrimination” as well as something of a gender delusion: How could the IOC hope to split up athletes into biological binaries when “there are no generally accepted criteria of sex for woman athletes”? Sex, after all, is a spectrum.

These critiques did not stop the IOC from expanding its testing requirements. From 1968 on, all women athletes had to sit for chromosome exams ahead of the Olympics. Only at the end of the 1990s, when the chorus of critical voices became unavoidable, did the IOC ditch this sex testing regime.

Translation: when Communism in the USSR fell and their attempts at cheating ended, genetic testing to see if women were actually women was no longer needed. But author Michael Waters revealed his point of argument when he wrote, “Sex, after all, is a spectrum.”

No, it isn’t. Sex falls into two major categories, males and females, and one minor one, those unfortunate individuals who suffer from genetic or developmental defects which make them “intersex.” Our #woke friends on the far-left sometimes claim that gender is a spectrum, but this is the first time I’ve seen someone claim that sex is. Even the World Health Organization, which buys into the gender spectrum idea, differentiates it from sex:

Gender interacts with but is different from sex, which refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs. Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.

It would seem that Mr Waters is attempting to move the goalposts to make his argument!

Sadly, the article falls behind the paywall just a bit after the parts I’ve already quoted, but, not to worry, I had first found it in my morning feeds from another source, which has the entire article here.

After a couple of paragraphs whining about the tests, Mr Waters continued:

Just as it did in 1968, the IOC is insisting that the new regime is about preventing men from breaching the barriers of women’s sports, saying that “it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category.” And, just as was true all those decades ago, this excuse doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Instead, the IOC is playing a linguistic jiu-jitsu with us, lumping intersex and trans women into the categories of “biological males,” even though they are not men and do not have the same athletic advantages as men.

We have previously noted how Will Thomas, a very much middle-of-the-pack male swimmer, vaulted to the top of the ranking after he decided he was really a woman and started calling himself “Lia.” We pointed out how, in the Zippy Invitational he was not only utterly destroying the real women in the pool, but his times were in the middle of the pack for the male swimmers. We noted how the last place male swimmer in the 500-yard freestyle had a time 7.21 seconds faster than the first real female finisher in that race.

But, don’t take my word for it: Swimming World magazine ran the numbers in an article entitled “A Look At the Numbers and Times: No Denying the Advantages of Lia Thomas.”

Clearly, this new policy has little to do with science or fairness—and everything to do with the metastasizing right-wing panic against trans women. Instead of dealing with the occasionally messy work of including gender-diverse athletes in a binary sports infrastructure, the IOC seems to have decided that it’s more convenient simply not to try. That the global right has made trans women athletes into a fixation, a proxy for their much wider-ranging campaign to disenfranchise trans people, has proven to be a convenient cover for a return to the 20th century. It’s also only the latest example of the regressive gender politics that have defined the Olympics for their entire history.

Ahhh, it’s not really science but Mr Waters’ view of fairness, fairness for “trans women” rather than fairness to real women, which is his bugaboo, and what he calls “right-wing panic.”

Michael Waters, from his website.

Sports does not really care about sensible conservative or whacko leftist politics; sports simply measures, by various means, strength, speed, quickness, and other physical metrics. The Olympics motto is “Citius, Altius, Fortius – Communiter”, which is Latin for “Faster, Higher, Stronger – Together”, and there is absolutely no denying that, overall, males are faster, can jump higher, and are stronger than females. Through rigorous training, some women will be able to run faster, jump higher, and be stronger than most men, but when it comes to athletic competition the subject is not the males in the middle, but the top women’s performances versus the top men’s performances. As Mr Thomas so well proved, a mid-level male collegiate swimmer is going to outperform a top-level female swimmer. A simple look at the men’s records versus women’s records in track and field demonstrates the physical advantages men have.

The real panic is among our good friends on the left, who are adamant that men and women are equal. That can certainly be true under the law, and in some areas, we are seeing women’s achievements in things such as medical school admissions and collegiate admissions in general outpacing those of men. The top surgeons are heavily men, but as the surge of women in medical schools persists, the time and experience of women in medicine might change just who are at the top surgeons.

But physically? Sorry, Mr Waters, but biology will not be mocked. Not only are males, in general, taller, larger, and stronger than females, the structural differences between the hips of males, optimized for strength and speed in running, versus the hips of women, which have to have larger internal openings to permit babies to pass through, lead to real differences, differences which make a difference when it comes to sports and many other physical activities. The last player on the Washington Wizards team would absolutely dominate in the WNBA. 5’7″ “Spud” Webb once won the NBA dunk contest; very few WNBA players can dunk the ball.

Sexual dimorphism is a real thing, and it’s not subject to politics. Mr Waters actually knows this, but chooses to ignore it over politics. Girls really can’t be boys, and boys really can’t be girls, no matter how much a few mentally ill people think they can.

References

References
↑1 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues. By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.
Posted on by

Will Bunch wants yet another failed impeachment of President Trump He knows it would just be more political theater, but his #TrumpDerangementSyndrome overrides any political sense he has

We noted on Monday The Philadelphia Inquirer’s far-left columnist Will Bunch’s skeet telling us that, assuming the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives following the elections this coming November, that President Trump will ‘inevitably’ be impeached. It took longer on Tuesday for Mr Bunch’s column to be published than I had guessed, 11:52 AM EDT, but finally it came out. It was the same laundry list of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ that the denizens of Bluesky always parrot, but really nothing new.

The ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ as the columnist listed them:

  • The pardon mess, as described above. Trump’s outrageous abuse of his clemency pen has proved America’s founders made a big mistake in granting such absolute power to just one man. Congressional hearings can and should spur pardon reform, but could also expose evidence that could be used in a Trump impeachment case.

The pardon power is explicitly listed in the Constitution, and Congress cannot simply change it.

  • Cryptogate. Presidents used to put their assets in a blind trust, as Jimmy Carter famously did with his peanut farm. Trump, on the other hand, keeps doing deals and has seen his net worth roughly triple to more than $6 billion in just the first year of his second term. There are many tentacles to what I called Cryptogate with this handy guide I published last spring. Trump’s pump-and-dump meme coin launched on inauguration weekend seems a high crime unto itself.

I am amused that Mr Bunch cited an opinion article, his own opinion article, to declare something a “high crime”. But if making money while in public office is a high crime or misdemeanor, the members of Congress, many of whom have become far wealthier while in office themselves, far wealthier than their congressional salaries would support, would be hanging themselves with such a charge.

  • War crimes. The war in Iran is illegal, period. The president did not seek congressional approval to start dropping bombs up and down the Persian Gulf as required by both the U.S. Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Act. It’s also an illegal, aggressive war under international law. Ditto his regime-change assault on Venezuela, which killed more than 100 people. Ditto his regime’s unending lethal attacks on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, which have no legal basis. Congress can reassert its authority by impeaching Trump.

The distinguished columnist apparently does not understand the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that he claims was violated because the “president did not seek congressional approval to start dropping bombs up and down the Persian Gulf”. As we pointed out here, under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 USC §1541-1550), the President is required to notify the Speaker of the House of Representatives and he President pro tempore of the Senate within 48 hours after “any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances”, which Mr Trump did. Prior notification is not required under the law.[1]§1543(a)(3)

  • Abuse of power in the justice system. The flip side of Trump’s pardons has been the unprecedented attempt to use the Justice Department to go after the president’s perceived enemies, from former FBI chief James Comey to Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell. These investigations, directly urged on by Trump in Truth Social posts, have repeatedly failed to pass muster with judges or grand juries, but that doesn’t erase the stain of such clearly wrongful prosecutions.

Would this be the same Justice Department which pursued mostly working-class people for the January 6th Capitol kerfuffle, charging the vast majority with four crimes[2]The standard four charges with which the majority were charged: 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) – Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority. If there … Continue reading but allowing them to plead down to a single count of Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building, for which most received little or no time in jail, and a fine, using the bullying power of the federal government against people who could not afford to fight the charges.

Would that be the same Department of Justice which was surveilling traditionalist Catholics, based almost entirely on an assessment from the hard-left Southern Poverty Law Center? Would that be the same Department of Justice whose FBI Director, Christopher Wray, lied to Congress about the extent of the program?

Would that be the same Justice Department which constantly went after Mr Trump’s friends and attorneys?

Despite the constant pleas of his base to “Lock her up,” in reference to Hillary Clinton, during his first term, President Trump had no such effort made. The tactic of going after the previous Administration’s people started under President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland. Whatever aggression is being made to go after Mr Trump’s enemies falls in the category of “What comes around, goes around.”

The columnist actually admitted that it was highly unlikely that there would be the 67 votes in the Senate necessary to actually remove the President from office; he’s actually asking for just more political theater, hoping it damages a President who can’t even run again.

Nothing is more central to that than reestablishing that high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution have consequences — including the stain of impeachment.

This is a laughing out loud moment, because not one, not two, but three failed impeachments against a single President will be no stain at all, and only make a mockery of impeachment itself, a laughable display of failed partisanship because the Democrats hate Mr Trump and his policies. The “stain” of two previous failed impeachments didn’t prevent 77,302,580 Americans from voting Mr Trump back into office! Mr Bunch ought to be smart enough to realize that, but his #TrumpDerangementSyndrome simply overwhelms any good sense he might have.

References

References
↑1 §1543(a)(3)
↑2 The standard four charges with which the majority were charged:

  • 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) – Knowingly Entering or Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority. If there is no accusation of harming anyone or carrying a deadly weapon, the maximum punishment under (b)(2) is a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2) – Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building or Grounds. If there is no accusation of harming anyone or carrying a deadly weapon, the maximum punishment under (b)(2) is a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.
  • 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D) – Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building: utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress; The penalty for violating 40 U.S.C. §5104(e)(2) is a misdemeanor conviction punishable by a maximum fine of $5,000 fine or up to six months in prison, or both.
  • 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(G) – Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building; The penalty for violating 40 U.S.C. §5104(e)(2) is a misdemeanor conviction punishable by a maximum fine of $5,000 or up to six months in prison, or both.
Posted on by

Reality bites San Fran Nan!

When Representative Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House of Representatives, she delighted in trying to impeach President Donald Trump, and forced through Articles of Impeachment not once, but twice, including one after he had been defeated for re-election in 2020 and was leaving office, hoping to attaint him from being eligible to run for President again in 2024.

Pelosi suggests Trump has no ‘reason’ to be impeached third time if Democrats retake House

The former House speaker presided over both previous Trump impeachments during his first term

By Lindsay Kornick, Fox News | Tuesday, December 16, 2025 | 6:30 AM EST

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., suggested that there was currently not enough cause to impeach President Donald Trump for a third time.

During an interview with USA Today’s Susan Page released on Saturday, Pelosi was asked whether the Democratic Party should consider impeaching Trump again if they retake the House in 2026.

“The person most responsible for impeaching President Trump when I was speaker was President Trump,” Pelosi began. “He gave us no choice. He crossed the line in his telephone call with President Zelenskyy as one manifestation of his disrespect for the Constitution, his jeopardizing the sanctity of our own elections in our country, and the rest.”

LOL! A telephone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy?

The two impeachments showed how much the lovely Mrs Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats were infected with #TrumpDerangementSyndrome, because they knew the math was against them. And the math is against them now.

There are 33 Senate seats up for election in 2026, 20 of which are held by Republicans; the Democrats currently control 47 seats, including two held by (ostensibly) independents who caucus with the Democrats. An impeachment requires 67 votes to convict and remove from office, meaning that the Democrats would have to win every single Senate race in 2026 to have the votes to remove President Trump. And, even if they did, J D Vance, who they’ll hate just as much, becomes President.

San Fran Nan, who we all thank for becoming a private citizen at the end of this year, called Mr Trump a “rogue President,” and blamed the failed impeachments on a “rogue Senate”. It did not, and never would, occur to her that the impeachments were just the Democrats being stupid.

This time? The left could try to impeach over the President ordering the sinking of Venezuelan drug smugglers boats, but maybe she has figured out that championing drug cartels and smugglers isn’t a winning move. The Democrats could try to impeach based on the President’s aggressive enforcement of our immigration laws, but it wasn’t that long ago that they were telling us that “no one is above the law,” and “no one” would include illegal immigrants. The left could try to impeach him for sending the National Guard to try to reduce crime in some of our waste-case cities, but perhaps she has realized that trying to unseat the President to defend street criminals might not be the look the Democrats want.

But the real reason? For all of the Democrats efforts to trash and take down President Trump, efforts which have extended for nine years now, the American people still chose him to become President again in 2024, in an election in which he carried every seriously contested state, and in which he defeated the Democratic candidate in the popular vote as well as the electoral college. Perhaps, just perhaps, Mrs Pelosi is realizing that President Trump is just stronger than the Democrats!

Posted on by

Sometimes you just have to be an [insert slang term for the rectum here] to do things right

The tweet screen captured to the right is just one of hundreds, if not more than hundreds, aimed by the pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas sympathizers and bots trying to pull on our heartstrings, at the plight of the poor, poor Palestinians, and the children! to generate relief aid and, of course, hatred of the Jooooos. I have little doubt that, had ubiquitous cell phones and social media existed in 1944, there’d be people telling us that the Germans were surely defeated by the end of the year, and that we didn’t really need to cross into the Third Reich, killing more innocents, and that we should offer Adolf Hitler and his cronies a ceasefire, to avoid more tragedy.

And horrors, after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we’d have people wanting to try President Truman and General Curtis LeMay and Robert Oppenheimer — he was a Jew, you know! — for war crimes, even though the two nuclear attacks forced the Japanese militarists to surrender without having to invade Honshu.

That Hamas and the Palestinians started a war that they could not win, by breaking into Israel, slaughtering 1199 people and taking another 251 hostage doesn’t seem to get mentioned. We must have sympathy, we must have empathy, for the children.

And so we come to the very lovely Amanda Marcotte:

MAGA’s war on empathy was started by a woman

Allie Beth Stuckey weaponizes her gender to sell the idea of a cold-hearted Jesus

By Amanda Marcotte | Monday, December 1, 2025 | 6:45 AM EST

Thanks to Elon Musk, most Americans learned earlier this year that MAGA thinks empathy is evil. Cruelty isn’t the problem, the Tesla CEO claimed in an attempt to justify his turn toward authoritarian politics. “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy,” he declared on Joe Rogan’s podcast in February.

As the billionaire was decimating much of the federal bureaucracy devoted to serving Americans, he said it was good to be heartless, comparing “the empathy response” to a computer bug. “We’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on,” he said, arguing counterintuitively that caring about others will somehow bring ruin to the entire human species.

As with much of the asinine ponderings coming from the Silicon Valley billionaire class, there’s a pseudo-intellectual rationale to prop up this nonsense. Musk got this “suicidal empathy” language from Gad Saad, a Canadian college professor who falsely presents himself as an “evolutionary behavioral scientist.” In fact, he’s a business professor with degrees in marketing and management, with no background in biology. But in 2024, Saad began pushing the notion that empathy has become a “cancer” because it allegedly has no “stopping mechanism” and will eventually kill its host — the human race. This, of course, is unscientific babbling, which is why the professor is a beloved guest on Rogan’s show. But it also cuts against basic common sense. Any study of wars, poverty and other manmade crises shows us that humanity still suffers from a lack of empathy, not a surfeit.

Given that Miss Marcotte’s degree is a Bachelor of Arts in English Literature from St Edward’s University, it is at least questionable whether she should be taking judgements on how scientific other people’s work happens to be.

The quoted three paragraphs were actually Miss Marcotte’s introduction to a critique of “fundamentalist Christian influencer Allie Beth Stuckey” and her book “Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion“. Reading her article, I got the impression that Miss Marcotte hadn’t actually read Mrs Stuckey’s book, but was basing her arguments on a 2022 podcast and her “hyper-feminine aesthetics,” and that she looks like “a harmless church girl,” as though Mrs Stuckey’s choice of clothes and style are themselves attacks on feminism, which is something on which we previously reported, noting Miss Marcotte’s trashing of Riley Gaines Barker because “she has a round face and a girlish demeanor” and “favors fluffy lace, pink outfits.”

You can read the rest of the cited article by following the hyperlink embedded in the title; there is no paywall on Salon.

But the point made by Mrs Stuckey is accurate, as we can see from the pro-Palestinian propaganda. We’re supposed to have great empathy for the children, as though those children are the victims of Israel, rather than victims of the choices the adults, including their parents, in Gaza made by starting a war that they couldn’t win, and in celebrating the attack on October 7, 2023, and do what? Send billions more to Gaza, inundate them with food and clothing and waterproof shelters, the things they lost for being stupid enough to attack Israel?

Of course there’s more. Well-meaning empathy created social programs that were fraudulently abused on both the large and the smaller scale. The Senate Democrats forced the closure of the federal government in an attempt to push huge, renewed subsidies for Obaminablecare, and only relented when they realized that the ongoing closure meant that EBT Cards — the new term for Food Stamps — were not refilled at the beginning of November. Illegal immigration surged under President Biden because of his very empathetic views, and that led to increased crime in our cities along with a few truly terrible murders of young women by illegals.

I’ve said it before, and according to my site software, this will be the 19th article with the same title: sometimes you just have to be an [insert slang term for the rectum here] to do things right. We are 38 trillion dollars in debt due to huge expenditures for social welfare programs, when we did just fine, thank you very much, before Lyndon Johnson and his “Great Society” schemes.

No. Just no. We have to stop having our government responsible for the care of individuals, we have to stop letting empathy for the poor and downtrodden drive our government policies and spending. We have to start being [insert plural slang term for the rectum here] again.

Posted on by

Import the third world, get the third world. Is it any surprise that immigrants from a country in which stealing from the government is a way of life would steal from the government here?

Governor Tim Walz (D-MN) was just terribly, terribly upset that President Donald Trump used “hateful behavior and this type of language” when Mr Trump described him as “seriously retarded.”

“We have fought three decades to get this out of our school. Kids know better than to use it,” Walz told (NBC’s Kristen) Welker. “But look, this is what Donald Trump has done. He’s normalized this type of hateful behavior and this type of language. And mainly, look, at first, I think it’s just because he’s not a good human being, but secondly to distract from his incompetency.”

But when the Governor, and 2024 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee, decided that junior high and high school boys needed tampon dispensers in their public school bathrooms, “seriously retarded” seems appropriate. Right now I’m reminded of season three, episode 8, of Shameless, where Sheila reclaims the dreaded “r” word. 🙂

Mr Trump wasn’t chastised, but ” target=”_blank”>doubled down on his characterization of Tampon Tim.

However now we have the stories, sourced from state workers, concerning how Governor Walz and the Minnesota state agencies ignored evidence of fraud perpetrated by Somali groups to raid federal funds. From The New York Times:

How Fraud Swamped Minnesota’s Social Services System on Tim Walz’s Watch

Prosecutors say members of the Somali diaspora, a group with growing political power, were largely responsible. President Trump has drawn national attention to the scandal amid his crackdown on immigration.

By Ernesto Londoño, Reporting from Minneapolis | Saturday, November 29, 2025 | Updated: Sunday, November 30, 2025

The fraud scandal that rattled Minnesota was staggering in its scale and brazenness.

Federal prosecutors charged dozens of people with felonies, accusing them of stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from a government program meant to keep children fed during the Covid-19 pandemic.

At first, many in the state saw the case as a one-off abuse during a health emergency. But as new schemes targeting the state’s generous safety net programs came to light, state and federal officials began to grapple with a jarring reality.

Over the last five years, law enforcement officials say, fraud took root in pockets of Minnesota’s Somali diaspora as scores of individuals made small fortunes by setting up companies that billed state agencies for millions of dollars’ worth of social services that were never provided.

Federal prosecutors say that 59 people have been convicted in those schemes so far, and that more than $1 billion in taxpayers’ money has been stolen in three plots they are investigating. That is more than Minnesota spends annually to run its Department of Corrections. Minnesota’s fraud scandal stood out even in the context of rampant theft during the pandemic, when Americans stole tens of billions through unemployment benefits, business loans and other forms of aid, according to federal auditors.

Note that the embedded link behind “rampant fraud” is dated April 9, 2024, when President Biden was still in office; this isn’t just some accusation by President Trump against his political enemies.

From the Lexington Herald-Leader:

The SBA estimates more than $200 billion of the $1.2 trillion it disbursed during the pandemic was obtained fraudulently, according to the Office of Inspector General.

Fraud was rampant during the panicdemic — not a typographical error, but exactly how I saw it — as it will always be whenever money from the government, federal, state, and local, is available, and while Minnesota is a blue state, it happens in states run by Republicans as well. From Breitbart:

The fraud has been so endemic in Minnesota that even the usually far-left Times is joining Breitbart News and calling it out. Indeed, the paper even noted that early on many liberals waved off the fraud as a “one-off abuse,” but as each new case rolled out from federal prosecutors the sense of alarm has grown and the blame is undeniable.

“Over the last five years, law enforcement officials say, fraud took root in pockets of Minnesota’s Somali diaspora as scores of individuals made small fortunes by setting up companies that billed state agencies for millions of dollars’ worth of social services that were never provided,” the Times reported.

The paper does not spare exposure of the Somali community.

Macalester College professor Ahmed Samatar, a Somali native, said that the fraud among Minnesota’s Somali migrants should not be surprising. The Times added that “Somali refugees who came to the United States after their country’s civil war were raised in a culture in which stealing from the country’s dysfunctional and corrupt government was widespread.”

Import the third world, get the third world!

The fraud has been so deep that it has undermined all of the state’s welfare programs.

“No one will support these programs if they continue to be riddled with fraud,” federal prosecutor Joseph H. Thompson told the media. “We’re losing our way of life in Minnesota in a very real way.”

Hey, the losses to fraud are very acceptable if they can somehow end welfare programs! But I seriously doubt they will.

Naturally, the left leapt to the defense of the Somalis:

Above and beyond this massive fraud and theft, investigators are also finding that Somali migrants have sent millions in taxpayer dollars to the African Islamic terror group known as Al-Shabaab.

A long list of Democrats have been rushing to stick up for the Somali community in Minnesota, including Rep. Ilhan Omar and a growing number of local officials.

Well, of course they did. After all, to note that the (alleged) fraud committed (allegedly) by Somali groups is raaaaacist. Is it any surprise that our friends on the left would leap top their defense? After all, they want to fight President Trump on everything, including his policies of enforcing our immigration laws. But the Herald-Leader story referenced a white husband and wife caught, prosecuted, and convicted of stealing from the COVIDiocy relief funds.

It’s simple: a clear pile of our taxpayer funds goes not to government agencies, but non-governmental organizations which promise, promise! to do only good things with the money, but which are only lightly, if at all, supervised or audited. That is not to say that government employees can’t commit fraud, but the sheer number of NGOs receiving taxpayer dollars multiplies the opportunities for fraud exponentially.

Posted on by

Mikie Sherrill Hedberg believes you can’t handle the truth! The candidate will not address an issue she sees as a vote loser

Remember the kerfuffle over former Vice President Kamala Harris Emhoff’s admission that she considered then-Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg as her running mate, but decided against it because he is openly homosexual? Mr Buttigied admitted to being “surprised” to read that.

The divergence comes as their party is grappling with its approach to diversity, as the Trump administration slashes through diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Democrats disagree about how much to emphasize such values after the GOP successfully painted the party as too “woke” — and now face new questions over how to field winning candidates.

Now The Philadelphia Inquirer is telling us how one candidate is handling that. The Editorial Board endorsed Representative Mikie Sherrill Hedberg (D-NJ) in her campaign for Governor of the Garden State, but now the newspaper is telling us not to worry, she’s #woke[1]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading enough, but she has to keep that on the down-low to get votes:

These parents wish Mikie Sherrill would defend their transgender kids. They understand why she doesn’t.

U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill has been quiet on transgender rights in the New Jersey governor’s race as Republican Jack Ciattarelli has spoken out against protections for trans youth.

by Aliya Schneider | Sunday, October 16, 2025 | 5:00 AM EDT

C.B. can’t even comprehend her transgender daughter being required to use the boys’ bathroom at her South Jersey school.

That’s OK, because most of us cannot comprehend how “C.B.” or any other rational human being could think that her son is actually a girl, or how the newspaper can use terms to pretend that he is a she.

“If you went into her classroom and someone said, ‘Pick out the trans kid out of these 25 kids,’ you would not be able to,” C.B. said. “You might very well get it wrong.”

So, “C.B.” is saying that her son can ‘pass’ as a girl

C.B., who asked to be identified by her initials to protect the privacy of her child, said she loves the Garden State. She has a “very Jersey family.”

But, like other parents of trans children, she’s considering packing her family’s bags depending on the results of the Nov. 4 election, and whether the next governor maintains the state’s LGBTQ+ friendly policies.

As opposed to getting her son mental help, to accept that he’s really a boy and learn how to be a male.

The stakes of the election are stark for C.B. and other parents. Jack Ciattarelli, the Republican nominee for New Jersey governor, opposes state policies implemented under Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy meant to protect transgender children. Ciattarelli says he would require schools to tell parents about their children’s gender identity and stop transgender girls (sic) from participating in girls’ sports. He also opposes gender-affirming care for minors and believes parents should be able to opt their kids out of LGBTQ+ related topics in school.

Shocking! You mean that Mr Ciattarelli believes that public schools should not be able to conceal a child’s mental illness from his parents? You mean that the Republican candidate believes that parents should have the choice to opt their children out of lessons they consider to be immoral and contrary to their religious beliefs?

U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, the Democratic nominee, has largely voted in support of transgender rights throughout her nearly seven-year legislative career. She was endorsed by LGBTQ+ advocacy groups as well as her friend U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride (D., Del.), the first openly transgender member of Congress. But Sherrill has not publicly defended trans rights when criticized by Ciattarelli and has declined to answer reporters’ questions on the matter.

Of course, “U.S. Rep. Sarah McBride” is actually Tim McBride, yet another male who thinks he’s a woman, whom the good people of the First State foolishly elected to Congress, but the newspaper I have frequently called The Philadelphia Enquirer[2]RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but, reminiscent of the National Enquirer as it is, I thought it very apt. would never tell you that, because you can’t handle the truth.

Reporter Aliya Schneider noted that former and future President Donald Trump attacked Mrs Emhoff for supporting the strange notion that girls can be boys and boys can be girls, and that Mr Ciattarelli is doing the same thing in his campaign.

Sherrill has not just ignored the attacks. She has avoided talking about the issue altogether.

The article continues, and it is pretty heavily biased in favor of ‘transgenderism,’ so don’t be surprised if you choose to follow the link and read more of it, but it all boils down to one thing: the ‘transgender’ lobby believe that Mrs Hedberg will closely toe their line, but just can’t say so, because she needs the votes. The Democratic candidate won’t address the issue at all, because doing something really radical like telling voters the truth about her beliefs is a vote loser. Perhaps, if she loses, she’ll admit the truth as Mrs Emhoff did in her silly book, but the sad part is that, if she wins, she’ll tell you the truth about her policies with state action.

References

References
↑1 From Wikipedia:

Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from the African-American Vernacular English expression “stay woke“, whose grammatical aspect refers to a continuing awareness of these issues. By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term broadly associated with left-wing politics and cultural issues (with the terms woke culture and woke politics also being used). It has been the subject of memes and ironic usage. Its widespread use since 2014 is a result of the Black Lives Matter movement.

I shall confess to sometimes “ironic usage” of the term. To put it bluntly, I think that the ‘woke’ are just boneheadedly stupid.

↑2 RedState writer Mike Miller called it the Enquirer, probably by mistake, so I didn’t originate it, but, reminiscent of the National Enquirer as it is, I thought it very apt.
Posted on by

The President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued that Louisiana voters, exercising their free choices, were not voting correctly She also argued against the foundational guarantees of our representative democracy.

In 1986, Robert Cortez “Bobby” Scott, then a state Senator in Virginia, ran for election to the Commonwealth’s First Congressional District seat against incumbent Representative Herb Bateman (R-VA), losing in a landslide, 56% to 44%. In the redistricting which followed the 1990 Census, the state legislature, at the direction of the federal Department of Justice, reapportioned the Third District into a “majority-minority,” meaning majority black, district, just for Mr Scott. The new Third District ran along the James River, from Newport News to Richmond, packing in heavily black areas. It worked: Mr Scott stomped Republican Dan Jenkins 79%-21%. Mr Scott is still in the United States House of Representatives, having served since January 3, 1993, 32 years, 9 months, and 13 days ago.

But, there was another election result in 1992. Mr Bateman barely won re-election in the reconfigured First District against newcomer Andy Fox, with barely over 50% of the vote. Mr Fox ran against Mr Bateman in 1992, but his time the Republican won in a landslide, because so many solidly Democratic voters had been peeled away from the First and placed into the Third District.

It’s simple: A Republican congressman who was at least subject to a strong Democratic challenger now had his seat in the “safe Republican” category, and Mr Bateman held that seat until his death on September 11, 2000. My family and I were living in Hampton, Virginia, in the First District, during all of this, which is why I remember it so well.

Now comes Louisiana v. Callais, a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning how much legislatures can use race in consideration of redistricting. The Louisiana state legislature, seeing the previous result in Allen v Milligan, 2023, believed that a second majority black district needed to be created to comply with the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 USC §10301. But, to do that, the state came up with a district shaped like a snake, wholly unlike any definition of being compact.

Naturally, some state residents sued. Allen v Milligan allowed this kind or racial gerrymandering, but Louisiana v Callais threatens to undo that. Naturally, the left are up in arms, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson went so far as to claim that black Americans are “disabled” when it comes to voting.

Jackson noted that the majority opinion in a 2023 Supreme Court ruling — which found Alabama unlawfully diluted the voting power of black people in the state — “used the word ‘disabled’” to describe voters subject to “processes [that] are not equally open.”

There is an interesting point that is being mostly ignored in all of the debates. Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, argued before the Court:

(Associate Justice Samuel) Alito suggested that racially polarized voting could easily be identified through statistical analysis, and it could be seen whether White Democrats vote for Black Democrats at a lower rate, for instance.

At which point Miss Nelson stepped right into the trap.

Nelson told him that White Democrats were not voting for Black candidates — whether they were Democrats or not. She said there was no question that even if there is some correlation, that race was the driving factor.

In other words, Miss Nelson was arguing that Louisiana voters, exercising their free choices, were not voting correctly. In a partisan climate in which the Democrats have been arguing about racial ‘equity’ in terms which seem very much like a zero-sum game, the arguments for black empowerment seem to be made in terms in which gains for black Americans concomitantly entail losses for white Americans. But whatever their partisan and philosophical reasons, our system is predicated upon a secret ballot and the right of the voters to choose to vote however they wish.

There is another, even more pernicious assumption behind all of this. In a country which the equal protection of the laws is guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, the arguments of Miss Nelson are, in effect, that black citizens cannot be represented by white congressmen, and that includes the notion that white citizens cannot be represented by black congressmen. Our system of representation, in our cities and states as well as in Congress, is that our representatives represent all of the people withing the bounds of their districts; the president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued against the foundational guarantees of our representative democracy.