Glenn K. Beaton is a writer and columnist living in Colorado. He has been a contributor to The Wall Street Journal, RealClearPolitics, Powerline, Instapundit, Citizen Free Press, American Thinker, Fox News, The Federalist, and numerous other print, radio and television outlets. His most recent book is "High Attitude — How Woke Liberals Ruined Aspen"
The map shows the contorted Congressional District in Louisiana that is at issue in the Supreme Court case that was argued yesterday.
You won’t see this map in most of the news reports on the case – not because it’s not newsworthy, but because it is. This picture speaks a thousand words about the absurdity at issue.
All parties to the case – and the Supreme Court Justices, as well – agree that this strange amalgamation was created for the express purpose of establishing a district that is supposedly Black* so that Blacks could be assured of electing Black representatives.
(I say “supposedly Black” because most Blacks in Louisiana, as in other American states, are actually of mixed race.)
There are several problems with this notion of Black Congressional Districts. First, it assumes that people identifying as Blacks can be represented in Congress only by other people identifying as Blacks. Why is that the case? I’m white and I’ve voted for Black candidates, and I’m sure many Blacks have voted for white candidates. In fact, Donald Trump got a substantial share of the Black vote last year.
Second, the flip side of concentrating Blacks into Black districts is to concentrate whites into white districts. If we’re to have separate Congressional Districts, should we also have separate schools? Separate drinking fountains?
In a region of the country with a sordid Jim Crow history of “separate but equal,” having separate Congressional Districts strikes me as a vile throwback.
Third, what happens if one of the white districts in Louisiana elects a Black? That would result in Blacks having too many seats, right? Conversely, what happens if a Black district elects a white? Does that mean we need to go back to the racial gerrymandering board to re-draw the districts again?
Fourth, this notion that Blacks are entitled to Congressional representation in exact proportion to their population (or more in the event a Black gets elected in a white district) would seem to apply equally to other races.
In Washington State, for example, about 10% of the population is of Asian descent. Many of their ancestors were exploited and discriminated against. Should we gerrymander the Congressional Districts in Washington to ensure that 10% of the representatives are Asian?
What do we do if the Asian voters don’t go along? What do we do if they “wrongly” vote for a white or Black or Hispanic rather than for the Asian candidate that they’re supposed to vote for? What if they vote for politicians on the basis of policy, not race? Or on the basis of the content of their character, not the color of their skin?
Gee, that’d be horrible, huh?
What about other minorities? In New York State, about 11% of the population is Jewish. Should we gerrymander some Jewish districts? Does it matter whether the Jews are observant or not?
What about transexuals? In California, about 97% of the population is transexual.
OK, I made that up, but you get the point.
The premise to this racial gerrymandering is that Blacks are unique among minorities, in (1) possessing “Black issues” that only they care about, and (2) lacking the ability to persuade non-Blacks to their side of those issues.
I disagree. I think Blacks are fully functional citizens who can vote their minds on all issues, side-by-side with the rest of us, and they have the ability to persuade the rest of us on those issues. They are not in need of child-like allowances any more than Asians or Jews or transexuals or Hispanics or Scots. It’s time to end the separate-but-equal Congressional Districts and end the soft bigotry of racial condescension.
*Although much of my tribe disagrees with me on this, I use “Black” rather than “black” when referring to American Blacks. That’s not because the AP Style Manual calls for it, but because I’m willing to call a race by the name that a majority of the race prefers. If a majority of whites start asking to be called “Whites,” or a majority of Scots start asking to be called “scots,” then I’ll go along with that, too.
There’s an odd little side show that caught my attention in the vaudeville act of “Dr.” Ian Roberts, the illegal immigrant from Guyana whom the Des Moines School District hired, heroized, and paid $300,000/year. (None of those particular things caught my attention in themselves, since they’re all par for the illegal immigrant course, these days.)
What caught my attention is that he’s registered to vote in Maryland, which was one of his waypoints on his grand and illegal tour through America. How, I wondered, did he manage to register to vote in Maryland?
It’s easy. In fact, it’s automatic.
Like about 18 other states, Maryland allows illegals to get driver’s licenses. Yes, it’s illegal for an illegal to be in America but, no, it’s not illegal in those states for them to get a driver’s license to drive around. Their presence is illegal, but their driving is not.
Okay, fair enough. On second thought, that’s not fair at all to the rest of us who wind up dodging illegals whose driving “skills” are the product of the roads and customs of such places as Guadalajara while we see our insurance premiums skyrocket.
But, anyway, there’s more.
In about 24 states, when the state issues a driver’s license, it automatically registers the person to vote – completely and willfully ignorant of whether the person is an American citizen.
Re-read that last paragraph. Yes, you got it right.
This scheme has a name. (The Democrats are great at branding things. See, e.g., “Affordable Housing,” “Reproductive Rights,” and “Me Too.”) They call this one “Automatic Voter Registration” or “AVR.” Democrats boast that AVR makes it easier to vote.
About that, they’re right.
Back to the erstwhile “Dr.” Ian Roberts. He got a driver’s license in Maryland while he happened to be on-the-lam there. Under their AVR system, Maryland automatically registered him to vote, as other states with AVR would have done.
Voila! He was in the country illegally, but had a valid driver’s license to drive around and was duly registered to vote.
Nothing odd or extraordinary took place. What happened undoubtedly happens thousands of times every day. It’s supposed to happen that way. There was no breakdown in the system. His voting registration was not a mistake.
The mistake was a bigger one. The mistake was a failure of American government. One political party has hijacked the levers, arms and dials of American government to produce deliberate and systematic voting fraud.
Democrats are willing to shut down the government if Republicans refuse to re-negotiate part of the tax bill passed in July. They say the main thing they want re-negotiated are government subsidies for Obamacare.
The Democrats have some leverage here because, while it took only a Senate majority to pass the tax bill, and the Republicans hold that majority, it takes a supra-majority to pass a bill to keep the government from shutting down. A supra-majority cannot be achieved without a handful of Democrats.
There are several principled objections to this strategy by the Democrats, which are worth mentioning before I get to the main point.
First, this isn’t the way legislation is supposed to get done. Once a bill is passed, the losing side is not supposed to get another bite at their losing apple by threatening to shut down the government many months later.
Second, shutting down the government is a little like hostage-taking. The threat is of a different kind and degree from the matter in dispute.
Third, this is stupidly hypocritical by the Democrats. The party of Big Government says that if they don’t get their way, they’ll . . . shut down Big Government.
It reminds me of Cleavon Little in Blazing Saddles, when he pointed a gun at his head and warned his pursuers, “Hold it! Next man makes a move, the n***** gets it!” (Note that in what passes for today’s “culture” you can get all manner of porn and snuff films with a few clicks on the internet, but finding that clip takes some effort.)
Fourth, the Republicans are prepared to turn the tables. Trump says that if the government gets shut down, he’ll have no choice but to fire government workers. There’s some logic to that. It’s not fair to employ workers you can’t pay.
Democrats have shown a talent for political malpractice lately, but this one looks like a real boner. The Democrats can be stupid, but usually not this stupid. So why are they doing it?
The conventional wisdom is that they are captive to their “base,” the far-left kooks. That’s true, but it leaves the question, why are they captive to kooks?
The answer to that question is the same as the answer to the question “Why do you rob banks?” asked of serial bank robber Willie Sutton. He replied, “Because that’s where the money is.”
Kooks don’t normally have money, but these particular far-left ones do. Billions are funneled to them from unabashed radicals like George Soros and billions more from purportedly philanthropic foundations and leftist non-governmental organizations like Greenpeace, Common Cause and Black Lives Matter that are only slightly less radical. (Imagine entrepreneurs like John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford and John D. MacArthur turning in their graves at the sight of how their money is spent today.) The kooks receiving those billions, in turn, are major campaign donors to Democrats.
These monied far-left interests are not really driven by details like Obamacare subsidies. That’s just an excuse. If the Republicans compromised on that, there will be another demand and another. What really drives them is a desire to sow chaos and confusion in American society, culture and government. Shutting down the government, they believe, serves that end. They seek a revolution, by whatever means necessary but preferably through a societal breakdown – by violence.
If the Democrats want to shut down the government in order sow a little chaos and confusion, fine. They’ll lose in the end, and it won’t take long. Let’s not take the bait for a violent confrontation.
Note to readers: This is what ChatGPT came up with when I asked it to imagine a debate between Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel. Every word is from ChatGPT, except that one or two AI typos have been corrected.
_________________
Moderator: Welcome everyone to tonight’s debate on “Free Speech and Violence in America.” We’re honored to have Charlie Kirk and Jimmy Kimmel here to share their insights. Let’s begin with opening statements. Kirk, you have the floor.
Kirk: Thank you. Free speech is the foundation of democracy. It empowers individuals to voice their opinions, challenge authority, and push society forward. Throughout history, free speech has been instrumental in civil rights movements, political reform, and social progress. That said, with this freedom comes a responsibility. Words can incite violence, spread misinformation, and deepen divisions. Our goal should be to promote responsible speech—not censor it. Education, open dialogue, and adherence to social norms are the way forward. The core principle is that speech should thrive, but it should not be used as a weapon.
Kimmel: Thanks. I agree that free speech is vital, but let’s be clear. With the right comes the duty to prevent harm. In today’s world, inflammatory rhetoric, hate speech, and conspiracy theories are fueling real violence. We’ve seen many incidents where words have led to deadly actions — racial violence, terrorist attacks, online harassment turning into physical violence. Protecting free speech doesn’t mean tolerating speech that incites or promotes harm. Platforms — especially social media — must be held accountable. We need regulations and policies that draw the line where speech becomes dangerous. Society must defend freedom, but not allow it to devolve into chaos.
Moderator: An important discussion. Kirk, when you hear about hate speech, do you believe there should be limits?
Kirk: I believe in strong protections for free speech. Historically, censorship often suppresses dissent and can be used as a tool of oppression. The issue isn’t speech per se, but how we handle its consequences. Education is key — if people understood the impact of their words, they might moderate their tone voluntarily. Legal limits should be narrow– focused on directly inciting violence or spreading lies that cause harm. Broad restrictions risk infringing on fundamental rights and silencing constructive debate. The solution is fostering social responsibility, not censorship.
Kimmel: But history shows us that certain speech, especially hate speech, has led to violence and suffering. It dehumanizes people and can ignite mob actions or even genocide. Allowing unchecked harmful speech gives license to hate groups. That’s why platforms need clear policies– like removing hate speech and threats — and authorities should intervene when necessary. Sometimes, restrictions are essential for protecting vulnerable communities. We must recognize that the harm caused by hate speech is real, and it requires action.
Moderator: Let’s talk about where to draw the line. Kirk, do you think social media platforms should limit or regulate content more heavily?
Kirk: Platforms do have a role, but overregulation can suppress legitimate discourse. They should implement moderation tools and community standards, but these must be transparent and fair. Ultimately, the true solution lies in education — teaching people to critically evaluate content and behave responsibly online. Suppressing speech outright risks creating echo chambers and authoritarian control, which is dangerous for democracy.
Kimmel: I agree moderation is important, but the scale of social media makes it hard to control harmful content. Platforms often hesitate to act decisively due to fear of backlash or legal challenges. Meanwhile, harmful rhetoric continues to spread. Regulation can set standards that protect users without infringing on free speech. Additionally, social media companies must be held accountable for their role in amplifying dangerous content. We need collaborative efforts—government regulations, technological tools, and community initiatives—to create safer online spaces.
Moderator: Now let’s introduce a new topic — recent controversy surrounding Kimmel’s firing from a major network over comments related to political beliefs. Kimmel, would you like to comment on that?
Kimmel: Absolutely. The situation was very personal to me. I was fired after making some jokes that, depending on who you ask, were either funny or inappropriate, but what struck me was how quickly the culture shifted to silencing opinions and entertainment if they didn’t align perfectly with certain political narratives. It raises a fundamental question about free expression — should entertainers be penalized for their viewpoints or jokes? I believe that diversity of opinion, even offensive or controversial humor, is vital in a free society. Silencing voices due to pressure or fear undermines that principle.
Kirk: I agree with you. Freedom of speech includes the right to express unpopular opinions, including satire and humor. When society starts punishing individuals for expressing their views, it’s a step toward authoritarianism. The marketplace of ideas flourishes only when all voices can be heard, even if those voices are uncomfortable or controversial. I believe that silencing or punishing individuals—whether entertainers, journalists, or citizens — because of their opinions or jokes — undermines the very foundation of our democracy. Free speech is messy and can be uncomfortable, but it’s essential for progress. When we start policing humor or viewpoints out of fear, we risk creating a society where only certain approved voices can be heard, and that’s dangerous. We need to defend the right to express even unpopular or provocative ideas, because only then can real debate and growth occur. Censorship, whether by corporations or government, erodes liberty and sets a dangerous precedent.
Kimmel: Exactly. When individuals are silenced or penalized just for expressing their opinions, it sends a signal that certain ideas are unacceptable — no matter how silly or offensive. That’s not the path to a healthy democracy. We must stand firm in defending free expression, even when we disagree with what’s being said. Otherwise, we pave the way for authoritarian control and a stifling culture where conformity replaces free thought.
Moderator: Thank you, Kirk and Kimmel, for your insightful perspectives. To summarize, both of you agree that free speech is a fundamental pillar of democracy, but with important responsibilities. Kirk emphasizes the importance of education, responsible discourse, and cautious moderation to prevent censorship and authoritarianism. Kimmel highlights the need for accountability, especially on social media, and stresses that harmful speech can incite violence and must be regulated to protect vulnerable communities.
Regarding the recent controversy about Kimmel’s firing, both agree that silencing or punishing individuals for their opinions erodes free speech and opens the door to authoritarian control. The balance, as you both suggest, is in protecting the right to express unpopular ideas while ensuring public safety and social harmony. Ultimately, fostering open, respectful dialogue and safeguarding free expression are essential for a healthy society.
Thank you both for a compelling discussion.
_________________
I say bullshit. This sanitized, anodyne debate imagined by ChatGPT sounds like a love-fest.
Sure, it’s likely that both men would come down on the side of free speech, in the abstract, and both would caution against internet excesses.
But the debate imagined by ChatGPT completely ignores the overt calls for violence by such groups as Antifa and BLM and the barely-concealed calls for violence from Democrat leaders such as Senator Schumer’s threat against Supreme Court Justices.
It also ignores Kimmel’s false suggestion that the Kirk murderer was “one of” MAGA. Any legitimate discussion of Kimmel’s firing has to deal with that lie. Finally, it ignores the refusal by about half of the Democrats in Congress to join in a joint resolution condemning that violence.
So why did Chat GPT sidestep these issues?
I saw a piece a few months ago (if I could remember where, I would give credit to the author) suggesting that AI will not take bias out of the news. Rather, it will legitimize it. When you’re watching Rachel Maddow, you know she’s biased. When you’re inquiring with ChatGPT, you assume that the machine is not.
In addition, AI knows only what it reads on the internet. The old saw “the internet says . . .” is literally 100% of the basis for AI’s conclusions. Computer programmers would say garbage in, garbage out.
For the record, I think Kimmel’s bosses should fire him, or not, based on their sense of human decency and what he brings to their business. (My own sense of decency comes down in favor of the firing.) I think viewers should watch Kimmel, or not, based on their personal sense of human decency and what he brings to their entertainment life. I’m wary of the government getting involved in those decisions.
Also for the record, I occasionally use AI for research, but never for writing. I happen to think that, for now, I’m a better writer than the machine.
President Trump’s efforts to bring down crime have been successful in Washington, D.C. The rate of murder and other violent crimes is down substantially, and the rate of car-jackings is down dramatically.
Even the Democrat mayor of the city admitted that the crime rate has dropped. Oddly, however, she mumbles in the next breath that the program is “not working,” apparently to mollify national stage Democrats to whom she answers.
Such as Democrat Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer. He was asked at the outset whether the initial 30-day period for the effort could be extended. His response was “f*** no!” It will be interesting to see him now choose between enabling murders and climbing down from his vulgar perch. I’m guessing he’ll choose the side of murder, and stay on his vulgar perch.
So, if it worked in D.C., why stop now? We can curtail crime and simultaneously embarrass Democrats around the country. We should next send the troops to Chicago, right? And then Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlanta, St. Louis and Portland, right?
I don’t think so. My reasons are legal, philosophical and political.
Legally, D.C. is a special case. It’s under the direct jurisdiction of the federal government (notwithstanding the limited “home rule” that Congress legislated some years ago). One federal judge has already ruled that the deployment of troops to Los Angeles to quell the illegal immigration protests was illegal. I don’t have much regard for that particular judge – the bowtie-wearing, San Francisco-residing, 83-year-old little brother of retired liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer – but it is conceivable that his big brother’s former Court will uphold his ruling.
Now the more important reasons – the moral and philosophical ones.
D.C. is the workplace and often the home of over a hundred thousand federal employees who have little choice about their workplace venue.
It’s also the face of America to millions of foreign visitors who reasonably assume that it reflects American values, just as we would assume that Paris reflects French values, London reflects English values, and Berlin reflects German values. (Each of those cities has a lower crime rate than D.C., especially in the category of violent crime.) How America presents itself to the world through its capital city is rightly a national and federal concern. How Chicago presents itself to the world is less so.
Here’s the most important point. The crime in Chicago and other major cities is largely due to ongoing choices they make in law enforcement. Recall that only five years ago, many residents of American cities were calling for the “defunding” – i.e., abolition – of city police forces. Even now, police forces are short-handed because the Democrats ruling these cities are hostile to law enforcement. They hate the cops more than they hate the criminals.
When they’re not short-changing the cops, they’re hand-tying them. Many crimes are simply not investigated or prosecuted. For example, shop-lifting has effectively been de-criminalized. If you want to get fired from your job at a local store, call the cops on a shoplifter or, worse, chase after one.
Other crimes have also been effectively de-criminalized on the grounds that too many racial minorities were being arrested for committing them.
People who commit crimes are criminals, but they aren’t stupid. They know what they can get away with, and so that’s what they do.
In short, big-city crime is a big-city choice. Specifically, it’s a choice by big city Democrats. They could decide tomorrow not to tolerate crime. So far, with the exception of the D.C. mayor who has had an epiphany on the subject, they have not decided that. We cannot coerce everyone into epiphanies.
Finally, there’s a legitimate issue about using federal troops for routine law enforcement. From the German Gestapo of a century ago to the Mexican Federales of today, federal law enforcement in local matters has a sordid history.
To be sure, the crime in American large cities inflicts real harm on the residents who, by and large, are not criminals of any kind. They sometimes get attacked, shot or killed and they often get their property stolen or vandalized. Even in the absence of tangible harm, they live insecure, semi-terrified lives.
But they keep electing those soft-on-crime Democrats. They are entitled to, but I say let these residents see and suffer the consequences of their choices – for years and years, if that’s what it takes.
Mayor Brandon Johnson of Chicago is widely seen outside of Chicago as the worst mayor in America. Even within Chicago, which is an overwhelmingly Democrat city, his approval rating this summer is down to the mid-20s. Maybe that means the Democrat residents of Chicago will throw the bum out.
But don’t count on it. Especially if he can make political hay by distracting the Democrat residents from his incompetence with a show of “standing up to” the Orange Man that they hate more than the criminals and even more than the cops.
You may ask, “What about the residents of Chicago who do want to throw the bum out? Who do want effective law enforcement? Who do want to reclaim their city from filth and crime? Who do vote with their minds and not with their tribe?”
My answer is, they have an alternative. Unlike federal employees locked into workplaces in D.C., the residents of Chicago who vote with their minds but get outvoted every time can vote with their feet.
My advice to them is to get the hell out of the failing cities. Let the failing cities burn and rot. Maybe then, and probably only then, the residents will insist on effective governance. If they don’t even then, well, at least they’ve self-concentrated in places we can watch and, if necessary, avoid or isolate.
And who knows? Their proclivity toward killing one another might prove to be an unfitness in the Darwinian sense.
Yes, my advice to sane people in insane places is to move to another place. Move to Texas, move to Florida, move to Idaho. Move to Galt’s Gulch.
It’s now a truism that the policies of the left are widely viewed as outrageous – at least the cultural ones such as allowing male voyeurs and exhibitionists into girls’ bathrooms, discriminating to benefit favored races and sexual orientations, grabbing the guns held by hundreds of millions of law-abiding Americans while simultaneously coddling criminals who will never give up theirs, and abolishing the nation’s borders.
Such issues have earned a name – the “80/20 issues” – because something near 80% of Americans oppose the left on such issues.
That 80% figure would probably be even higher if not for some Democrats whose hearts and minds are on the 80% side but whose instinctive tribalism boxes them into the 20% side just because they (correctly) see the 20% side as part of the formal Democratic Party platform.
Yet, the left seems unable to effectuate a course correction on those outrageous policies disfavored by 80% of the people.
One result is that the Democrats lose elections. Who cares about the nuances of tariffs, an issue on which reasonable persons disagree, when they’re putting boys in drag into your daughter’s bathroom at school, an issue on which reasonable persons do not?
My reaction to the Democrats’ truculence is one word: Good. I hope they stay bound to the losing side of those issues. Because I want them to keep losing elections.
But I’m left wondering: Why? Why is the left so bound to the losing side of issues that cost them elections?
I have a theory.
Recognize that the left is not like you and me. At the core, they aren’t trying to solve problems. Instead, they’re trying to provoke ordinary people. What better way to provoke ordinary people than to put messed-up teenage boys into the bathrooms of those people’s daughters?
But that, in turn, leaves a question: Why does the left want to provoke ordinary people?
Here’s where it gets sinister. They hate America. They really do, you know. Polls consistently show that the hard left feels genuine hate for America. Even mere Democrats – as opposed to hard leftists – often feel something less than love for the nation.
Thus, the left is fundamentally different than the right. On the right, neo-Nazis are loathsome and even mere right-wingers are sometimes not very appealing, but I’ve noticed that most of them do not hate America as a nation and an institution and a culture and a people.
The left’s hatred of America is the reason they seek to provoke Americans. Hatred is the mother of provocation and, ultimately, violence.
Did Hitler really want to own Russia? I doubt it. But he certainly hated Russians. He never did succeed in owning Russia – he never even reached Moscow – but his hatred of Russians succeeded in killing 20 million of them.
Do the leftists really want self-proclaimed teenage transexual peeping Toms in the girls’ bathrooms? I doubt it, but what a great way to express the hatred in their dark hearts for our nation, our culture and our people.
And in their dark minds, they hope that maybe the chaos they wreak by ritually torching age-old cultural norms will destroy that culture.
Imagine how things would have been different for Hitler if, prior to his invasion of Russia, he had demoralized them with boys in the bathrooms of Russian girls, if he had grabbed the guns of the Russian civilians, if he had abolished the Russian border, if he had fueled race wars within Russia.
The hateful left and their naive Democrat enablers are playing the long game of history, not the short game of the next election. In taking the 20% side of these issues – the side of confusion and chaos – the left will certainly lose many battles for elections, but they could well win the war against our civilization.
The Republicans finally did something great that I thought they never would have the stones to do. They reduced the funding for the government-controlled media outfit called The Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Hallelujah!
CPB was established half a century ago with the good intention of providing television and radio services to rural America in a day long before cable TV and megawatt radio stations made television and radio ubiquitous, and long, long before the internet made them obsolete.
Fine.
Then they expanded into children’s programming like Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers, to give children an alternative to Saturday morning cartoons.
Fine. But notice the inevitable expansion. Taxpayer-funded enterprises have a way of doing that.
Then they expanded into cultural offerings like Masterpiece Theater and British comedy.
Not so fine. Why do the wealthy elites who watch Masterpiece Theater and British comedy (or is it “comedy”?) need taxpayer subsidies? And why do we allow cultural offerings selected by semi-government bureaucrats and apparatchiks to use taxpayer money to undermine the competing cultural offerings on commercial TV and the internet?
Then they went woke.
Everyone knew CPR was woke, and then a long-time editor wrote a piece for The Free Press (you should check out TFP, by the way) that amounted to a full blown exposé. He revealed their conscious attempt to bury the Hunter laptop story, to trumpet the false Russian collusion story, to dismiss the lab-origins of COVID, and so on. NPR had become a Democratic government mouthpiece.
He reported that at the headquarters of their radio arm, NPR, there were 87 registered Democrats and 0 Republicans. Unsurprisingly, Democrats were staunch supporters of NPR, and vice versa. Republicans, not so much.
For that exposé, NPR suspended the editor temporarily and ostracized him permanently. Consider the Pravda-esk irony that a government organization charged with reporting news punishes an employee for doing exactly that, because the particular news he dares to report is that the organization is biased in reporting the news. He ultimately resigned.
This week, the Republican Senate voted to claw back about a billion dollars in taxpayer-money allocated to CPB over the next two years. All Democrats voted against the claw-back. Two purported Republicans joined them, but the measure passed the Senate and later passed the House. It’s now on President Trump’s desk for signature.
So, what will happen? CPB and its labyrinth of entities have always simultaneously maintained that (1) they receive hardly any taxpayer money, and (2) taking away their taxpayer money will cripple them.
Both are lies. They do receive a lot of taxpayer money – a billion dollars over two years isn’t chicken feed – and they will not be crippled by losing it. If nothing else, the Democratic National Committee will toss them a few hundred million, directly or laundered through George Soros and his minions.
The CEO of NPR had a few choice words:
“I’m so done with late-stage capitalism.” “America is addicted to white supremacy.” “White silence is complicity.” “I’m grateful those who have pointed out my phrasing could be understood as trans-erasure.” “Horses inspire awe and foster a sense of identity. More kids should have access to these incredible animals. But most horse spaces are white spaces.” “I know that hysteric, white woman voice. I was taught to do it. I’ve done it. That’s whiteness” “What is the deranged racist sociopath ranting about today? I truly don’t understand.” “Donald Trump is a racist.”
Oops, those are her tweets over the years. Gee, how could anyone accuse them of bias?
After losing to the one guy they were certain they could beat, Democrats are making a show of puzzling over how to win elections.
It’s not really much of a puzzle. They simply need to get on the right side of some easy 80/20 issues. Like illegal immigration. Like men competing in women’s sports. Like catching and punishing criminals. Like the First Amendment. Like disclaiming Marxism.
Why can’t the Democrats see this?
Well, they can. Democrats are just pretending they can’t because they don’t want to alienate . . . Democrats.
Do the math. If only 20% of voters are on the liberal side of an issue, and essentially all of those 20% are Democrats, and registered Democrats comprise about 37% of the voters (the other 63% being Republicans and Independents), that means that, among Democrats, about 54% are on the 20 side of those 80/20 issues. (54% of the 37% of voters who are registered Democrats equals about 20% of the total voters.)
Most Democrat politicians can do this math. And so, they understand that getting on the winning side of these 80/20 issues would cost them over half of registered Democrats – the kind that vote, donate money, speak out, and get CNN spots.
Even the Democrats who can’t do this math (here’s looking at you, AOC) can sense it from their interactions with their base, which is about the only kind of interactions they have with the public.
One solution is for Democrats to trick their base into believing they are still on the 20 side of these 80/20 issues while actually migrating to the 80 side in order to get some of the 80 side voters.
But it’s hard for politicians to trick their base. That’s because the base tends to be passionate and aware. Moderates, on the other hand, are easier to trick. Moderates are moderates because they aren’t paying much attention.
So, what do you do if you’re a Democrat?
You trick the people who can be tricked – the moderates. You put on an insincere, hand-wringing act pretending that you’re considering switching to the 80 side on the 80/20 issues, all while winking and nodding to your hard-left base to tell them you’re really not.
But now the jig is up. Zohran Kwame Mamdani (if you’re a Republican, you couldn’t wish for a better name for him) has put the Democrats on the spot.
He wants government-owned grocery stores because he thinks (or just believes) they’ll be less expensive and more equitable. He wants government control over rent and real estate prices. He wants government-paid public transportation. He wants government child care. He wants, well, you get the picture.
He has lots of wants, and he wants those wants to be satisfied by the government.
Except the police. His only want from the police is that they cease to exist.
He let slip – nah, he bragged – that the government should seize control over “the means of production.” It’s not clear where he learned that phrase, but it was in fact coined by Karl Marx.
He’s an actual, registered socialist. And he’s not a European-style one. He’s more like a Cuban-style one or Venezuelan-style one or Soviet Union-style one.
Democrats, who have crept, slouched, and sometimes flown toward socialism like bats into hell over the last 25 years since Bill Clinton left office, are mortified. Not because Mamdani favors socialism – they all do – but because he says it out loud.
By saying it out loud, Mamdani smokes out those fellow Democrats. They have to either agree or disagree. They can no longer pretend moderation in order to garner votes from unengaged moderates while winking and nodding to their hard-left base.
Mamdani is forcing socialist Democrats into the thing that socialists abhor most – honesty.
He’s currently the favorite to be elected. The result will be a disaster for New York City. But it will also be a disaster for the Democrats. I’m willing to accept both disasters if it’s a package deal.
Girls don’t usually fight. There are sound reasons for this – reasons of general decorum, biology, hormones, jewelry, dresses and hairdos.
But when they do, boy oh boy, it can be a doozy. It happened yesterday at the Supreme Court.
The case was an appeal of a district court order issuing a “universal injunction” against President Trump’s executive order seeking to abolish “birthright citizenship.”
Birthright citizenship is the kind you get if you’re born in America even if your parents are here illegally. The 14th Amendment seems to provide for it, although there is a non-frivolous argument that it does not.
A universal injunction is one that binds the enjoined party even against persons not involved in the lawsuit.
The district court judge in this case found Trump’s executive order against birthright citizenship to be in violation of the 14th Amendment, and issued an injunction forbidding its enforcement against the plaintiff in the case.
Here’s where it gets dicey. The judge’s injunction applied not just for the benefit of the named plaintiff, but for the benefit of all other people in the country even though they weren’t parties to the case. It was a universal injunction.
Trump appealed the universal injunction on two grounds: (1) you should not get citizenship merely by being born in America if your mother was here illegally – in other words, the 14th Amendment does not provide for birthright citizenship – and (2) the universal injunction barring enforcement of the executive order even against people who were not parties to the case was an unconstitutional overreach by the judge.
The Supreme Court heard the latter argument on universal injunctions, and reserved the substantive birthright citizenship issue for another day.
It was a typical 6-3 political decision, meaning the six Republican-appointed Justices beat the three Democrat-appointed ones. (Elections have consequences, as President Obama once pointed out.)
The opinion for the Court was by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She walked through the history of universal injunctions, noting that they scarcely existed until recent times.
Now that they do exist, they are prone to abuse. A political plaintiff can choose to file his suit in a district that is notoriously favorable to his politics. Then he gets a favorable decision – typically without even a trial but instead on a preliminary basis – that applies for the benefit of all potential plaintiffs everywhere.
In theory, the district court’s decision could be reversed after a trial, but that’s years away, and, in reality, the trial decision from the same judge will be the same anyway. (On many of these issues, there’s no right to a jury trial.)
It’s actually even worse than that. Say for a moment that the plaintiff somehow loses his bid for a universal preliminary injunction in a favorable district. There’s nothing to stop another plaintiff from filing the same suit in a different favorable district. If the second plaintiff wins in that second case in that second district, he can expect to get the universal preliminary injunction that the first plaintiff was denied.
The defendant – the government in this case – is thus not only required to win in one district favorable to the other side, but is required to win every case in every district where every plaintiff files. One loss, and all are lost.
Weirdly, the universal preliminary injunction obtained by the second plaintiff – or third or fourth – who prevailed could even have the effect of reversing the loss by all earlier plaintiffs. The earlier, losing plaintiffs wind up getting unlimited bites at the apple by enjoying the repeated re-litigation of the matter by later plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court via yesterday’s opinion by Justice Barrett finally put a stop to routinely issued universal injunctions. Trump is doing well at the Supreme Court, and this was his biggest win. Our system in largely working.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Issued a peptic dissenting opinion. You’ll recall Jackson. She is the woman who was asked at her Senate confirmation hearing, “Can you define the word ‘woman’?”
It was obviously a gotcha question which Jackson wanted to avoid answering. A smart and articulate woman — not too much to ask for in a Supreme Court Justice — could have dodged the question with a little BS such as, “Well, that word is used in many different ways, Senator. There’s a biological way, a social way, a behavioral way, a gender way, and . . . blah blah blah . . . mumble mumble . . . ”
Instead, Jackson gave the Republicans a sound bite for the ages: “I can’t . . . Not in this context. I’m not a biologist.”
Bob Dylan said you don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. He never met Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Questioner: Can you tell me which way the wind blows, Ms. Jackson?
Say what? A Justice of the Supreme Court is openly worrying, or pretending to, that their decisions might be viewed as sympathetic to “corporate interests”?
First, the Court is supposed to apply the law to the facts, public perception be damned. Second, the allusion to “corporate interests” is amateur activism. Is the Court supposed to disfavor corporations? What about large partnerships? What about LLCs? Non-governmental organizations? Charitable foundations? Sole proprietorships?
Is the law different depending on the choice of entity that one party made when they set up their organization?
Back to yesterday’s universal injunction case. Jackson’s dissent warned that the decision was “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
That’s a serious allegation. Her allegation is that the Supreme Court whose job is to interpret the law is threatening its very existence.
I have three responses to Jackson’s allegation. One, yawn. Two, notice how people who aren’t very smart like to use the phrase “existential threat” as if it makes them a French philosopher or something. Three, if abolishing universal injunctions threatens the rule of law, then how did the rule of law survive for two centuries without them?
Justice Barrett in response wrote that Jackson’s dissent “is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.” She observed that Jackson “decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
Barrett wasn’t done: “Observing the limits on judicial authority – including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789 – is required by a judge’s oath.”
Finally came Barrett’s knockout punch: “Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘Everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ That goes for judges too.”
In the cloistered confines of the Supreme Court, that constitutes a beating. Jackson was rightly condemned in a written opinion joined by six of the Justices for advocating a position contrary to two centuries of precedent and the Constitution itself, endorsing an imperial judiciary, violating the judge’s oath, and refusing to be bound by law even as she wildly accuses the Court of threatening the very existence of law.
Justice Barrett as the author of that take-down put to rest any doubts. She’s all woman, and she’s got a pair.
CNN last week got their hands on a classified document stolen from the National Security Agency. That’s a felony punishable by ten years in prison, by the way.
The stolen document guessed that the efforts by Israel and America to neutralize Iran’s nuclear weapon program had set back the program by only “a few months.”
CNN and the rest of the media cabal could hardly contain their glee. They celebrated the failure of America and Israel.
Hardly mentioned in CNN’s report was that the document itself noted that its conclusions were merely “preliminary” and were expressed with only “low confidence.”
This week, a more considered report was published by the Institute for Science and International Security (which, ironically, has been going by the acronym ISIS since long before the ISIS terrorists came around).
ISIS – the good one – is a non-partisan think tank and investigatory group. If anything, it might lean a bit to the left, as its financial supporters include left-leaning organizations such as the McArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.
The Wall Street Journal reported on ISIS’s findings. (The Journal’s report is behind their paywall here, but you can click into ISIS’s underlying report here.)
ISIS concluded that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been “effectively destroyed.”
That conclusion is supported in their report by extensive review and detailed analysis of the attacks and the videos, aided by intimate knowledge of the layouts of the Iranian facilities and interviews with international inspectors of those facilities.
In some particulars, the ISIS report shows that the stolen preliminary report as characterized by CNN is simply wrong on the facts about what facilities were attacked, and how.
Meanwhile, Iran has congratulated itself on its “decisive victory.” The Ayatollah proclaimed that Israel has “almost collapsed and been crushed” and America has been delivered “a slap in the face.”
CNN has not gone that far, yet. But as of this writing, the stolen, erroneous NSA preliminary report is still on CNN’s website – with little of the contradictory reports mentioned.
Why do the media (with the notable exception of the Wall Street Journal in this case) distort or even lie about facts, to make Iran look good and strong and make America look bad and weak?
the Aspen beat 