Loving County is not only the least populated county in Texas, but with 64 official inhabitants as of the 2020 census, it’s also the least populated county in the entire nation. (Kalawao County, Hawaii, on an island that was formerly a leper colony, comes in second.) Flat desert land up along the New Mexico border, Loving doesn’t have much to recommend it except splendid isolation.
And oil.
It’s that last little bit, Loving’s notable oil wealth, that probably inspired a carpetbagger gadfly from Indiana to try to take over Loving County.
Malcolm Tanner, a political activist from Indiana who has filed to run for president of the United States, has drawn widespread attention after the Houston Chronicle first reported on his plan to recruit new residents to Loving County by offering them free homes. Tanner purchased and subdivided land in the remote county, promising a title to anyone willing to move there, register to vote, and join his effort to remake the community’s government.
Tanner evidently ran for President in 2024, and made so little an impression that he failed to register the low four-digit totals of Vermin Supreme and “Lucifer Everylove.” Tanner’s platform (“an executive order that would provide African Americans with a $5,000 monthly settlement”) and naming his group “Melanated People of Power” does rather suggest a social justice bent to his politics.
Back to The Texan:
The plan’s implications are significant, given two defining features of Loving County: its minuscule population and its oil-rich tax base. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates only about 64 residents live within its boundaries, yet the county government takes in roughly $60 million annually in property tax revenue from the surrounding Permian Basin oilfields.
With the Chronicle reporting that Tanner has already relocated some 30 people to the area, an unprecedented political takeover has gone from just another viral social media post to a very serious reality.
“This woman right here is in the running to be the next county judge right here in Loving County,” Tanner said in one video, referring to a new resident while jokingly calling the area “Tanner County.”
In the footage, Tanner stands on a patch of dry, windswept land he claims as his future subdivision, surrounded by recruits who have accepted his offer of free homes and, according to his plan, will soon register to vote and run for local office.
This past week, Tanner also promoted an event called “Tanner Fest” in the county seat of Mentone, advertising “100 free homes up for grabs” and promising to “share the vision and process” behind his movement.
It does rather sound like Tanner is promising material rewards for voting his way. Tiny problem: That’s illegal under federal law.
In another video, Tanner is seen confronting a Loving County deputy at the courthouse. “Once we get here, we are going to fine-tooth everything,” he says. “If we find anything out of pocket, we’re gonna lock you up.” He also added that he believes county officials have been “stealing money.”
News of Tanner’s plan has triggered a wave of attention across state and national media — and drawn alarm from state and federal officials, who are now calling for investigations into what they describe as a potential threat to election integrity.
“We write to request immediate action and coordination among agencies to address serious election irregularities and threats of manipulation in Loving County,” state Sen. Kevin Sparks (R-Midland) and state Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R-Odessa) said in a joint letter last week to Secretary of State Jane Nelson.
The lawmakers cited “disparities in recent election results” and emphasized the seriousness of the matter. “All Texans, including those in the most rural areas, deserve fair and lawful elections,” they wrote, asking the secretary of state to “use all available authority to investigate and address election fraud in Loving County.”
Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a sweeping lawsuit and is seeking an emergency restraining order against an Indiana man accused of trying to “take over” Texas’ least populous county through what he is calling an illegal and unsafe settlement scheme.
Filed in Loving County’s 143rd Judicial District Court, the petition names Malcolm Tanner, a Crawfordsville, Indiana, resident who purchased two adjoining five-acre tracts in January of this year.
According to the complaint, Tanner has been using social media to invite followers—many of them women with children—to move to the barren property, promising “free homes” and even “$5,000 a month” if they help him “take over” local government.
“Indiana resident Malcolm Tanner has no right to try and take over Loving County with illegal schemes that endanger real Texans,” Paxton said in a statement. “His deceptive and unlawful scheme to lure people with free housing for the purpose of conducting a political takeover is a disgustingly fraudulent plot to line his own pockets.”
The lawsuit alleges Tanner’s property has no sewer, septic systems, or running water, relying instead on gas generators and a “burn pit” for trash disposal. Dozens of people have reportedly moved in, living in RVs and tents on the desolate land.
State attorneys say those conditions violate Chapter 341 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, which governs the disposal of sewage and other waste that could spread disease. The requested temporary restraining order would bar Tanner and others from discharging human waste in ways that could contaminate soil or groundwater and would prohibit any additional residents from moving onto the site until it meets health-code standards.
The 14-page filing goes further, accusing Tanner of running a “combination” engaged in organized criminal activity, citing alleged threats against law-enforcement and oil-field workers. It also seeks to declare the site a public nuisance and asks the court to impose any restrictions needed to prevent future “gang activity.”
Separately, Paxton’s office brings claims under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, asserting that Tanner falsely advertised free housing, misrepresented the quality of property being offered, and failed to disclose critical information about living conditions. The State is seeking up to $10,000 per violation and additional penalties of $10 to $200 per day for ongoing health-code violations.
Prosecutors note that Tanner has publicly bragged online about plans to “change the name of Loving County to Tanner County” and to run for president in 2028. The filing describes his effort as both a public-health hazard and a fraudulent political operation, alleging he “receives financial support from individuals as a condition of them remaining on the property.”
The attorney general’s office is asking the court to immediately issue an ex parte temporary restraining order, followed by a temporary and then permanent injunction halting habitation and advertising at the property.
If the scheme itself sound familiar, that’s because it’s exactly what Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh managed to do to Antelope (briefly “Rajneesh”), Oregon in the early 1980s: Encouraged his followers to settle there and take over the local town council. A lot of criminality and lunacy (including a “bioweapon attack” of salmonella) ensued before Rajneesh was deported for immigration fraud in 1985, and the whole scheme collapsed.
I had previously had the impression that no land in Loving County was for sale, as the locales didn’t want to sell, but it appears that a few plots are now available at relatively modest prices. I’m not sure how deep “Dr.” Malcolm Tanner’s pockets are, but the gadfly nature of his actions suggests someone bigger on impractical dreams than cold, hard cash.
I sincerely doubt Mr. Tanner has Bhagwan money.
In a way, Loving County is quite fortunate. Someone with deeper pockets and the ability not to shoot their mouth off about their cockamamie carpetbagging schemes might have actually managed a takeover of the county before anyone noticed…
Here’s a provocative Substack essay that argues that the 2020 Census was systemically, algorithmically polluted by a single data scientist.
The 2020 census was marketed as an “actual enumeration,” a neutral count of people for apportionment and funding. It was not. The same official who helped block a basic citizenship question in 2018, John M. Abowd, then the Census Bureau’s Chief Scientist, pushed through a new, opaque methodology in 2020 called differential privacy. The new system deliberately injected mathematical noise into every block count in America, turning the census from a headcount into a model with knobs. The knob that mattered most was a single parameter, epsilon, a secrecy shroud known only to a small inner circle. Abowd argued that a single added question about citizenship posed an intolerable risk to data quality because there was, he said, not enough time to test it. Then he rushed an untested algorithm that altered every count in every neighborhood. The irony is so sharp it cuts: the man who warned that one question might distort the census approved a method that guaranteed distortion.
Start with the record. On January 19, 2018, Abowd sent Commerce a technical memo urging rejection of a citizenship question. He then testified for several days in federal court. The transcript, nearly 700 pages, cemented a narrative that any citizenship question would degrade data and impede participation. The courts cited this drumbeat of doubt, and the question was blocked. The administration lost the public fight. But the inside fight over how to publish the data was only beginning. Abowd immediately advanced a quiet revolution in disclosure avoidance, adopting differential privacy for the first time ever in a US census. That choice, made outside the glare that attended the citizenship question, had far more sweeping consequences.
Differential privacy sounds harmless. In truth, it is a mechanism that turns correct data into false data according to a secret recipe. Abowd did not merely suppress a few cells in tiny places. Instead, he ran an algorithm across the map that perturbed the population of every census block, and it postprocessed the results so the fabricated numbers looked tidy. The output retained familiar columns, but the counts were no longer the counts. Abowd convinced his colleagues in the Bureau that implementing differential privacy was merely compliance with 13 U.S.C. § 9, its duty to protect confidentiality. Privacy is important. But privacy, as a constitutional matter, follows the enumeration, it does not negate it. A 2021 Harvard analysis of Abowd’s manipulation showed what this means in real life. When researchers simulated the Abowd’s algorithm using public test data, they found that differential privacy moves people around on paper, shifting them from one neighborhood to another in ways that make communities look less diverse and change their apparent political makeup. In plain terms, the system can make a mixed neighborhood look whiter or more uniform, and a balanced district look more partisan than it is. The study also showed that the noise makes it impossible to meet the Supreme Court’s “One Person, One Vote” rule, which requires legislative districts to have nearly equal populations. If each district’s population count is warped by secret noise, some citizens’ votes end up weighing more than others. When a method, by design, destabilizes the precise block totals that redistricting depends on, it stops being disclosure avoidance and becomes statistical alteration. The framers mandated counting people, not blurring them.
The core lever in differential privacy is epsilon, the privacy loss budget. Abowd kept this number secret throughout 2020. Cities, states, researchers, and map drawers who saw the early demonstration files warned that the counts were veering away from reality. They had no way to tell whether errors in their communities were genuine undercounts or synthetic artifacts of the algorithm. Abowd’s system also crippled the ability of local governments, analysts, and other record‑keepers to find and fix mistakes. Normally, if a city discovers a counting error that affects federal funding, it can appeal through the Count Question Resolution (CQR) Program. With differential privacy, that safeguard collapses, because the published data are wrong on purpose, no one can separate genuine miscounts from the algorithm’s fake ones. This nullifies the traditional oversight process and leaves states helpless to correct funding or representation errors. Alabama tried to challenge this secrecy in State of Alabama v. U.S. Department of Commerce (2021), arguing that differential privacy was unconstitutional and illegal, but the court dismissed the case for lack of standing cost the state billions in lost federal funding. Lawsuits and FOIAs followed. Only in 2021 did the Bureau reveal that its chosen global epsilon was 19.61, and even then, the design of the system prevented outsiders from verifying that this figure was actually used. The system was structured so that no one, not even Congress, could audit the dial that governed the size and allocation of the noise across the nation. Abowd’s answer was simply, “Trust me.”
Epsilon is not a philosophy, it is a number with consequences. The average census block contains about 105 people. With an epsilon of 19.61 and the Bureau’s noise allocation strategy, the algorithm effectively invented or erased on the order of ten to thirty people in many small areas. A block of 105 real residents could be published as 95, 115, or even further off, depending on postprocessing and the way the privacy budget was spent in that region. Across millions of blocks those errors do not cancel. They compound in the design of wards, precincts, and districts. Redistricting is a sum of blocks. Distort the blocks, and you distort the districts, the legislatures, and the House. This practice is not merely bad policy; it is plainly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Department of Commerce v. House of Representatives (1999) made clear that statistical sampling for apportionment is illegal on statutory grounds. Abowd’s algorithmic manipulation is statistical sampling by another name, an unlawful substitution of estimated data for an actual enumeration required by the Constitution.
The proof arrived in March and May of 2022 when the Bureau’s own quality checks exposed a lopsided pattern. Fourteen states had statistically significant coverage errors, eight with overcounts and six with undercounts. The tilt was unmistakable. Democratic-leaning states were widely overcounted. Republican-leaning states were widely undercounted. Florida’s undercount was roughly three quarters of a million people. Texas’s undercount was on the order of a half million. Minnesota and Rhode Island kept seats they would have lost under an accurate count. Colorado gained a seat it did not deserve. Florida and Texas each missed multiple seats they should have gained. Analysts estimate the net effect was a shift of nine House seats away from Republican-leaning states and toward Democratic-leaning states. The Electoral College moved with them. More than $86 billion in federal formula funds followed.
Defenders say the pandemic caused the problem. That explains some fog, not the direction of the wind. The pattern of overcounts and undercounts tracked politics too cleanly to dismiss as random. A privacy method that was sold as neutral in theory coincided with partisan advantage in practice, and the guardians of the method refused to allow a transparent audit of its settings or its state by state allocation. Abowd, a Democrat donor, insisted that publishing epsilon values and the allocation mechanics would let bad actors reverse engineer the data to identify individuals. That claim collapses under basic scrutiny. If the risk of disclosing individuals is truly so sensitive that even the budget of the noise must be hidden, then differential privacy is the wrong tool for a decennial census that decides representation. The constitutional priority is accuracy of the count for apportionment. Privacy can be protected with targeted suppression or an “undetermined” flag for sensitive attributes. What cannot be justified is injecting falsity into the total number of people who live in each place.
If all this is true, President Trump’s call for a mid-decade census is more than justified. The constitution calls for an enumeration of citizens, not an algorithmic approximation poisoned by partisan pollution. A new count is needed to restore accuracy and remove illegal aliens from the census.
The top of the ticket on the Republican side in Texas is now a three-way race as Congressman Wesley Hunt (R-TX-38) made his long-rumored challenge to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Attorney General Ken Paxton official on Monday.
“What I’ve seen in polling over the past few months is people want an alternative, and I’m going to give it to them,” Hunt told the Associated Press.
Hunt, a U.S. Army veteran, is a second-term congressman from Harris County’s 38th Congressional District who’s allied himself with President Donald Trump since running for the new district in 2022 after the previous year’s post-Census redistricting.
Launching with a campaign video, Hunt said in a press release, “This campaign is about defending the timeless conservative values that built this state and this nation. My convictions do not waver, they do not falter, and they do not bend to political pressure. I will fight for Texas with the same courage and resolve with which I once fought for our country in combat.”
“Washington does not get to dictate what happens in Texas. Bureaucrats in D.C. do not choose Texas’ leadership; Texans do. This race will be settled by Texans, not entrenched political figures from inside the beltway.”
Cornyn campaign spokesman Matt Mackowiak told The Texan, “Senator Cornyn has soared ahead in the latest polling and will win this election. Wesley Hunt is a legend in his own mind. No one is happier this morning than the national Democrats who are watching Wesley continue his quixotic quest for relevancy, costing tens of millions of dollars that will endanger the Trump agenda from being passed.”
Nick Maddux, spokesman for Paxton’s campaign, told The Texan, “We welcome Wesley Hunt to the race. Primaries are good for our party and our voters, and Welsey and General Paxton both know that Texans deserve better than the failed, anti-Trump record of John Cornyn.”
Cornyn and Paxton have long established their campaign lanes — the former backed by Senate leadership and the more established part of the Republican Party; the latter supported by conservatives unhappy with the incumbent for various reasons. But Hunt’s is less clear, potentially taking from both candidates already in the race.
In the most recent poll from Ragnar Research that shows Cornyn and Paxton neck and neck just above 30 percent, Hunt polled at 17 percent.
Voters know how they generally feel about Cornyn and Paxton, both in single digits for the “don’t know enough” category of support and opposition in a recent survey from Texas Southern University; Hunt’s unknown category registered at 45 percent.
Hunt’s net favorability rating is +39 percent to Paxton’s +19 percent and Cornyn’s +5 percent among Republicans.
That’s a nice high favorability rating to start with, but Hunt has never run statewide. I’m guessing the average voter knows he’s a Republican, a congressman, and he’s black, but probably little more. A few more people may have heard about him due to his interview with Joe Rogan or that campaign ad that first introduced him. Hunt has a 97% conservative rating from CPAC, and an A from Gun Owners of America.
While Hunt has filed a good two months before the December 8 deadline, he’s getting in fairly late from an organizational and fundraising perspective. Paxton has led Cornyn in just about all polling, though by varying amounts. Through Q2 (haven’t seen any Q3 numbers yet), Cornyn has raised $8 million to Paxton’s $2.9 million. Hunt, whose congressional campaigns suggest he’s a solid middle-of-the-pack fundraiser, has a lot of catching up to do and not much time to do it.
Too damn much news out this week. Biden’s “boom” is busted, Charlie Kirk’s assassin is caught, Israel dirtnaps top Hamas kingpins in Qatar, the curse of BlueSkyism, more illegal alien perverts sexually abusing children, more of the evil George Soros funds, and California’s “Jay Leno Bill” dies in committee. Plus some Prog Rock.
The U.S. economy probably added close to a million fewer jobs in 2024 and early 2025 than previously reported, the latest sign that the labor market, until recently a bright spot in the economy, may be weaker than it initially appeared.
The revised data was released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as part of a longstanding annual process known as benchmarking. But the big downward adjustment comes at an awkward moment for the agency, just weeks after President Trump fired its top official following a separate set of negative revisions last month.
The data released on Tuesday showed that employers added 911,000 fewer jobs in the 12 months through March than had been indicated in the monthly payroll figures. That implies the economy added only about 850,000 jobs during that time — half as many as previously reported.
Police have identified the suspect in Charlie Kirk’s assassination as Tyler Robinson, a 22-year-old Utah man who authorities say became more political ahead of the shooting and recently expressed animosity toward Kirk.
Robinson, who is believed to have acted alone, came to the attention of the authorities after he contacted a family friend following the assassination, Utah Governor Spencer Cox revealed during a Friday morning press conference. That friend reported Robinson to the local sheriff’s office and Robinson’s father, a veteran police officer, then orchestrated his surrender to authorities at his home in Washington County, Utah.
The alleged gunman is expected to face at least three felony charges, including aggravated murder, obstruction of justice, and felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury, according to a probable cause affidavit obtained by NBC News. Cox said state law requires authorities to file the charging documents within three days.
Robinson appears to have become more political ahead of the shooting and criticized Kirk by name at a recent dinner, a family member of Robinson’s told authorities. Robinson said Kirk was “full of hate” and accused him of “promoting hate,” Cox said, though the affidavit, released later, indicates another family member may have made those remarks.
Robinson’s arrest comes after authorities had recovered a high-powered bolt action rifle they believe was used in the assassination, along with unspent rounds that were engraved with antifascist writing.
“Hey fascist, catch,” read the engraving on one round. Another round was engraved with the message “Bella ciao, bella ciao, bella ciao,” a reference to a song favored by resistance movements and revolutionary anti-capitalist partisans.
This is who they chose to kill: the affable man whose main act was having good-faith political debates with college students. The man who, since fatherhood, was turning more toward Christianity as both a purpose and a theme. He was a partisan to be sure, but he was nowhere near the outer limits of the American tradition, especially given his relentless fixation on Lincolnian persuasion as a stabilizing force in a slowly disintegrating polity. The ones who kept losing debates with him didn’t feel that way, of course, but they were only the instrument, not the object, of his work. The object was the millions of Americans who watched, learned, and saw who won again and again—and decided that they wished to side with the winner.
In this way, Charlie Kirk was perhaps the closest thing to Socrates in the American public square. The leftist intellectuals who sneered at him—the rube peddling his simple lines, his crass sophistry, his heartland aw-shucks certainties—would guffaw at the parallel, but it is no less true. He argued—amiably, fairly, relentlessly—until they couldn’t stand it any longer. And like Socrates, they had him killed.
Also like Socrates, his students will now do more for his cause after his martyrdom than they ever did during his life. The Socratic vindication was in his deification through literature at the pens of Plato and Xenophon. Millennia later, everyone remembers the philosopher, but vanishingly few know who ended his life.
The armies of Charlie Kirk, martyr, will be much more vast: not a handful of Athenians but millions of Americans. Their work will not be in philosophical literature but in the politics of the years to come. Whatever benefit accrues to the Republican Party is merely incidental. We are now in the realm of fundamental politics, which is concerned with the nature of the nation and the wielding of power for the common good. The generation of Americans that Charlie Kirk molded will be drawing conclusions about both from his life and his death alike.
After President Trump told Fox & Friends hosts that Charlie Kirk’s assassin is “in custody,” he went on to comment about radical leftist organizations, stating, “We are going to look into Soros. It looks like a RICO case.”
Recall that on Wednesday night, just hours after Kirk’s assassination, President Trump addressed the nation from the Oval Office, calling it a “dark moment for America.” He vowed to crack down on radical left movements across the country that have fueled chaos and even death this year.
Then on Thursday night, Texan News reporter Cameron Abrams wrote on X that Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and two dozen others in Congress called for a select committee on “the money, influence, and power behind the radical left’s assault on America and the rule of law.”
Just weeks ago, Trump stated on Truth Social that George Soros and his radical leftist son, Alex Soros, “should be charged with RICO because of their support of violent protests.”
Around that time, the “dark money” leftist NGO network operated by Arabella Advisors reportedly lost one of its top funding sources: Bill Gates.
Civil terrorism expert Jason Curtis Anderson of One City Rising states:
After the political assassination of Charlie Kirk, President Trump is interested in pursuing a RICO case against George Soros, America’s primary financier of far-left NGOs. What will likely be revealed is a complex web of dark money that observers have warned about for 20 years but never acted on.
At the center of this web are the various George Soros Open Society Foundation legal entities—four separate tax-exempt charities and one 501(c)(4) dark-money channel. Next are the Tides Foundation organizations, funded primarily by the Pritzker family, which include three separate tax-exempt charities and one 501(c)(4) dark-money channel. Following them are the Rockefeller Foundation nexus, NEO Philanthropy, the Ford Foundation, and a host of similar operations, including the Singham network. Collectively, these entities form America’s dark-money ecosystem. They fund permanent protests, bail demonstrators out of jail, finance legal efforts to sue local governments and police departments, influence immigration policy, promote drug decriminalization and criminal-justice reforms, and help elect district attorneys who decline to prosecute crime. On top of all of this, they also have entities like the Working Families Party that elect local politicians.
The money flows from donations to tax-exempt charities into non-tax-exempt 501(c)(4)s, and then trickles down to local groups. From there, funds reach the most radical organizations, which can’t even qualify for 501(c)(3) status and are instead “fiscally sponsored” by parent organizations. Because of this fiscal-sponsorship loophole, the books of these groups remain opaque. Everything from terror financing to protests-turned-riots connects in some way to these foundations.
The revolution against the West is, in effect, a network of tax-exempt charities operating as a powerful parallel government that no one ever voted for. It must be stopped before it’s too late.
A look into Soros-funded terrorist networks is long overdue. Here’s hoping a lot of indictments, bank account freezes and billions in civil forfeiture claims are forthcoming.
Your reminder that the social justice left are horrible people:
Right on cue deranged leftists are celebrating Charlie Kirk being shot
Bluesky, the Twitter spinoff that was once billed as a kinder, gentler alternative to what is now known as X, probably isn’t on death’s door. But after a burst of growth around the election, it’s shrinking and steadily declining in influence, even as other corners of the left thrive during Trump’s second term.
Snip.
Even on a logarithmic scale — on a linear scale, the graph is boring, because everything but Twitter would pretty much just be a flat line — the gulf between X and the other platforms is clear. And since the election, Bluesky has lost ground. More precise data based on the number of unique “likers”, “posters” and “followers” at Bluesky tracks a similar curve, with an initial peak around the election and a secondary peak after Trump’s inauguration but persistent erosion since then. The number of unique posters at Bluesky peaked at just under 1.5 million on Nov. 18, 2024 but has since fallen to an average of about 660,000 on weekdays and 600,000 on weekends: in other words, a drop of more than half.
The decline in Bluesky’s number of unique daily followers is even more substantial. They topped out at 3.1 million on Nov. 18 last year, but are now just under 400,000 per day: almost a tenfold decline. So while a dedicated troupe of Bluesky regulars are still skeeting up a storm, they’re gaining less and less traction, preaching only to the converted.
Snip.
Bluesky was initially popular with Twitter refugees who disliked Musk’s takeover of the platform, some of whom proclaimed that Elon had unleashed the “gates of hell” by restoring banned accounts or predicted that the platform would implode due to a shortage of engineering talent. I suppose I have no problem with this; ironically, the first post in Silver Bulletin history is entitled “In case Twitter goes to zero”. (I wanted a hedge in case it did, although if we’re being honest, I also had one eye out the door as ABC News was beginning to dismantle FiveThirtyEight.) However, this also self-selected for a certain type of user, adherents of an attitude that I call “Blueskyism”.
Blueskyism should not be mistaken for general left-of-center political views. Google search traffic for Bluesky over the past year is highly correlated with Kamala Harris’s vote share, but has some other skews: controlling for the Harris vote, it’s (statistically) significantly higher in states with a large white population and where the percentage of people with advanced degrees is higher. Bluesky is disproportionately popular in D.C., but also in crunchy white states like Vermont and Oregon. Search traffic for Twitter/X over the same period shows the same bias toward highly educated states, but less toward Harris voters4 and actually an inverse correlation with the white population share. (X gets more search traffic in more diverse states.)
Demographics alone only go so far in explaining Blueskyism, however. It’s not a political movement so much as a tribal affiliation, a niche set of attitudes and style of discursive norms that almost seem designed in a lab to be as unappealing as possible to anyone outside the clique.
Emphasis added. Snip.
Some of the most annoying people on the platform have exited for Bluesky.
As compared to other people with a similar level of public prominence — so not heads-of-state or celebrities or NFL quarterbacks — I was a “trending topic” on Twitter as often as just about anyone for a period from roughly 2018-2021. Matt Yglesias and Maggie Haberman also come to mind as other people who share this particular “honor”, which is not a welcome one: it means you’re the main character of the day, the person that other people have decided to dogpile upon.
There’s still some of this. If you tweet about election-related stuff, there is a pervasive tendency to “shoot the messenger” from partisans when the polls aren’t going their way. But much less than there once was: no more of the dogpiles for exceptionally strange reasons that I couldn’t even explain to my IRL friends.
And that’s because this behavior — I guess you could call it harassment but I’m a big boy and I can take it — consistently came from a relatively narrow group of power users, birds of a feather who flocked together, people who could demonstrate their fidelity to the group by picking on the main character. On Bluesky, exactly the same people — and I do mean exactly — attack exactly the same perpetual enemies, but to roughly 1/60th the size of the audience.
So I feel freer using Twitter these days for jokes, memes, and tongue-in-cheek ideas that aren’t meant to be taken entirely seriously, intended to be read as though they’re written in comic sans.
Snip.
What really matters in elections is simply being popular and winning over new converts. Blueskyism, with its intolerance for dissent, is the opposite of that.
Because, yes, while this is personal for me, annoyingness matters in politics.
Snip.
The three essential characteristics of Blueskyism.
The first essential characteristic: Smalltentism
Aggressive policing of dissent, particularly of people “just outside the circle” who might have broader credibility on the center-left. Censoriousness, often taking the form of moral micropanics that designate a rotating cast of opponents as the main characters of the day. Self-reinforcing belief in the righteousness of the clique, and conflation of its values with broader public sentiment among “the base”.
A healthy political movement, you’d think, would welcome people who agree with them on 70 percent of issues, particularly if it sees Trump as an existential threat to democracy and wants a broad coalition against him. Blueskyists do literally almost the exact opposite: their biggest enemies are people on the center-left like me and Yglesias and Ezra Klein. Or center-left media institutions like the New York Times, which are often viewed as more problematic than Fox News.
This aggressive policing of boundaries might at least have been tactically smart during the miraculous Blue Period when Twitter was afflicted with Blueskyism. Yglesias, say, is followed by a lot more Democratic staffers than Ben Shapiro or some actual conservative is.
But now that Blueskyism is losing the battle of ideas, it just draws the tent narrower and ensures that it will remain obscure. There’s nothing more Blueskyist than this, literally creating a “list of shame” of Bluesky posters who remain active on Twitter.
And sometimes, Blueskyists even make violent threats toward people who disagree with them. For instance, the journalist Billy Binion says he recently “logged onto Bluesky to find thousands of people screaming at me, many of whom were telling me to kill myself” after having posted that “billionaires should exist”. There’s some of that on every social media platform, unfortunately, and I’m not going to make assertions about the relative frequency on Bluesky without taking some more comprehensive approach to the question. It certainly shouldn’t have a reputation for civil discourse, however, and this may help to explain the high rate of exits from the platform.
The second essential characteristic: Credentialism
Appeals to authority, particularly academic authority. Centering of the suitability of the speaker based on his or her credentials and/or identity characteristics (standpoint epistemology) as opposed to the strength of his or her arguments, accompanied by the implicit presumption to claim to be speaking on behalf of the entire identity group.
Although Blueskyism is small, its practitioners mostly consist of people within the professional-managerial class: (over)educated blue-state liberals, perhaps people who have drawn the short straw of elite overproduction. You can see that in the demographic data, or in the attitude site management takes: the platform literally just banned people from Mississippi because of a dispute over age verification.
And Bluesky has become relatively popular among academics, which I regard as a problem on various levels. The Democratic Party has already forgotten how to talk to large groups of voters like young men, who have become considerably less likely to complete college than young women. Meanwhile, the experts have made a lot of mistakes, and sometimes the reason is because they’ve become self-serving in pursuit of social media validation or blinded by political partisanship. Increasingly often, I’ll see academics engage in incredibly sloppy argumentation and this seems to be correlated with recent exposure to Bluesky. Because Bluesky is so small, it has a highly specific signature. It’s like if you have some toxic persona on the periphery of your friend group; someone starts speaking in a particular way that you just know they recently hung out with George or Gina.
While academic credentials are one way to gain credibility under Blueskyism, they aren’t the only one. Even though the Google search data suggests that the platform is disproportionately white, an alternative is to claim to speak on behalf of a disadvantaged group. I swear to God, I’m not trying to make this about “wokeness” but there is overlap there.
Perhaps the most prominent example of Blueskyism creeping into real life is when a group of left-leaning public health professionals, who often took a bullying approach during Twitter’s Blue Period, went out of their way to rationalize mass protests after George Floyd was murdered in 2020. Personally, I think it was perfectly fine to join in on these protests; political expression is important (and these protests were usually outdoors and masked). But I also think a lot of other things, like sending your children to school or visiting your dying relatives in the hospital, would have risen to this threshold also, and this group specifically used their credentials to endorse the Floyd protests after having campaigned for those other activities to be prohibited.
Indeed, this controversy recently resurfaced on Bluesky. After Brian Schatz, the Democratic senator from Hawaii, wrote sympathetically in response to a Sean Trende tweet that recalled the hypocrisy of endorsing the protests, he and other “Dem elected/staff/consultants” were blamed on the platform for being “awash in right-wing brainrot.”
The third essential characteristic: Catastrophism
Humorless, scoldy neuroticism, often rationalized by the view that one must be on “war footing” because the world is self-evidently in crisis. Sublimation of personal anxiety as a substitute for political activism or material solutions to the crisis, with expressions of weariness and pessimism signaling virtue and/or savviness.
Although the first two characteristics already limit the appeal of Blueskyism, this makes it worse. Even people who might otherwise be sympathetic to Bluesky have noticed how impossible it is to get away with a joke on the platform, one of the things that X sometimes13 still has going for it. The Bernie-era, Chapo Trap House strain of left-wing discourse also at least had a caustic if sometimes juvenile humor streak. Blueskyism does not.
Instead, the prevailing Blueskyist attitude is often something like this — that we’re in the midst of a “late stage capitalist hellscape” and that you have to be “delusional” to have any amount of hope or optimism”.
Most people outside of Bluesky don’t think like this. Although literally almost zero Democrats are happy with the state of the country, overwhelming majorities of Americans are happy with how their personal lives are going and are able to compartmentalize politics away or recognize that other things matter in life, too.
Conclusion: “A subculture like Blueskyism that sees depression as a rational and even virtuous response is going to select for a lot of miserable people. And misery likes company. So the Blueskyists gather in a corner, exchanging tales of woe, while the rest of us slink away.”
Though there is the usual Silver hemming, hawing and sifting things into ever-finer categories (not to mention his willful denial that “wokeness” is an actual thing, despite so carefully delineating some of its most central characteristics, and his dismissal of the Twitter Files), it’s still worth reading the whole thing. (Hat tip: Instapundit.)
Rich Hamas honchos throught they could hang out safe in Qatar while their footsoldiers died in Gaza. Wrong.
Israel carried out a strike on senior Hamas leaders in Qatar’s capital, Doha, on Tuesday afternoon.
Qatar quickly accused Israel of “reckless” behaviour and breaking international law after the attack on a residential premises in the city.
The Israel Defense Forces claimed to have targeted those “directly responsible for the brutal October 7 massacre”.
Snip.
According to the Israeli military, it conducted a “precise strike” targeted at Hamas senior leaders in Qatar using “precise munitions”.
Israeli media says the operation involved 15 Israeli fighter jets, firing 10 munitions against a single target.
Qatar has hosted Hamas’s political bureau since 2012 and has played a key role in facilitating indirect negotiations between the group and Israel since the 7 October attacks.
Hamas said members of the group’s negotiating delegation in Doha were targeted but survived the strike. However Hamas said six others, including a Qatari security official, were killed.
According to Hamas, those killed were:
Humam Al-Hayya (Abu Yahya) – son of chief negotiator al-Hayya
Jihad Labad (Abu Bilal) – director of al-Hayya’s office
Abdullah Abdul Wahid (Abu Khalil)
Moamen Hassouna (Abu Omar)
Ahmed Al-Mamluk (Abu Malik)
Corporal Badr Saad Mohammed Al-Humaidi – Qatari internal security forces
“Trump is enjoying his highest approval rating of either term right now according to a DailyMail/J.L. Partners poll. He’s sitting at a solid 55% approval rating.”
Once again, the Supreme Court has stepped in to prevent a rogue district judge from hamstringing the executive branch in performing core executive functions under Donald Trump. And once again, the Court’s conservative majority has dispatched this order without explanation, over an angry and overwrought dissent from the Court’s liberals. This time, however, Justice Brett Kavanaugh stepped up to explain what was going on.
The Court’s order this morning in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo stayed an August 1 order by district judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong-
That name sounds like it came out of a Monty Python skit.
-of the Central District of California, a Biden appointee and former Obama Justice Department official. The order will thus have no effect unless and until the Ninth Circuit rules in the case — perhaps only a brief reprieve, given that the Ninth Circuit previously declined to stay Judge Frimpong’s initial temporary restraining order in the case.
The crux of the case is whether the government may stop individuals in Los Angeles on suspicion of being illegal immigrants on the basis of four factors: “(i) presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does; (iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent noted that the order attempted to enjoin Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) only from stops based solely on those four criteria, but as Kavanaugh noted, there are inherent problems in the judiciary trying to prospectively micromanage law enforcement in such fashion: “Even if the Government had a policy of making stops based on the factors prohibited by the District Court, immigration officers might not rely only on those factors if and when they stop [the lawsuit’s named] plaintiffs in the future,” and “the District Court’s injunction threatens contempt sanctions against immigration officers who make brief investigative stops later found by the court to violate the injunction. The prospect of such after-the-fact judicial second-guessing and contempt proceedings will inevitably chill lawful immigration enforcement efforts. . . . Judges are not appointed to make those policy calls.” As Kavanaugh added, particular plaintiffs do not have standing to enjoin the government in advance from stops that may or may not involve them and may or may not, depending on the circumstances, violate the Fourth Amendment.
The Department of Homeland Security launched Operation Midway Blitz on Monday to combat the influx of illegal immigration Chicago has seen under Democratic Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker.
DHS said that the program was created in honor of Katie Abraham, a college student who was struck and killed by a Guatemalan national in a drunk driving hit-and-run accident in Illinois.
“DHS is launching Operation Midway Blitz in honor of Katie Abraham who was killed in Illinois by a criminal illegal alien who should have never been in our country. This operation will target the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Chicago,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “For years, Governor Pritzker and his fellow sanctuary politicians released Tren de Aragua gang members, rapists, kidnappers, and drug traffickers on Chicago’s streets — putting American lives at risk and making Chicago a magnet for criminals.”
During Joe Biden’s term, an estimated 233,000 unaccompanied children crossed the border and were completely lost.
The Trump admin has now found 22,638 of these children.
But many of them have suffered unbelievable horrors:
John Fabbricatore, HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement senior advisor, said to Fox News:
We found children who have been raped. We’re talking about debt bondage, where children are being made to work off debt, trafficking debt. We’re talking about children that were brought into situations and then treated like sexual slaves.
So far, 27 of the children Biden lost have been found dead, often from murder or drug overdose.
Children are in horrific environments, just environments that they should not be in, where the sponsor is a heroin dealer and that child winds up dying of a heroin overdose.
Iryna Zarutska was a 23-year-old Ukrainian who fled the war in her country for Charlotte, North Carolina.
Over the weekend, police released video of her being stabbed in the neck by a violent career criminal.
Iryna got on the train, sat down, and immediately went “condition white” (looking at her phone without paying attention to her surroundings).
Let this be a reminder that, if you’re in public, you need situational awareness at all times.
In the blink of an eye, her throat was slashed and she was bleeding out over the floor of the train.
Despite the horror of the crime, the media has remained ostensibly quiet.
The lack of any mention whatsoever of Iryna Zarutska’s murder despite her being a Ukrainian refugee reminds me of USAID’s call for media organizations to “collaborate” and “agree policies on strategic silence.” https://t.co/AkH4dxxrjtpic.twitter.com/nK6NbqvV4j
The optics are incredibly awful for the entire Democratic Party machine.
The brutal killing of Iryna Zarutska (Ukrainian refugee) on a commuter train in North Carolina highlights not only the willingness of leftist corporate media to cover up news stories that jeopardize their woke narratives but also the broader failure of so-called criminal justice reform, which appears to have shockingly backfired and become a major public safety threat. Adding to the mounting outrage, a leftist magistrate judge released the schizophrenic monster on cashless bail (before he killed Zarutska) – another failure point. And then there’s this: far-left nonprofits accelerated the push for disastrous criminal justice reforms.
It’s now widely known that Decarlos Brown Jr., 34, Zarutska’s killer, had been previously arrested 14 times in North Carolina for crimes ranging from assault to firearms possession, and whose own mother admitted he was schizophrenic and should never have been allowed back on the streets, was recently released on cashless bail (before he killed Zarutska) by a progressive magistrate judge despite a two-decade violent crime spree.
But the failures don’t stop with local leftist politicians and rogue progressive judges (or magistrate judges) who embrace woke and enabled criminal justice reform from hell. They extend much deeper – into the shadowy world of the dark-money-funded nonprofit industrial complex, which poured millions of dollars into Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, to push for “reducing the jail population.”
“Another factor in the death of Iryna Zarutska on Charlotte’s light rail–the left-wing MacArthur Foundation giving Mecklenburg county a $3.3 million grant to reduce the jail population. Specifically as part of racial equity aims,” Daily Wire’s Megan Basham wrote on X.
Basham noted, “Like Soros’ Open Society, the MacArthur Foundation incentivizes local municipalities to make residents less safe by leaving threats like Decarlos Brown on the streets.”
[Yordanis] Cobos-Martinez has a prior criminal history of:
False imprisonment in CA (unknown disposition)
Indecency with a child in Texas (dismissed)
Grand theft of vehicle in Florida (dismissed)
Carjacking & false imprisonment in CA (acquitted on carjacking, convicted of false imprisonment).
Disturbing surveillance video shows Cobos-Martinez allegedly kicking and picking up the victim’s severed head in the motel parking lot as it drips blood…
“Russian Oil Tanker in Primorsk Set on Fire by Drones & Smolensk Oil Depot Hit.” Primorsk is a good 1,000km from the Ukrainian border, up near Finland.
The Trump administration announced Wednesday that an unprecedented law enforcement operation has busted a Chinese-based fentanyl drug and money laundering conspiracy, resulting in charges against 22 Chinese nationals, four Chinese pharmaceutical companies and three U.S. citizens.
FBI Director Kash Patel described Operation Box Cutter as a “first-of-its-kind” law enforcement action targeting the threat posed to the American public by China-manufactured precursor chemicals used in the production of fentanyl.
“We’re done playing whack-a-mole,” he said during a press conference in Cincinnati, Ohio.
“We didn’t arrest a couple of people. We charged an enterprise-wide system in mainland China to include dozens of individuals and banks and companies that are responsible for making these lethal precursors and shipping them here.”
The Dayton, Ohio, grand jury five-count indictment unsealed Wednesday focuses on a Tipp City, Ohio, resident, 39-year-old Eric Michael Payne.
At this rate, with President Donald Trump being one of the most decisive presidents in history, statistics show that his endorsement could undoubtedly lead a candidate to victory.
As Ian Vallencillo, commissioner of Sweetwater, Florida, told the Washington Examiner, Trump is one of “the most popular political figures,” stating that voters “overwhelmingly support Trump’s picks.”
At this rate, with President Donald Trump being one of the most decisive presidents in history, statistics show that his endorsement could undoubtedly lead a candidate to victory.
As Ian Vallencillo, commissioner of Sweetwater, Florida, told the Washington Examiner, Trump is one of “the most popular political figures,” stating that voters “overwhelmingly support Trump’s picks.”
The commissioner is right.
Candidates endorsed by Trump have lost, but very rarely. Former Republican North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson conceded his gubernatorial election against an incumbent after receiving Trump’s approval, partly over a scandal that engulfed the news cycle days before the election.
Similarly, former presidential candidate and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) lost his reelection bid, over years of controversy, anti-Trump skepticism, and a failure to get the Republican Party in the White House in 2012.
During the 2024 federal and gubernatorial election cycles, Trump endorsed 306 candidates. Eighty-nine percent of those candidates now occupy the office they ran for. In the 2022 election cycle, Trump endorsed 195 candidates, 83% of whom were sworn in to office a few months later.
One of those key endorsements includes the key race of Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA), who unseated a longtime incumbent, former Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, by a 0.5% margin.
Similarly, in the same election cycle, Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) won his Senate race against former Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, who had been in office since 2007.
The year before that, after former California GOP Rep. Kevin McCarthy resigned from Congress in 2023 following a motion for him to step down as speaker of the House from a Trump-endorsed representative, California Assemblyman Vince Fong was elected soon after receiving the nod from the president.
Similarly, Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), who was challenged by a local Democratic advocate, won his third term soon after Trump endorsed him.
The latest scandal involves a web of shell companies, family members on mysterious payrolls, and taxpayer money that somehow found its way into campaign coffers. Multiple federal agencies are now investigating what appears to be a deliberate scheme to circumvent campaign finance laws through a maze of LLCs and nonprofits. The numbers are staggering: millions in taxpayer funds allegedly embezzled, hundreds of thousands in unreported campaign contributions, and a trail of financial breadcrumbs leading through family businesses.
The politician at the center of this storm? Democratic Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida.
Cherfilus-McCormick had won her seat after campaigning against the corruption of her predecessor, Alcee Hastings.
Today, Cherfilus-McCormick finds herself drowning in exactly the kind of investigations she once condemned. The Federal Election Commission has launched a formal probe into her campaign’s alleged violations, while the Office of Congressional Ethics has found “probable cause” that she accepted illegal campaign contributions. The schemes are breathtaking in their audacity: her husband and sister-in-law running an LLC that funneled $725,000 through a nonprofit that then paid her campaign vendors. A political consultant with direct access to these funds, making payments on her behalf while she pretended not to know.
But here’s where my blood really starts to boil. Before entering Congress, Cherfilus-McCormick was CEO of Trinity Health Care Services, a family company that received a $5 million “overpayment” from Florida’s emergency services department – supposedly due to a misplaced decimal point. Instead of immediately returning the taxpayer money, investigators allege she began moving it between family businesses, including companies where she held major stakes. The state had to sue to get its money back.
As expected. “James Talarico Launches Democrat Bid for U.S. Senate. Talarico has positioned himself as one of the more left-wing voices in the Texas Legislature.”
Remember how Adam Carolla said the Palisades fire would used as an excuse for a land grab by the Democrats running Los Angeles and California? Guess what? “Iconic Malibu restaurant is told it can’t rebuild after Palisades Fire.”
An Alpha News reporter participated in a ride-along with ICE agents during the arrest. Wilson Tindi, a Kenya native, pled guilty to sexually assaulting a sleeping woman in Minneapolis in 2014 after breaking into her home. A judge ordered Tindi to be deported, but a federal judge later overturned this ruling. ICE released him after 18 months.
After his release, Tindi became a chief audit officer at Minnesota’s education department. He was later fired after his past became known, raising questions about how he was ever hired in the first place.
Among the most high-profile and controversial legislation passed was a handful of social issue bills — in particular, one establishing civil cause of action against chemical abortion pill providers, and another separating publicly-funded private spaces by biological sex. The former came with its fair share of backdoor negotiations and amendments before it was successfully carried through both chambers, as was the case for multiple priorities of Abbott’s.
One issue which faced an untimely end in the Legislature was the attempted regulation of hemp-derived THC products. Ultimately, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R-Lubbock), and Abbott were unable to reach an agreement on Wednesday.
Collateral damage from the death of print magazines. “Publishers Clearing House Winners Say They Are No Longer Receiving Their Lifetime Payments.”
It seems that some leftwing Texas school nurses are practicing malicious compliance.
Texas Education Agency Updates First Aid Guidelines After Controversy Over Withheld Medical Care
The TEA updated their guidance to allow schools to provide “first aid” without parental consent.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) has released updated guidelines for how Texas public schools should approach the implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 12, known as the “Parent Bill of Rights,” after recent reports of school nurses not providing first aid to students.
One aspect of SB 12 that caused distress and confusion among lawmakers, parents, and schools alike is the requirement for school districts to receive documentation of notice and consent from parents for their child to receive “medical, psychiatric, and psychological treatment.”
State Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Allen) posted a letter on social media he had sent to TEA Commissioner Mike Morath last week regarding “concerns with the implementation” of SB 12 after reports of how “some school districts are taking an ‘all or nothing’ approach” to the new policy requirements, which has resulted in “band-aids” and “ice packs” being withheld from children.
Following the publication of the letter, which was also signed by the bill author state Sen. Brandon Creighton (R-Conroe), reports of children not being treated for certain “general care” services began being made public.
“After a thorough review was conducted of the video recordings of the statements, it became clear to me that their actions amounted to serious professional and personal misconduct,” Texas State University President Kelly Damphousse stated late Wednesday. “Conduct that advocates for inciting violence is directly contrary to the values of Texas State University. I cannot and will not tolerate such behavior.”
“As a result, I have determined that their actions are incompatible with their responsibilities as a faculty member at Texas State University,” Damphousse continued. “Effective immediately, their employment with Texas State University has been terminated.”
Damphousse was referring to Tom Alter, who was previously an associate professor of history at Texas State.
Alter had been exposed making comments calling for the overthrow of the U.S. government.
The European Commission has suffered a major defeat in court over its plans to make large tech platforms pay it to enforce the Digital Services Act.
Meta and ByteDance’s TikTok took the European Commission to court after it presented them with a “supervisory fee” equal to 0.05 per cent of their yearly global net income. The bill was to cover the EU executive’s expenses in monitoring their compliance with the Digital Services Act.
The Digital Services Act (DSA) gives the European Commission oversight of very large online platforms and search engines—ones with more than 45 million EU users a year. To fund this oversight, the Commission has said it will charge these providers an annual fee, based on their average monthly users.
The Commission adopted rules saying how it would set these fees on 2 March 2023. The next month, on 25 April, it classified Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok as very large platforms. That November, it finalised the 2023 fees for each.
In two decisions 10 September, the Court of Justice of the EU determined the Commission’s supervisory fees on Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok were void for procedural grounds.
To set the 2023 fees, the Commission decided to calculate each platform’s average monthly users using a methodology based on third-party data it attached to each decision.
However, the Court ruled that this methodology for calculating fees should have been established through a delegated act–a process which involves the European Parliament and Council.
The judges said it was incorrect for the European Commission to determine the fees using implementing decisions it devised on its own authority alone.
Jay Leno’s star power wasn’t enough to persuade a California legislative committee to pass a measure to allow owners of classic cars like him to be exempted from the state’s rigorous smog-check requirements.
The Assembly Appropriations Committee on Friday blocked Bakersfield Republican Sen. Shannon Grove’s Senate Bill 712 from advancing for a full vote. Leno had testified in support of the measure in Sacramento earlier this year.
The committee’s members and its powerful Democratic chairperson, Assemblymember Buffy Wicks of Oakland, did not provide a reason for killing the bill during Friday’s hearing, which quickly and with little fanfare announced the fate of 260 other bills that had been placed on the committee’s so-called “suspense file.” Seventy other bills also were killed without explanation.
The Senate and Assembly’s appropriations committees, which both met Friday and rejected hundreds of bills, are supposed to be the gatekeepers for bills proposing to spend taxpayer money. But the committees’ suspense files are where hundreds of politically touchy bills die quietly each year with only a few insiders knowing the real reasons.
Random meme stolen from Facebook:
So I don’t think I’ll be watching all of the Joe Rogan podcasts with Carrot Top or Charlie Sheen, but I suspect I’ll be watching snippets from them, and felt I should make you aware of their existence…
For some reason, all three Top Gear/Grand Tour presents have decided they need to come out with their own gin.
Ten musical pieces you know, but not the names of. I already knew a good number, but a few were new, and a couple of others I didn’t know under their original language name.
Victor Davis Hanson has some insightful thoughts on how the radical left has destroyed the Democrats.
“They don’t have any political power. They’ve lost the House. They’ve lost the Senate. They do not have the White House and they don’t have the Supreme Court. They do have the lower courts, but they can ultimately be overturned by the Supreme Court.”
“And more importantly, they set certain precedents, Obama’s use of executive orders, for example, that are very convenient for a powerful Republican president like Trump.”
“So, they’re frustrated that they can’t affect anything politically. And then they thought they could use extra legal methods.”
“So they raided Mar-a-Largo. They had 93 criminal indictments in, if you count E. Jean Carroll’s crazy suit. Five different courtrooms. 25 states were trying to get him off the ballot. They impeached him twice his first term. They tried him as a private citizen. Two assassination attempts and he’s a Nietzschean character that it just made him stronger. The more they tried to destroy him, the stronger.”
“They tried to destroy him and in the process they destroyed institutions. They were willing to do that by waging lawfare. We’ve never seen any of those things I just mentioned, raiding a president’s house, ex-president’s house, or trying to remove a major candidate of one of the parties from the ballot, but it all failed and now they have no political power.”
“So then the question is why are they why did they get in this position? And I think the answer is that they became the party of the subsidized poor, and the very upper upper middle class professional classes and the billionaire class, 9 trillion market capitalization in Silicon Valley. The Zuckerbergs, Soros, all those people and Bloomberg, all of them. And the reason was, I think, they thought that globalization, that enriched the two coasts, who had global skills, you know they had a market suddenly of 6 billion people, with media, law, investment, hedge funds, universities.”
“And then the people in the middle, who were muscular, and lost out on manufacturing assembly, resource exploitation, oil, gas, those type of workers [were] offshored or outsourced. They they created a kind of a narrative: ‘We’re the smart people. That’s why we’re wealthy. That’s why San Francisco and LA in the ’90s and the early century of the, 21st are so much better than you people.'”
“‘And that’s why the people in the East Coast are so much better. And you people are clinging and deplorables and irredeemables and chumps and drags and most lately garbage, because we’re the winners.'”
“‘And now that we’ve won and we’re affluent, we’re not subject to the consequences of our ideology, we can use you as lab rats. So we’ll try transgender on you. We’ll try the New Green Deal. We’ll have solar, wind mandates. We don’t care what the kilowatt price is. We don’t care what gas prices are because we’re protected by our wealth and our degrees and our zip codes.’ And that changed the Democratic party.”
“If you go back in ’92 and ’96 and look at their convention statements under Clinton, my God, they’re to the right almost of Republicans. ‘We’ve got to close the border. Illegal immigration has to end. We have to deport people. Juveniles who commit crime should be tried as adult. We need more police officers. We need to balance the budget.’ That was the Clinton response to McGovernism and Carterism.”
“What I’m getting at is that this demographic change, or this economic or financial change, made it a party of, ‘Well, we don’t have any popular middle class anymore. We don’t want them. All we need to do is open the borders, subsidize the poor, subsidize the non-white, and concentrate on the power of money to influence the media. And the order of your Google searches will be affected. We have insidious ways of retaining power without popularity.'”
“And somebody came along and beat them at their own game. And that was Trump, who was a master of the media, who was a master of alternate media, popular culture. And that creates a lot of frustration on their part as well. They thought that they were transforming to NetZero world, Green New Deal, DEI. It wasn’t just DEI or affirmative action. There was a new, vitriolic, anti-white [ideology].”
“And all of that was going to be institutionalized, and that was part of the new Democratic Party, and Trump came along and said ‘I don’t think most people like this stuff, and I’m going to find out who they are that don’t like it. I’m going to get him out to vote.’ And it was very hard in 2016 and 2020, but he learned.”
“And final thing is maybe the best thing was that he did lose 2020, because he learned in those wilderness years exactly how the the left got power and how to neutralize it. And then when he came back in, he said, ‘I’m going to appoint people on my ideological turf. It’s not going to be any more of these first term people. And I’m going to actually appoint people who have been victims of the very agency they’re going to run like a Kash Patel or Tulsi Gabbard or Jay Bhattacharya, so I can trust them.'”
“And it’s been a remarkable first 8 months how effective he’s been. And I thought by now he’d be pulling 30%, given the magnitude of the counterrevolution. But it’s just amazing what he’s been doing.”
“It reminds me so much of the Thermidorian Reaction to the Jacobans. You know the Robespierre brothers were put out of business by a counterrevolution, and they were exactly like the left. We have 1619, they had Year Zero. Our people are secularist or atheist or agnostics; Vatio* was going to be their Supreme Deity, Reason.”
Trump is much better prepared for his second term than his first. “They must have studied the left, chapter and verse, because they really know how to push their buttons. And maybe one of the legacies of Donald Trump, besides his positive contributions, will be he had an unique, uncanny ability to make the Democrats expose themselves in a way that they really are. And it’s very repulsive and off-putting to the public.”
As usual, VDH is succinct, insightful and accurate.
*Not sure YouTube’s automatic translation has this one quite right.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has signed into law a Republican plan to make the state’s congressional district map “more red” ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
“Today, I signed the One Big Beautiful Map into law,” Abbott announced in a Friday afternoon video post on X.
The Republican redistricting plan adds five new GOP-opportunity congressional districts.
Republicans currently hold 25 of the state’s 38 U.S. House seats.
Recent legal decisions cleared the way for Texas Republicans to redraw district boundaries based on partisan political performance and increase the party’s advantage in future elections to reflect voting shifts seen in 2024, when President Donald Trump won support from unprecedented numbers of minority voters.
To explicate those “recent legal decisions” for readers coming into this story tableau rasa: Democrats launched the Petteway v. Galveston County lawsuit trying to save one Galveston County commissioner’s seat, whereupon the Supreme Court ruled that those black/Hispanic coalition minority districts carved out to benefit the Democratic Party were unconstitutional. So Democrats have hoist themselves on their own petard, and nobody should have the slightest bit of sympathy for them.
Abbott said the new map “ensures fairer representation.”
The governor also thanked “all of the legislature who stayed in the Capitol and got this law to my desk.”
Texas lawmakers passed the Republican redistricting plan last week on party-line votes, after House Democrats delayed the inevitable by breaking quorum for two weeks.
Thrice Democrats have used the quorum break tactic in an effort to thwart redistricting, and thrice they have failed. Other than vainglorious virtue signaling, you wonder what they get out of the tactic and why they keep deploying it.
“Texas is now more red in the United States Congress,” said Abbott after signing the measure, known as House Bill 4.
Several Democrat-aligned groups filed legal challenges to the new congressional map before it was signed into law.
Organizations suing include the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and the Mexican American Legislative Caucus (MALC). A group of Texas residents is also suing.
Plaintiffs claim the new map is racially gerrymandered to eliminate majority-minority districts required by the Voting Rights Act, unconstitutionally diluting the voting strength of minority voters, and is “intentionally discriminatory.”
The author and sponsor of HB 4, State Rep. Todd Hunter (R–Corpus Christi) and State Sen. Phil King (R–Weatherford), assured lawmakers that the map is “legal under all applicable law” and meets the requirements of “one person, one vote” and compactness.
Both Hunter and King repeatedly emphasized that the new district lines were drawn based on partisan political performance, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled permissible, not racial data.
State Sen. Adam Hinojosa (R–Corpus Christi) said the map represents a political shift in the state, including South Texas, which he represents.
“This is not a racial shift. This is a values shift, and no amount of shouting ‘racism’ is going to change that,” argued Hinojosa on the Senate floor.
Despite all the talk of lawsuits, Democrats are already announcing which of the new districts they’ll be running for, and the chances of lawsuits overturning them, the occasional rogue judge notwithstanding, would seem to be extremely slim. Indeed, the Supreme Court seems more likely to sweep away all creaky Voting Rights Act considerations of race as unconstitutional than to toss districts drawn in a colorblind manner aside because they don’t elect enough Democrats.
For those unaware of her, Taylor Lorenz is a crazy, left-wing social justice activist masquerading as a journalist, as well as an accused lizard person.
In a private group chat in June, dozens of Democratic political influencers discussed whether to take advantage of an enticing opportunity. They were being offered $8,000 per month to take part in a secretive program aimed at bolstering Democratic messaging on the internet.
But the contract sent to them from Chorus, the nonprofit arm of a liberal influencer marketing platform, came with some strings. Among other issues, it mandated extensive secrecy about disclosing their payments and had restrictions on what sort of political content the creators could produce.
In their group chat, influencers debated the details.
“Should we send a joint email (with all of our email addresses) … or, are we just going to send things separately and hope they change everything for everyone?”
Laurenzo, a nonbinary creator in Columbus, Ohio, with over 884,000 TikTok followers, asked the group.
Some joked about collective bargaining. “Any Newsies fans here?” Eliza Orlins, a public defender and reality TV star known for her appearances on Survivor, posted in the group. “‘We’re a union just by sayin’ so!’”
The influencers in the chat collectively had at least 13 million followers across social platforms. They represented some of the most well-known voices online posting in support of Democrats, and they’re key to wherever the party moves next. But ultimately, the group didn’t make much progress.
“Reading through this revised Chorus contract like: you win some, you lose some,” a reproductive justice influencer named Pari, who posts under the handle @womeninamerica, responded later in the thread. “I also think there’s at least 4 other things that should change 🤣but the vibe I got from their email was that there would be minimal, if any, changes.” (Laurenzo, Orlins, and Pari did not reply to requests for comment.)
“I don’t feel strongly about pushing tbh,” Aaron Parnas, a Gen Z news influencer who has been called the Gen Z Walter Cronkite and has been lauded in legacy media outlets, posted to the chat. “They aren’t going to modify it anymore. Seems like a take it or leave it.” (Parnas declined to comment.)
A search for “the Gen Z Walter Cronkite” only turns up links to the Lorenz piece, so let’s slap a big old [[citation needed]] on this claim.
“I believe we are in Stage 5: Acceptance,” Pari responded. Creators began signing on to the deal.
For years, Democrats have struggled to work with influencers. In 2024, President Joe Biden’s White House snubbed several prominent content creators after they lightly criticized the administration over its policies on climate change, Covid, Gaza, and the TikTok ban. Content creators who challenged Kamala Harris—including Hasan Piker, a well-known influencer on the left—were similarly unwelcome at campaign events.
After the Democrats lost in November, they faced a reckoning. It was clear that the party had failed to successfully navigate the new media landscape. While Republicans spent decades building a powerful and robust independent media infrastructure, maximizing controversy to drive attention and maintaining tight relationships with creators despite their small disagreements with Trump, the Democrats have largely relied on outdated strategies and traditional media to get their message out.
Mild correction: While there are some “independent media outlets” on the right that were born as “Republican” projects (National Review, Town Hall, etc.), the vast majority of “independent media outlets” were born of the efforts of a host of individuals with multitudes of individual agendas (or no agenda at all) that coalesced into a battleswarm (to not coin a phrase) to combat the disasterous direction the Democrats were taking the country. And they were later joined by a host of not-Republican figures (Joe Rogan, Bret Weinstein, etc.) who thought they were on the left but had to step up in reaction to the disasterous infection of social justice on the left.
Just for the record, I am unaware of any similar program on the right, and I have never received a dime from any Republican group or program, only PayPal donations from individual readers.
Now, Democrats hope that the secretive Chorus Creator Incubator Program, funded by a powerful liberal dark money group called The Sixteen Thirty Fund, might tip the scales. The program kicked off last month, and creators involved were told by Chorus that over 90 influencers were set to take part. Creators told WIRED that the contract stipulated they’d be kicked out and essentially cut off financially if they even so much as acknowledged that they were part of the program. Some creators also raised concerns about a slew of restrictive clauses in the contract.
The goal of Chorus, according to a fundraising deck obtained by WIRED, is to “build new infrastructure to fund independent progressive voices online at scale.” The creators who joined the incubator are expected to attend regular advocacy trainings and daily messaging check-ins. Those messaging check-ins are led by Cohen on “rapid response days.” The creators also have to attend at least two Chorus “newsroom” events per month, which are events Chorus plans, often with lawmakers.
Elizabeth Dubois, an assistant professor and university research chair in politics, communication, and technology at the University of Ottawa who has researched the ways influencers are reshaping the US political system, says that “we are seeing influencers being pulled into these dark campaigns or shadow campaigns, where the legal aspect is murky at best.”
“Sometimes it is actually clear that influencers are being used to, for example, evade spending limits,” she says. “I think that we need to remember that for democracy to thrive, we do need transparency around who is paying for political messages.”
Snip.
In 2018, The Sixteen Thirty Fund provided $141 million to more than 100 left-leaning causes in order to bolster Democratic support during the midterms, according to a tax filing obtained by Politico. In 2020, the fund distributed more than $400 million, according to the organization’s public tax filing, which Politico said was used in “efforts to unseat then-president Donald Trump and Republicans’ Senate majority.” In 2022, The Sixteen Thirty Fund spent $196 million backing state ballot measures on abortion rights heading into the midterms, according to NBC. Just four donors accounted for close to two-thirds of the fund’s revenue in 2023, according to its tax filing. The largest donor gave the group $50.5 million, with others donating $31.4 million, $21.8 million, and $13.6 million.
“The Sixteen Thirty Fund, which is not required to disclose its contributors, has for years been a major funding source for liberal and progressive causes and groups, including those that spend in elections,” says Walker Davis, a research director for the open-government group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Though their recent tax returns indicate that they have pulled back from the eye-popping sums they raised and spent in 2020, the organization is still one of the top-spending politically oriented nonprofits in the country.”
Chorus, which is described in contracts reviewed by WIRED as a “project of” The Sixteen Thirty Fund that handles operations for the creator program, launched in November 2024 as a nonprofit arm of Good Influence, a for-profit influencer marketing agency aimed at helping content creators connect with social-good campaigns. Good Influence was founded in October 2020 by Stuart Perelmuter, the former communications director for representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky. Seeing an opportunity after Kamala Harris’ loss last November, Perelmuter cofounded Chorus with Democratic influencer Brian Tyler Cohen, who has over 4.6 million subscribers on YouTube and leads messaging check-ins for the creator cohort on “rapid response days.” According to records reviewed by WIRED, Chorus claims that its initial creator cohort has a collective audience of more than 40 million followers with more than 100 million weekly viewers and that the organization has “hundreds of creators signed up” and “ready to amplify” messaging.
Why come up with your own opinions when shadowy dark money groups are willing to secretly slip you cash to become another mouthpiece to do The Will Of The Party?
And now you know that a whole lot of “independent” leftwing “influencers” can be bought for the low, low price of $8000.
Following redistricting, a whole lot of 2026 races are heating up, so let’s do a Texas election news roundup.
Following Rep. Chip Roy’s entry into the Attorney General’s race, Sen. Ted Cruz and current AG Ken Paxton have issued dueling endorsements.
The early favorite for the most interesting 2026 race in Texas is the campaign for the state’s attorney general, and two new endorsements have ramped the intrigue up to 11.
Four candidates are vying for the spot: state Sens. Joan Huffman (R-Houston) and Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston), former Department of Justice appointee Aaron Reitz, and Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX-21).
Last week, Roy jumped into the race after a couple months of speculation — the same day that polling showed 73 percent undecided in the then-three person field.
Middleton remains far and away the frontrunner on the money front, being able to self-fund with an initial $10 million investment — and the intent to put another $10 million in if need be. He also has the backing of a large number of Republicans in the Texas House, where he served two terms before winning his Senate seat.
But each of the candidates has their own competitive advantages, making the race one of the most interesting to watch in the state so far.
Over the weekend, two established GOP figures broke their impartiality in the race and endorsed competing candidates. First, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) backed Roy, his former chief of staff, saying, “There are several excellent candidates right now in the race for Texas Attorney General. All of them are friends of mine, and all of them have been strong supporters of mine for many, many years. Texas is blessed to have an abundance of strong conservatives stepping forward to lead, in such a time as this.”
“I am proud to endorse Chip Roy for Attorney General of Texas. As my very first chief of staff, Chip has been a close friend and ally of mine for over 12 years. We have been in more fights together than I can count, and I know Chip will always, always, always fight for conservative values.”
Reitz, whose campaign had picked up serious momentum since he launched in June, had served as Cruz’s chief of staff before taking a job in the Department of Justice under the second Trump administration earlier this year. The former Cruz staffer had also been seriously considering running for Roy’s congressional seat in light of the congressman’s entry into the attorney general race.
But Reitz decided to stay in, and unloaded his own top shelf endorsement on Monday. “One of the most frequent questions Texans ask me is: ‘Ken, who should succeed you as Attorney General?’ My answer is now definitive: Aaron Reitz,” Paxton said in a press release.
“Aaron Reitz is the only candidate who is fully vetted, battle-tested, proven, and ready to be Attorney General. He is loyal, fearless, trusted, and relentlessly committed to the Rule of Law. He has already proven himself as a defender of Texas, of Texans’ rights, and of the Constitution. That’s why President Trump called him a ‘true MAGA attorney’ and a ‘warrior for our Constitution’ — and I could not agree more.”
Cruz isn’t the only one who endorsed Roy in the race, as Gun Owners of America sent out out an email endorsement that I’m not seeing on their website yet:
As a member of Congress, Chip Roy has been a steadfast ally for gun owners: he has opposed federal gun control, fought executive overreach, and stood shoulder-to-shoulder with GOA to defend your freedoms.
Chip’s record on the Second Amendment is rock solid. As a member of the powerful House Rules Committee, responsible for deciding which bills are sent to the House floor, Chip has been a brick wall to anti-gunners who aim to infringe on the Second Amendment. Chip will call out RINOs who compromise on the Second Amendment or empower the unconstitutional ATF.
Not only does Chip talk the talk, he shows it with sponsoring and cosponsoring pro-gun legislation!
Since January alone, he:
Sponsored H.R. 962 — Defending Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights Act (Prohibits VA from disarming veterans with fiduciaries)
Cosponsored H.R. 3228 — Constitutional Hearing Protection Act (Removes suppressors from the definition of firearms)
Cosponsored H.R. 1643 — SAFER Voter Act (Reduces the age to buy a handgun from an FFL from 21 to 18)
Cosponsored H.R. 1041 — Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act (Prohibits VA from disarming veterans with fiduciaries)
Cosponsored H.R. 563 — No REGISTRY Rights Act (Directs ATF to delete their illegal gun owner registry and certify to Congress that they have complied with the law)
In 2021, when Democrats attempted to insert unconstitutional red flag laws for our service members, it was Chip Roy along with key allies in Congress who prevented that from being signed into law.
The gap between Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) in the 2026 U.S. Senate race is narrowing, according to new polling from Texas Southern University.
Cornyn trails five points behind Paxton in the GOP primary, according to a poll conducted by the Barbara Jordan Public Policy Research and Survey Center at Texas Southern University — the same survey which had the senator nine points behind Paxton three months prior.
The survey polled 1,500 likely 2026 Republican primary voters and 1,500 likely 2026 Democratic primary voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.53 percent.
Various polls in the field have gauged Cornyn and Paxton in a head-to-head primary scenario, generally showing the latter to be in a comfortable lead. The Senate Leadership Fund estimates it to be about a 17-point gap, after averaging 13 polls taken over the past six months.
However, data from an Emerson College poll on Friday, alongside this most recent Texas Southern poll, paint a different picture for Cornyn’s odds. Emerson had Cornyn in the lead by one point with 30 percent, Paxton at 29 percent, “someone else” at five percent, and “undecided” at 37 percent.
Congressman Wesley Hunt (R-TX-38), who’s been flirting with a bid against Paxton and Cornyn through a number of campaign-style ads running across the state, was also measured in the poll. In a three-way matchup, Hunt collected 22 percent of the votes, contrasted with Paxton’s 35 percent and Cornyn’s 30 percent.
Congressman Ronny Jackson (R-TX-13), Hunt’s colleague who’s also lightly tested the waters, was also thrown into a three-way mix alongside Paxton and Cornyn. He garnered 15 percent of the vote, behind Cornyn’s 33 percent and Paxton’s 38 percent.
When faced against one another, Cornyn collected 43 percent of the vote against Jackson’s 35 percent. When placed against Paxton, Jackson got 33 percent while the attorney general led with 44 percent.
Hunt received 36 percent when faced against Paxton, who led with 43 percent — while 21 percent voted as “unsure.” Cornyn led with 43 percent against Hunt, while the latter received 36 percent. A similar 22 percent marked themselves as “unsure.”
Taking the usual poll caveats and triple them for a poll this far out. The caveat to the caveat is that the sample size is bigger than some previous polls, and Cornyn has been dropping media ad spends (an unusual move this early), so I can well imagine that he’s been able to close some of the gap. But all the polls have shown Paxton leading, which can’t be comforting for a four term incumbent. Remember, when Cornyn was first elected to the senate, Barack Obama was still an Illinois state senator…
Democratic Congressman Al Green, the current incumbent in the recently redistricted 9th U.S. Congressional District, is waiting for the 18th Congressional District Special Election to declare he’s running for the 18th in 2026.
Congressman Al Green (D-TX-09) has all but officially declared his candidacy for Congressional District (CD) 18, which largely holds his prior constituency following Texas’ mid-decade redistricting.
Green stated during a press conference on Tuesday afternoon that if he “made an announcement today, then there would be mass confusion about where I am. I’m serving the people of the 9th Congressional District,” after outlining how the “new” CD 18 more closely resembles his current CD 9.
“I live in the new 18 — I’m not moving into the new 18. I’ve lived in this house for more than 30 years. This is my home,” Green stated.
“So to those who say I am moving into the 18th Congressional District to run for office, not so. All I’m doing is staying where my constituents are.”
The Texas Legislature passed its new Republican-favored congressional map on August 20, following a two-week quorum break by members of the Texas House Democratic Caucus to prevent the vote. While Green’s CD 9 isn’t one of the five districts expected to flip from blue to red, as requested by President Donald Trump, a majority of CD 9 is now folded into the existing Democratic stronghold CD 18 — a move Green categorized as intentionally racist, as local Democratic lawmakers have also stated. Republicans argue that they are instead reworking the districts due to and in order to increase partisan performance.
“I have no relationships politically with the people in the new 9th Congressional District. The new 18th Congressional District is where I have my home and my constituents,” Green said.
He noted the passing of first Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee in 2024, then Lee’s successor, Congressman Sylvester Turner, this March, as well as referencing the special election which will be held in November to determine the candidate to represent CD 18.
“It’s important for people to know I’m not going to be in that special election,” Green continued.
“I’m not going to be in that special election for a multiplicity of reasons, but here is one: because if I chose to get in it, and should I win it, I would have to then vacate the 9th Congressional District.”
Finally, down in fringe candidate territory, Valentina Gomez, who is running against incumbent John Carter for the Texas 31st Congressional district, made headlines by burning a Quran, giving a whole new meaning to “hot Latinas.” Sorry, I’m just not down with book burning (not that I want her to be charged with blasphemy laws either). Democrats should be asked: Which is worse, burning a flag or burning a Quran…
A Republican plan to redraw Texas congressional districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections is on its way to the governor’s desk after passing the Senate early Saturday morning, paving the way for a shake-up in the state’s U.S. House delegation.
Senators passed the congressional redistricting plan on a party-line, 18-11 vote, following hours of debate and a threatened filibuster that fizzled.
The new map, drawn to improve Republican political performance, adds five new GOP-opportunity seats.
State Sen. Phil King (R–Weatherford) sponsored the redistricting plan, House Bill 4 by State Rep. Todd Hunter (R–Corpus Christi), which the House passed on Wednesday.
“The area of redistricting law is very robust and gets very complex, very quickly,” King opened Friday morning. “We’re not in a courtroom today.”
Yet throughout the day, Democrats pressed King on specific redistricting legalities and made clear they intend to challenge the map in court.
King said HB 4 is “legal under all applicable law” and meets the requirements of “one person, one vote” and compactness.
He repeatedly emphasized that the map was drawn based on partisan political performance, which the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled is permissible, not racial data.
“In contrast to the complications that are involved with race-based redistricting, political performance is really a pretty easy map to draw, and it’s absolutely permissible as a basis for drawing electoral districts,” said King.
The map flips five congressional districts from Democrat- to Republican-leaning: CD9 in Houston, CD28 in the Rio Grande Valley, CD32 in Dallas, CD34 in coastal South Texas, and CD35 in San Antonio.
I analyzed the effects of district movement on their incumbents here.
“There’s no question Democrats are not in favor of this map… because it elects more Republicans,” said King. “It was also very clear from testimony that a lot of people want us to create maps that reflect specific percentages of ethnic groups, and that’s illegal. We can’t do that.”
State Sen. Adam Hinojosa (R–Corpus Christi), the first Republican to hold Senate District 27 since Reconstruction, said the new map—which increases majority-minority voting districts—gives South Texas Hispanics “a voice that reflects their values, not outdated assumptions about race or party.”
“This is not a racial shift. This is a values shift, and no amount of shouting racism is going to change that,” said Hinojosa.
For over half a century, Democrats have used the Voting Rights Act as a tool to racially gerrymander themselves legislative majorities. More recently, Republican have flipped the script on them, concentrating minority voters in deep blue urban districts to make other districts more favorable to Republicans while fulfilling the letter of the Voting Rights Act. Then Democrats launched the Petteway v. Galveston County lawsuit trying to save one Galveston County commissioner’s seat, whereupon the Supreme Court ruled that those black/Hispanic coalition minority districts carved out to benefit the Democratic Party were unconstitutional.
Depending on only partisan affiliation date, Texas Republicans have now produced districts that are notably more compact than logical than many Democratic Party racially gerrymandered maps. Texas Republicans have garnered five additional Republican seats and helped America move closer to colorblind society. I count that as a win-win.
Trump tackles mail-in ballot fraud, the Democrat Party sinks (and sinks, and sinks), millionaires and billionaires pump money to the same lefties who decry them, a kangaroo verdict gets slapped down, a platoon of swamp creatures get smacked down, Ukrainian drones are producing gas shortages in Russia, Lebanon declares itself Iranian influence-free, a heavyweight joins the Texas AG race, Dade bows out, a neo-Nazi expertly trolls the German justice system, and Facebook’s AI wants to have sexytime with your children.
It’s the Friday LinkSwarm!
The next voting fraud vector President Trump is ready to tackle: mail-in voting fraud.
President Donald Trump has been warning for years that mail-in ballots and voting machines are riddled with vulnerabilities that invite fraud and undermine trust in elections. We’ve discussed these vulnerabilities here at PJ Media extensively, and now Trump is taking action on them. On Monday morning, President Trump announced on Truth Social that he will issue an executive order to put an end to mail-in ballots before the 2026 midterms and restore “honesty and integrity” to America’s elections.
In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump announced, “I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly ‘Inaccurate,’ Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES.” He argued that such machines cost “Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election.”
Trump said the United States stands alone in continuing to use widespread mail-in voting. “We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting. All others gave it up because of the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD ENCOUNTERED,” he wrote.
The president made clear that he intends to act quickly, pledging to use executive authority to move the plan forward. “WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,” Trump said.
Snip.
In 2021, Democrats in Congress tried to ram through a series of radical bills — the Freedom to Vote Act, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and the For the People Act — that would have federalized state elections and permanently undermined election integrity. These schemes included universal mail-in ballots, counting votes up to ten days after Election Day, automatic voter registration, granting felons the right to vote, and even laying the groundwork to abolish the Electoral College altogether. It was a brazen attempt to lock in Democrat power forever by destroying the safeguards that protect free and fair elections.
Trump’s announcement proves that election integrity will be a central priority of his presidency as the 2026 midterms approach.
Some think Trump will run into states rights issues. We’ll see…
A federal appeals court handed the Trump administration a decisive 2-1 victory Wednesday, ruling that the president can proceed with cutting nearly $2 billion in previously approved foreign aid payments. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned a lower court’s order that had required the administration to continue sending taxpayer funds abroad.
How the Working Families Party sells itself as “grassroots” — with IRS-documented, publicly admitted “common control” revealing it’s really a Soros-financed political money washer.
In New York politics, there’s one machine that towers above the rest. No, not the Democratic Party—it’s the Working Families Party, the most powerful minor party in America. Its name sounds wholesome enough—who doesn’t support “working families”? But behind that branding lies a $2 billion tax-exempt laundromat that’s anything but local, grassroots, or honest.
Take Zohran Mamdani, their current belle of the ball.
Easy answer: Zohran Mandani is the product of a grassroots washing syndicate of 501c3 and 501c4 entities funded by George Soros and Silicon Valley billionaires. He is their manufactured product.
Easy answer: Zohran Mandani is the product of a grassroots washing syndicate of 501c3 and 501c4 entities funded by George Soros and Silicon Valley billionaires. He is their manufactured product.
After winning his race, he announced on NBC: “I don’t think we should have billionaires.” Hilarious considering Mamdani’s “grassroots” revolution was fueled by over $2 million in PAC and organizational spending, much of it courtesy of the very billionaire class he allegedly opposes.
This is the theater of modern politics: denounce wealth while being powered by it. And the actors know their audience. They’ve learned that if you slap “grassroots” on the packaging, voters won’t check the label.
But let’s check it anyway.
The money trail revealed in Sam Antar’s breaking report is straightforward enough. Soros donates to the Open Society Institute, a $4.5 billion “charity” that enjoys generous tax deductions. OSI then transfers millions to other “charities” like Tides Foundation, which mysteriously claims to run a $350 million operation with zero employees. From there, the money “converts” into political cash: Tides passes funds to the Working Families Organization, a 501(c)(4), which then wires millions to PACs that bankroll candidates like Mamdani.
What you have is billionaire money dressed up in “working families” clothing, masquerading as the will of the people while being anything but.
Drawing on data from the nonpartisan data firm L2, the New York Times’s Shane Goldmacher conducted an in-depth analysis of the changes in these numbers over the past few election cycles. His findings paint a stark picture for the Democratic Party. It is in the midst of what he calls a “voter registration crisis,” with the party “hemorrhaging voters long before they even reach the polls.”
Goldmacher first looked at how these figures shifted between 2020 and 2024. In the span of four years, Democrats lost roughly 2.1 million registered voters across the 30 states and the district that track party affiliation, while the GOP gained approximately 2.4 million.
As the map below shows, Democrats fell behind in each one of these states. This includes blue states such as California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island, as well as the swing states of Arizona, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania.
NEW at NYT: The Democratic Party is facing a voter registration crisis in red, blue and battleground states alike — losing ground to the GOP everywhere.
My deep dive into the numbers and what it reveals about the party's brand.
The shift in Pennsylvania has been dramatic. In November 2020, Democrats held a registration advantage of 517,310 active voters. Today, that margin has shrunk to just 53,303.
A similar scenario has played out in North Carolina, where Democrats once enjoyed a 400,000-voter edge. Their lead now stands at less than 17,000.
Goldmacher noted that, in percentage terms, Democrats’ advantage over Republicans narrowed from nearly 11 points in 2020 to just over 6 points in 2024.
President Donald Trump was still able to win because so many Democratic votes are concentrated in deep-blue strongholds such as California and New York. By contrast, large red states such as Texas don’t allow voters to register by party affiliation — and thus aren’t reflected in the data.
In some cases, Democrats still retained an edge over Republicans (such as in Pennsylvania). But the majority of new registrations in other states, such as Florida, shifted from Democrats to the GOP. Goldmacher expects more states to follow.
Moreover, between 2018 and 2024, new young voters have shifted noticeably toward the Republican Party. In 2018, 66% of voters under 45 registered as Democrats, but by 2024 that share had fallen to just 48%.
Goldmacher reported that, last year, for the first time since 2018, new voter registrations nationwide favored Republicans over Democrats.
That was a long time ago and today Democrats’ image is significantly worse and over a wider range of cultural issues than it was back then. The animus toward the party among working-class voters has reached epic proportions and Democrats appear clueless on how to overcome that. The reigning theories seem to be talking more about economics (“kitchen table issues” or, more daringly, “abundance”), insisting they’re “fighters” and cussing a lot. Damon Linker gets to the heart of how absolutely hopeless this approach is.
[W]hat liberals need to do to defeat right-wing populism…[is] to moderate on culture. That means on policies and moral stances wrapped up with the old culture war (like trans and other gender-related issues) as well as in other areas of policy that have a strong cultural valance—like crime, immigration, and DEI. This isn’t just necessary because Democratic positions on these issues are unpopular at the moment. It’s also crucial because culture is more fundamental than politics: It sends a signal to voters about where a politician or party stands on base-level moral questions. When voters become convinced that a specific politician or party has bad (or just sufficiently different) moral judgment, they lose trust in that politician or party. And then other, more superficial policy commitments don’t matter…
The area surrounding the Texas-Arkansas border has been solidly Republican for a while, but the Biden people wanted to demonstrate that federal dollars are available to all, regardless of political leanings, and they hoped they might be able to tilt the area’s partisan alignment a bit back toward the Dems if those dollars were used to jump-start a solar-panel-construction industry in the region, creating jobs and boosting the local economy in other ways…The money arrived, but in the 2024 election, the region voted even more overwhelmingly for Donald Trump than it had in the previous two election cycles…The effort failed because the voters in Texarkana, like voters in rural and exurban communities around the country, have learned to distrust the Democrats on fundamental issues of morality and culture, making them disinclined to trust them on anything else…
The way to [reach these skeptical voters] is for the party to make an effort to distance itself from the leftward cultural stances associated with its most animated progressive activists, but also often affirmed by many millions of well-educated upper-middle-class white and often female professionals. Since people fitting this description frequently hold top jobs in the Democratic Party itself, this is a hard ask…
This, I’m convinced, is the top challenge facing liberalism and the Democratic Party today.
Exactly. This is the top challenge facing the Democrats today. Yet they are shockingly M.I.A. in dealing with it. Democrats overwhelmingly would rather do anything than do what is needed: two, three many Sister Souljah moments. Consider how Democrats have handled culturally-inflected issues since their 2024 election defeat.
Trans? A few peeps, quickly slapped down by the Groups and party activists.
Immigration? Everything Trump’s doing is wrong. We’ll only cooperate with federal law enforcement when we feel like it.
Crime? Not a problem. Everything’s going great—especially in D.C.! Democratic House leader Hakeem Jeffries: “The crime scene in D.C. most damaging to everyday Americans is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.” Trump’s turning D.C. into a police state!
Race? DEI is wonderful and we’ll defend it to our dying breath. Same thing with racial preferences. Those who oppose these policies are racists and white supremacists.
The list could go on. Using the traditional 0-10 Sister Souljah scale, where zero is doing nothing at all, 5 is barely adequate, and 10 is what Bill Clinton did, I’d give today’s Democrats a 1 for the occasional grudging admission in interviews and the like that maybe the Democrats have overdone their noble commitments a little bit (though of course their heinous opponents are 100 percent wrong). And the 1 might be generous.
Teixeira is 100% right on the problem, and on Democrats complete inability to address the problem. Sister Souljah is the Democratic Party. The insane wing is in the process of driving out the last remnants of the Corrupt Wing, the latter of which foolishly believes that actually winning elections is somehow more important than the perpetual virtue signaling festival to remind those inbred redneck freaks of JesusLand that Democrats are the Good People, and anyone who disagrees is a hetronormative racist transphobic white supremacist who must be cancelled at all costs.
Social Justice controls the ideological core of the Party hook, line and sinker. Opposing social justice is heretical #WrongThink that must be punished. Social justice warriors cannot be argued out of their convictions by logic, as logic had nothing to do with forming them. Social justice is a religious imperative, and the only way to free the party from the grip of social justice is to burn it to the ground. The Democrat Party needs to go the way of the Whigs. (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced Tuesday that she will be revoking security clearances for 37 current and former intel officials for allegedly abusing the public’s trust by manipulating information and conducting political activities.
The officials on Gabbard’s list includes former top aides to Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who was involved with a discredited intelligence assessment that claimed Russia favored once-and-current President Donald Trump to win the 2016 election over Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
Gabbard has accused the 37 officials accused of politicizing and weaponizing intelligence, failing to safeguard classified information, or other instances of failing to follow standards.
Andrew Cedar: Former Senior Director for Global Engagement at the National Security Council
Andrew P. Miller: Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli-Palestinian Affairs
Benjamin A. Cooper: Associate Scholar in the Eurasia Program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute
Beth E. Sanner: Former Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Mission Integration
Brett M. Holmgren: Former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research
Charles A. Kupchan: Professor of International Affairs at Georgetown University and former Senior Director for European Affairs at the National Security Council
Christopher Center: Former intelligence analyst and official
Corinne A. Graff: Former Senior Advisor at the United States Institute of Peace
Dipreet K. Sidhu: Former intelligence and policy official
Edward Gistaro: Former National Intelligence Officer for Europe
Emily J. Horne: Former Spokesperson and Senior Director for Press at the National Security Council
Harry Hannah: Former intelligence official
Heather R. Gutierrez: Former intelligence analyst
Jamie S. Jowers: Former intelligence and policy advisor
Jeffrey M. Prescott: Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture
Joel T. Meyer: Former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security
Joel Willett: Former CEO of Cybermedia Technologies
John W. Ficklin: Former Senior Director for Records and Access Management at the National Security Council
Julia S. Gurganus: Former National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia
Julia Santucci: Former Director for Egypt at the National Security Council
Loren DeJonge Schulman: Former Deputy Director of Studies at the Center for a New American Security
Luke R. Hartig: Former Senior Director for Counterterrorism at the National Security Council
Maher B. Bitar: Former Coordinator for Intelligence and Defense Policy at the National Security Council
Mark B. Feierstein: Former Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean at USAID
Mary Beth Goodman: Deputy Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Megan F. Doherty: Former Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Middle East at USAID
Michael P. Dempsey: Former Acting Director of National Intelligence
Perry Blatstein: Former intelligence analyst
Richard H. Ledgett: Former Deputy Director of the National Security Agency
Samantha E. Vinograd: Former Assistant Secretary for Counterterrorism and Threat Prevention at the Department of Homeland Security
Sarah S. Farnsworth: Former intelligence official
Shelby L. Pierson: Former Intelligence Community Election Threats Executive
Stephanie O’Sullivan: Former Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence
Thomas W. West: Former Special Representative for Afghanistan
Thom X. Nguyen: Former intelligence analyst
William J. Tuttle: Former intelligence official
Yael Eisenstate: Former Vice President of Global Affairs at the Anti-Defamation League
I’m including the entire list here because I think it’s important to name and shame. Also, having this posted and tagged lets me keep track when one of those swamp creatures pops up in a new role, and helps track the corruption of previously important institutions (I’m looking at you, ADL).
Speaking of swamp creatures: “Kash Patel’s FBI raids John Bolton’s home, office in probe over sending classified documents to family.” Bolton reminds me of Mark Felt, Watergate’s “Deep Throat,” in that both stabbed metaphorical knives in the President they served over being denied the influence and deference they felt they deserved. Bolton was actually a pretty good UN ambassador, where he served the useful function of scaring the shit out of America’s foreign enemies. Alas, he Peter Principled himself to National Security Advisor, where he never got on the same page with Trump’s unorthodox (but effective) diplomacy.
“LaToya Cantrell, the mayor of New Orleans, has been indicted on Federal charges….The indictment alleges that [Cantrell] and Jeffrey Paul Vappie, a member of her Executive Protection Unit (EPU), developed a personal relationship in October 2021. To conceal their relationship and maximize their time together, they allegedly created a scheme to defraud the City of New Orleans by engaging in personal activities while Vappie was on duty and being paid for providing protection.” They were canoodling on the taxpayer’s dime. (Previously: “It’s the mayor’s exorbitant travel spending that has people up in arms. She traveled to sister cities Ascona, Switzerland, and Juan Antibes-les-Pins on the French Riviera this summer, costing the City of New Orleans close to $45,000, including first-class international airfare with lie-flat seating.”)
“The Unecha pumping station which is part of the Druzhba pipeline has been hit for the second time this week by drones.” This is near to the border with Belarus.
“Unprecedented Shift In Lebanon’s Attitude Towards Iran: Our Government’s Decision To Disarm Hizbullah Stands; We Will Not Tolerate Your Intervention In Our Internal Affairs; Relations With Lebanon Must Be Conducted Via State Institutions, Not Via Hizbullah,” MEMRI, August 14, 2025:
On August 13, 2025, during his visit to Lebanon, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, heard unequivocally from Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam that Lebanon is no longer under Iranian patronage and will not tolerate Iranian dictates or interference in its internal affairs.
Larijani’s visit came amid tension between the two countries that followed the historic August 5 decision by the Lebanese government to disarm Hizbullah by the end of the year – a decision that sparked rage in Hizbullah’s patron Iran. Iranian officials, among them Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, as well as Ali Akbar Velayati, top advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and Iraj Masjedi, deputy commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Qods Force, expressed their vehement opposition to the Lebanon’s sovereign decision, claiming that it reflected not the will of the Lebanese people but only Israeli and American aspirations. These senior Iranian officials voiced support for Hizbullah’s refusal to comply with the demand to disarm, and warned that Hizbullah could thwart this plan because it had already rebuilt itself following the war with Israel and is now “at the height of its powers.” They added that Iran would support the organization in this matter.
Lebanon was quick to respond to these statements, perceiving them as direct and blatant interference in its domestic affairs. In a notable response, the Lebanese Foreign Ministry issued, unprecedentedly, not one but two harsh condemnations of “the violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty, unity, and stability.”
More condemnation and criticism came from the anti-Hizbullah and anti-Iran camp in Lebanon, which called on the Lebanese government to take diplomatic measures against Iran, such as expelling the Iranian ambassador and even severing relations with Iran, in addition to filing a complaint with the UN Security Council.
Israel’s decision to crush Iran’s terrorist catspaws continues to reap benefits across the region.
The Texas Attorney General’s race just got a major shake up.
Conservative firebrand and U.S. House Freedom Caucus member Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX-21) will run for Texas attorney general, the four-term legislator told The Texan.
“It has been my honor to represent the 21st Congressional District of Texas — the best part of the best state in the greatest country in the history of the world. I am particularly proud of our work to deliver on President Trump’s agenda and fight to drain the swamp. I could do it forever and be fulfilled professionally. But representatives should not be permanent,” Roy said in a release.
“And my experience watching Texans unite in response to the devastating Hill Country floods made clear that I want to come home. I want to take my experience in Congress, as a federal prosecutor, and as First Assistant Attorney General to fight for Texas from Texas.”
Roy’s 21st Congressional District stretches from Austin to San Antonio and west of Kerrville. During the devastating Hill Country flooding last month that killed over 130 people, Roy, who represents the area, was on the ground in the community more than most other state officials responding to the disaster.
He joins a field that includes state Sens. Mayes Middleton (R-Galveston) and Joan Huffman (R-Houston), as well as former Department of Justice appointee Aaron Reitz. Polling released by Texas Southern University on Thursday morning, which did not include Roy, put Huffman at 12 points, Middleton at eight, and Reitz at seven with nearly three-quarters of respondents undecided.
Previously Ted Cruz’s chief of staff before getting elected to congress, Roy has to be considered the immediate favorite to win the Republican nomination.
Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party stripped the party’s endorsement of radical leftist Minnesota state Sen. Omar Fateh in the Minneapolis mayoral race over “brazen cheating.” The emerging election cheating scandal hilariously occurred amongst Democrats. Awkwardly, this comes from the same party of woke leftists that insists U.S. elections are the “safest in the world” and free from manipulation. Clearly, this corrupt party that serves progressive elites – not the working class – wants a do-over in this local election.
On Thursday, Minnesota DFL chair Richard Carlbom wrote in a statement, “After a thoughtful and transparent review of the challenges, the Constitution, Bylaws & Rules Committee found substantial failures in the Minneapolis Convention’s voting process on July 19, including an acknowledgement that a mayoral candidate was errantly eliminated from contention.”
Carlbom added, “Now it’s time to turn our focus to unity and our common goal: electing DFL leaders focused on making life more affordable for Minnesotans and holding Republicans accountable for the chaos and confusion they’ve unleashed on Minnesotans.”
A series of challenges were submitted to the Minnesota DFL after last month’s convention, citing serious issues with the electronic voting system and raising questions about election integrity in Fateh’s endorsement over incumbent Jacob Frey. The Minneapolis DFL also recognized it had erroneously eliminated DeWayne Davis after the first round of voting due to 176 undercounted votes.
Funny how Democrats swear up and down that there’s absolutely no voting fraud…until they accuse a fellow Democrat.
Trump is calling on Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook to resign over mortgage fraud allegations, namely claiming two separate homes as her primary residence.
Moribund lefty legacy outlet MSNBC is rebranding as MS NOW. Until that woke hive of scum and villainy is entirely purged, no sane American will ever trust it.
“Texas Is Preparing To Cut Off Power To Data Centers During Grid Emergencies.” Well, yeah. If it’s data centers or people’s homes and apartments, people should generally win. Data centers should have backup power and orderly shutdown procedures, not to mention redundant arrays of backups and rotating off-site backups…
Texas Democratic State Rep. James Talarico (TX-50) decries the effects of money on politics while taking “a whopping $59,000 in donations from a billionaire’s PAC last year. The Texas Sands PAC, which is pushing for the Lone Star State to legalize casino gambling, gave Talarico the donations to encourage him to lead that initiative.”
“Senator launches investigation into Meta over allowing ‘sensual’ AI chats with kids.” It seems that all the billions Facebook has been sinking into AI has only made the world worse. Much like Facebook itself…
Flesh-eating bacteria is on the rise again. Avoiding swimming in the ocean or eating raw oysters seems to be the key to avoiding it.
Dwight has a swell obit up for RAF Flight Lt. John Cruickshank, a Catalina pilot who was so shot up by a U-boat, with blood soaking through his flight suit, that his crewmembers thought he wouldn’t make it on the five hour flight home. Not only did he make it back to help land the plane, he lived to be 105.
“U.S. Agriculture Secretary Rollins, Gov. Abbott Announce $850 Million to Combat New World Screwworm Threat. Hundreds of millions will be appropriated by the federal government to build a sterile fly facility.”
German neo-Nazi claims to be a woman so he can serve his time in a women’s prison. ‘Sven Liebich, who now goes by ‘Marla-Svenja,’ was convicted of “slander and incitement to hatred’ and lost his bid to appeal. Now that he’s headed to jail, he has suddenly identified as a woman, despite previously calling transgender people ‘parasites.'” Liebich appears to be an actual neo-Nazi rather than just an AfD member, and neo-Nazis are scum, but you have to admire the brazenness of the hustle, especially not even bother to shave off his mustache, and actually demanding kosher meals.
