That’s quite a depth and breadth. Supposedly these will be replaced by “V Model” handguns in short order.
Here’s GlockStore’s Lenny Magill, who I think broke the news:
“As of November 30th, Glock is going to discontinue all models, Gen 3, 4, 5, everything except for the slimline guns are going to be discontinued and replaced with what they call the new V model.”
“Glock says this is all about an improved trigger and improved slide, but the reality of it is is uh these changes will prevent the Glock from accepting a switch that will convert it to full auto.”
One gun guy I know thinks it might be a response to a lot of lawsuits against Glock. I think a big contributing factor is California literally outlawing Glock guns in a law signed just even days ago.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a law banning sales of one of the most popular types of handgun in the U.S.
Assembly Bill 1127, authored by state Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, D-Encino, and state Assemblymember Catherine Stefani, D-San Francisco, received the governor’s signature on Friday, Oct. 10.
The law bans new sales of “semi-automatic handguns that can be easily converted to a fully automatic machine gun with the use of a simple ‘switch,'” according to a statement from Gabriel’s office.
It covers handguns manufactured by Glock, as well as similarly designed pistols, that use a “cruciform trigger bar,” which lawmakers said makes them easily convertible to fully automatic fire.
The law, which takes effect on July 1, bars firearms dealers from selling Glock-style handguns.
The NRA has already sued California over the law, and there’s a decent chance it won’t stand up to post-Bruen scrutiny.
While significant news, this probably isn’t cause for Glock fans to panic, as I suspect Glock is already ready to start producing the new model V guns. I wouldn’t panic-buy what is about to become old stock right now, but you might keep an eye out for sales on current models you like. And you could also use the news as an excuse look at new models from some of Glock’s competitors…
While the violent lunatics of Transtifa will probably continue to attempt murder against ordinary people for the crime of pointing out the obvious truth that there are only two biological sexes, signs of the successful rollback of the transsexual madness the social justice Democrats tried to impose on America are readily apparent elsewhere.
One tranny legal case making its way to the Supreme Court is Foote v. Ludlow.
The October Term is about to begin at the U.S. Supreme Court, and another secret social transitioning case is waiting on its doorstep. Over a dozen civil-rights advocates have urged the Justices to grant review—and finally stop schools from “transing” children behind their parents’ backs.
The case is Foote v. Ludlow, the first of many secret social-transitioning lawsuits we’ve covered from the beginning at Legal Insurrection…
Earlier this year, a federal appeals court decided parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri had no right to be told when their 11-year old daughter “socially transitioned” to another sex in school. The school’s non-disclosure policy, the First Circuit court held, was necessary to promote a “safe and inclusive” environment for all of its students.
The parents brought their original lawsuit against the Ludlow, Massachusetts, school committee in 2022 after they learned from one of its teachers that their child had secretly become “genderqueer.”
If not for that one brave teacher—later fired for coming forward—according to the court filings, the parents might never have known: Under the school’s policy, when a student asks to be called by a new name and pronouns of a different sex, staff members must keep it a secret from the parents, unless they have the student’s consent.
Over the summer, the parents petitioned the Court to review the appellate court’s decision denying their right to be informed when their child “transitions” sex at school.
This is not the first time the Court has been asked to wade into the conflict over secret social transitioning in schools. Last year, in a 6-3 decision, it declined a parents’ petition to review a similar case involving a Wisconsin school’s gender identity plan. Justice Alito dissented, noting that the case presented a question “of great and growing national importance.”
Sixteen “friends of the court” have now filed amicus briefs in support of the parents. Together, they argue that this time, the Court should act.
We previously covered Foote v. Ludlow here. When liberals religiously chant “Protect Trans Children!”, what they actually mean is “Social justice teachers have the right to secretly turn your children gay or trans and there’s nothing you can do about it.” Every parent in America should be furious at that idea, and if the Supreme Court takes the case, I think it’s a near certainty they rule for parents rather than groomers.
Riley Gaines lawsuit against the NCAA for letting men compete against women in college athletics continues to advance.
The NCAA has a “Grand Alliance” with the Department of Defense to study concussions among “more than 53,000 student athletes and service academy cadets & midshipmen.”
That relationship could knock the student athletics nonprofit into a far-reaching settlement with female athletes who claim it’s bound by Title IX via the DoD and committed sex discrimination against them by letting males compete in their sports on the basis of gender identity.
A federal judge refused to wholly dismiss the lawsuit against the NCAA by 19 current and former collegiate athletes led by former University of Kentucky swimmer and women’s sports activist Riley Gaines, complementing the Trump administration’s use of federal funding obligations to ram through its higher education agenda without Congress.
A Department of Education attorney in the first Trump administration credited the Biden administration with giving President Trump’s second term vastly more regulatory runway than it has wielded in its first eight months, warning colleges of much bigger threats.
Harvard’s new “heightened cash monitoring status,” which requires the Ivy Leaguer to pay federal student aid out of its own pockets before drawing funds from the government, shows federal student loan eligibility could be the next “shoe to drop,” consultant Jonathan Helwink wrote in Inside Higher Ed.
In its haste to take down for-profit colleges, the prior administration enabled its successor to “come out swinging against traditional public and private institutions” using the same “regulatory overreach,” he wrote. Few colleges can withstand a costly fight when the feds have successfully shuttered colleges “based upon far weaker versions of the current regulations.”
Snip.
In the case led by Gaines, U.S. District Judge Tiffany Johnson ordered the NCAA to respond to the plaintiffs’ Title IX claims by Oct. 9, to be followed by 90 days of “limited discovery” to determine whether the NCAA is a “recipient” of federal money under Title IX through the DoD partnership.
The 19 female athletes – including San Jose State University women’s volleyball co-captain Brooke Slusser, allegedly targeted for injury by her male teammate Blaire [i.e. Brayden] Fleming – “actually allege a clearer connection between the NCAA and the DoD money” than do precedents upon which the plaintiffs relied, the President Biden nominee said.
The Supreme Court distinguished between commercial airlines and airport operators as entities that “indirectly benefit” versus “indirectly receive assistance,” respectively, insulating the former from federal disability obligations.
Under that logic, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals greenlit Title IX claims against the NCAA by a graduate student barred from competition, because she sufficiently alleged it “effectively controlled” two federally funded youth sports organizations made up of NCAA employees and members, which NCAA itself touted as its “best kept secrets.”
Legal discovery is typically followed by settlement talks, and the female athletes’ lawyer, William Bock — a regulatory heavy-hitter also representing them at SCOTUS in support of Idaho’s ban on males in female competition — told Fox News the NCAA would have to agree to a legally enforceable ban on its transgender policy to avoid trial.
While the NCAA insists the lawsuit is moot because its current policy “aligns” with Trump’s “order” – singular – Bock said the “only way” his clients would settle is through a consent decree preventing NCAA from resurrecting them in the event Trump’s two executive orders against gender identity and males in female sports were rescinded.
Even a consent decree is the “priority,” not necessarily the only condition for settlement, Bock emphasized. Gaines and the others are also seeking mandatory sex testing to stop repeats of male athletes competing against females since the NCAA rule change, as happened at Swarthmore and Ithaca College.
The NCAA didn’t argue against the legal standing of the female athletes for “retrospective damages” covering the years 2022 to early 2025, when NCAA policy explicitly let males who identify as women compete against females, so Judge Johnson analyzed the merits.
The Texas Tech University (TTU) System has issued a memorandum directing its schools to be in compliance with state and federal law regarding the recognition of only two human sexes — male and female.
The letter, issued by Chancellor Tedd L. Mitchell on September 25 to the five presidents in the university system, cites three different sources for its directive: House Bill (HB) 229, which was passed during the 89th Legislative Session; a letter from Gov. Greg Abbott; and a President Donald Trump executive order, each of which recognize only male and female as the distinguishable biological sexes.
HB 229 lays out definitions for “sex” as well as “boy,” “father,” “female,” “girl,” “male,” and “mother.” Abbott’s letter similarly directs state agencies in Texas to ensure they are in compliance with “the biological reality that there are only two sexes — male and female.” Both of these came after Trump’s executive order that sought to “defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male.”
“Therefore,” the TTU System letter states, “while recognizing the First Amendment rights of employees in their personal capacity, faculty must comply with these laws in the instruction of students, within the course and scope of their employment.”
Mitchell adds that while some within the university system “may hold differing personal views on these matters … in your role as a state employee, compliance with the law is required, and I trust in your professionalism to carry out these responsibilities in a manner that reflects well on our universities.”
The memo comes after Angelo State University, one school in the TTU System, issued rules changes to faculty and staff on September 19 that made similar directives regarding biological sex. The information sent to Angelo State University personnel, first obtained by the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, also includes rules prohibiting preferred pronouns and removing “safe-space” designations.
The hard left, from Planned Parenthood to the ACLU, are all in on turning your children gay and trans. Yet this is another issue where some 85% of normal Americans stand with Republicans and against the radical transsexual social justice groomer gangs of the left. State by state, and lawsuit by lawsuit, transsexual madness is finally being rolled back.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve never been impressed with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I first became aware of him due to his ludicrous overstatements about global warming and falsely claiming that George W. Bush didn’t win the 2004 presidential election. Indeed, he was previously lefty scumbag on many (perhaps most) issues, had more than a whiff of fringe lunacy about him, and (through no fault of his own) I find him hard to listen to, due to his spasmodic dysphonia. And I still think he’s more wrong than right on the vaccine-autism link.
But the Democrat Media Complex seems to have conspicuously hated RFK, Jr. since he suggested that link back in 2005. That hatred only kicked into higher gear when Kennedy had the unmitigated gall that his ancestral party might be willing to live up to its name and let him primary Slow Joe Biden. No such luck. The DNC opened their vast bag of dirty tricks to keep Kennedy from even competing in the 2024 Democratic Presidential primary, and thus making sure nothing would expose Slow Joe’s cognitive decline until it was too late for a real primary. Kennedy’s endorsement of Trump was a key factor in winning over a certain type of old school liberal who felt alienated from the modern Democratic Party’s increasing authoritarian, social justice-infected nature, but was still wary of Trump.
All that doesn’t necessarily make him a good Director of the Department of Health and Human Services. But damn, given how viciously Democrats have been attacking Kennedy on everything from CDC firings to vaccine policy makes me think that Kennedy may be over the target. It’s fascinating to see Democrats attack someone who literally grew up in the Democrat Party harder than they’ve attacked anyone else in Trump47’s cabinet.
The reasons for this are probably varied. One is the absolute refusal of the social justice left to admit that their full-bore 2020 Flu Manchu freakout, with its lockdowns, vaccine mandates (especially for children) and thunderous invocation of that most holy of deities, THE SCIENCE, were in any way mistakes or overreactions. The Democrat Party has come to represent the entirety of the ruling class, and Kennedy’s exposure of the lies and data manipulation carried out in the name of fighting Covid raises the specter of people actually being held to account for their self-dealing lies, and that Simply Will Not Do.
The second reason Democrats absolutely hate Kennedy is his documentation of how Big Pharma has bought control of the Democrats. Here’s a Rumble interview Jordan Peterson did with Kennedy on a variety of topics, including how Big Pharma (specifically Merck, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKlein, and either Novartis or Novo Nordisk) were committing crimes, capturing regulatory agencies and how ObamaCare got the Democrats in bed with them.
(I had previously embedded that video (or an excerpt from it) here, but, what do you know, YouTube deleted that video.)
Kennedy may still be wrong about a great many things, but the more viciously he’s attacked, the more convinced I am that Big Pharma has fatally compromised both medical science and our unworthy political elites.
When you’re receiving this much flak, I have to assume that you’re over the target…
The Trump administration’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has officially withdrawn the Land Protection Plan that would have enabled a dramatic expansion of the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge in West Texas, a move celebrated by Texas lawmakers and land rights advocates as a major victory for private property rights.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced the withdrawal on Wednesday, with Service Principal Deputy Director Justin Shirley explaining it is “consistent with the priorities of the Trump administration” by “reducing regulatory burdens, strengthening partnerships with state and local stakeholders, and ensuring responsible stewardship of taxpayer resources.”
Originally finalized under the Biden administration, the Muleshoe Land Protection Plan would have allowed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the refuge from its current 6,440 acres to up to 700,000 acres—an increase of over 10,000 percent—by purchasing land or acquiring conservation easements from willing sellers across a vast area of Texas and New Mexico.
No, you can’t eat 700,000 acres using regulatory fiat. Not yours.
The Biden proposal would have eaten up land in 15 Texas counties, including Bailey, Castro, Cochran, Crosby, Dawson, Gaines, Garza, Hale, Hockley, Lamb, Lubbock, Lynn, Parmer, Terry, and Yoakum. The expansion into five counties in New Mexico includes land from Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Lea, and Roosevelt counties. The proposed map showed the feds “protecting” land right up to the edge of Lubbock.
This move was portrayed by the administration as part of its broader “30×30” initiative to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.
Both the Muleshoe expansion plan and the 30×30 plan in general smacked of the sort of unauthorized, self-directed bureaucratic empire-building that the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision struck down.
The project engendered strong opposition from Texas representatives, including House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington (R–Lubbock), who played a pivotal role in the reversal.
Arrington argued the plan was an “outrageous land grab” that threatened the property rights and livelihoods of West Texans, especially local farmers, ranchers, and energy producers.
He introduced legislation—the No Federal Expansion Designation (No FED) in West Texas Act—to specifically prohibit the expansion.
Arrington’s amendment to defund the proposed expansion successfully passed the House in July 2024 as part of the fiscal year 2025 Interior Appropriations Bill.
Multiple efforts, including public hearings, letters to federal authorities, and vocal messaging against the plan, culminated in President Trump’s executive orders prioritizing energy development and property rights, which underpinned the Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to withdraw the LPP.
Issue by issue, the gross leftwing overreach of the Biden Administration is being reigned in and replaced with respect for the constitution, the rule of law, and private property rights.
People were wondering what agenda items Texas Governor Greg Abbott would lay out for the forthcoming special session, and now we know.
Gov. Greg Abbott has officially released the agenda for the upcoming special legislative session, identifying 18 items for lawmakers to tackle when they return to Austin on Monday, July 21.
The announcement ends weeks of speculation about what issues would be included on the call and contains a mix of responses to both recent events and long-standing conservative priorities.
“We delivered on historic legislation in the 89th Regular Legislative Session that will benefit Texans for generations to come,” said Abbott. “There is more work to be done, particularly in the aftermath of the devastating floods in the Texas Hill Country. We must ensure better preparation for such events in the future.”
Included in the call are several flood-related items aimed at improving early warning systems, emergency communications, and local relief funding. The agenda also includes a sweeping review of rules related to disaster preparation and recovery.
Abbott is also calling for legislation to eliminate the STAAR test, cut property taxes, and overhaul regulations on THC products—an issue that has divided state leadership since Abbott vetoed a proposed ban last month. Instead of an outright ban, the governor is asking for new restrictions on potency and synthetic compounds without “banning a lawful agricultural commodity.”
We covered the issues surrounding marijuana and THC regulation here. The law that was vetoed would likely have clashed with federal legislation on the issue.
Several conservative priorities also made the list, including a ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying, a constitutional amendment granting the Attorney General the power to prosecute election crimes, and protections for women’s privacy in sex-segregated spaces. Legislation to further protect unborn children by strengthening the state’s ban on abortion-inducing drugs also made the cut.
Other agenda items include measures to protect victims of human trafficking from criminal liability, protections for law enforcement personnel files, and action on title theft and deed fraud. Abbott also called for legislation addressing judicial department operations and incentives for water conservation in building projects.
As expected, redistricting is officially on the agenda, following pressure from President Donald Trump’s team to secure additional Republican seats in Congress. The item calls for revisions to Texas’ congressional maps “in light of constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice.”
I have mixed feelings about redistricting. On the one hand, it would be nice to give House republicans a little more breathing room. On the other, Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America states that “The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct,” and it has not been ten years since the last census and redistricting. Still, plenty of states have had to perform redistricting based on court orders, and for decades Democrats used them for partisan advantage, so this is a case of what’s good for the goose in good for the gander.
My understanding is that the Fifth Circuit Court ruling in Petteway v. Galveston County opens the door for redistricting to be performed in light of an altered reading of Voting Rights Act remedies (no longer need black and Hispanics be combined into the same district for “coalition” majority districts, much to the annoyance of the Democrat Party). Indeed, that is the precise outcome we discussed the last time we covered Petteway v. Galveston County. And Democrats were the ones who filed the lawsuit to try to save save one commissioners court seat in Galveston County.
We told them over and over again that they weren’t going to like living under the “New Rules” they instituted, and now they get to find out why, good and hard…
Happy Independence Day! It’s rained most of the last 24 hours here in central Texas, so the good news is no burn ban means we can set off fireworks, but the downside is significant flooding in the Hill Country (Kerville was particularly hard-hit).
The “Big Beautiful Bill” is now law, employment ticks up, more high profile leftist/media perverts busted, Democrats remain stuck on stupid, some Republicans retire, and proof, yet again, that the rules for the well-heeled are different than for other people.
It’s the Friday LinkSwarm!
“Employers added 147,000 jobs in June as U.S. labor market continues to defy expectations.” For the MSM, it’s always “unexpectedly” all the way down.
A Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post journalist was arrested and charged after authorities allegedly discovered child porn on his work computer, DC US Attorney Jeanine Pirro announced Friday.
Thomas Pham LeGro, a 48-year-old video editor at the news outlet, was taken into custody on Thursday after FBI agents raided his Washington, DC, home and discovered a folder on his work laptop which contained 11 videos depicting child sexual abuse material, according to Pirro’s office.
FBI agents also discovered “fractured pieces of a hard drive in the hallway outside the room where LeGro’s work laptop was found,” during the execution of the search warrant.
The University of Pennsylvania has agreed to ban transgender athletes from women’s sports and correct records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas. The university issued a statement on Tuesday vowing to comply with Title IX on the basis of biological sex and says it will apologize to “disadvantaged” female athletes.
“While Penn’s policies during the 2021-2022 swim season were in accordance with NCAA eligibility rules at the time, we acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules,” Penn President J. Larry Jameson said in a statement. “We recognize this and will apologize to those who experienced a competitive disadvantage or experienced anxiety because of the policies in effect at the time.”
The U.S. Education Department and UPenn announced the voluntary agreement as part of a resolution of a federal civil rights case focused on Thomas, the biological male who won a Division I women’s title for the Ivy League university in 2022. The department’s Office for Civil Rights found that UPenn had violated Title IX by allowing a male to compete in women’s sports and occupy female-only facilities.
“Today’s resolution agreement with UPenn is yet another example of the Trump effect in action,” U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said. “Thanks to the leadership of President Trump, UPenn has agreed both to apologize for its past Title IX violations and to ensure that women’s sports are protected at the University for future generations of female athletes.”
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened the Title IX investigation into UPenn on February 6, following President Donald Trump’s executive order “Keeping Men out of Women’s Sports,” which interpreted Title IX law on the basis of biological sex rather than gender identity. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program or activity that receives federal financial assistance.
Trump’s diplomatic method, the exact opposite of what standard diplomats recommend, is a roaring success.
The least diplomatic president in U.S. history is scoring diplomatic victories.
Over the last couple of days, Donald Trump has gotten NATO to agree to a defense spending target of 5 percent and backed Canada off imposing a digital services tax on American tech firms.
He’s done this while being loathed by many of his foreign interlocutors. In fact, Trump has executed a near-complete inversion of the typical diplomatic formula. He’s not nice. He’s not conflict-averse. He’s not euphemistic. And yet he’s gotten results.
The NATO commitment, in particular, is potentially historic and could materially strengthen the position of the Western alliance for the long term.
Trump is violating the usual rules of persuasion. Abraham Lincoln famously said: “It is an old and true maxim that ‘a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall.’” Trump doesn’t hesitate to pour on the gall, often in ALL CAPS on Truth Social.
The leading 19th-century French diplomat Talleyrand said, “A diplomat who says ‘yes’ means ‘maybe,’ a diplomat who says ‘maybe’ means ‘no,’ and a diplomat who says ‘no’ is no diplomat.” Trump says “go to hell” as the start of the negotiation.
He persuades by pressuring.
He coaxes by threatening.
He de-escalates by escalating.
He wins friends and influences people by convincing them he thinks they’re freeloaders and losers.
A lot of this is a function of his personality and his experience as a Gotham real-estate developer with a nose for power dynamics, knack for showmanship, and willingness to court risk. It’s hard to see how his style of international politics will be replicable by a more traditional political figure. But undergirding his approach is a strategic insight into the gap between U.S. military and economic might and that of its allies, and how this meant there was a vast unexploited potential for the U.S. to throw its weight around.
When the U.S president is talking about pulling the plug on NATO, or cutting off trade talks with Canada — as Trump did in response to the proposed digital services tax — it’s going to get everyone’s attention.
The bull standing outside the door of the china shop is a powerful incentive to get along with the bull.
The rest of the conservative movement noticed this no later than, what, 2017? Nice of National Review to catch up…
In a post on social media platform X, FBI Director Kash Patel wrote that $14.6 billion in losses were incurred, while $245 million was seized, as FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said in a separate post on X that hundreds of people were charged in the case.
“Public corruption will not be tolerated as the Director and I vigorously pursue bad actors who violated their oaths to all of us,” Bongino said, describing the case as the “largest healthcare fraud investigation” in the country’s history.
The investigation encompassed 50 federal districts and 12 state attorneys general, according to the DOJ. State and federal law enforcement agencies also took part, according to the FBI.
A statement issued by the DOJ said that criminal charges were filed against 324 defendants, including 96 doctors, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, and other health care workers across the United States. Officials said that 29 defendants were charged with partaking in transnational criminal groups who allegedly submitted around $12 billion in fraudulent health-related claims to U.S. health insurance companies.
Further, four defendants were apprehended in Estonia based on cooperation with law enforcement agencies in that country, while seven others were arrested at the U.S.–Mexico border or at American airports, the DOJ said.
That organization, federal prosecutors said, is accused of using individuals sent into the United States from other countries to purchase “dozens of medical supply companies located across the United States” before submitting $10.6 billion in fraudulent health care claims to Medicare for medical devices and equipment.
At the same time, that group allegedly exploited stolen identities from U.S. citizens across all 50 states, using their stolen medical information to submit the false claims, according to the DOJ.
In another action announced by the DOJ, federal officials said they filed charges in Illinois against five people, including the owners of two Pakistan-based marketing companies, in relation to a $703 million Medicare fraud scheme.
The defendants allegedly stole Medicare beneficiaries’ confidential information and sold it to laboratories and other medical companies, which then submitted false Medicare claims, according to the statement.
“The defendants allegedly used artificial intelligence to create fake recordings of Medicare beneficiaries purportedly consenting to receive certain products,” the DOJ’s statement said.
Here are some reasons why the Democratic drive to reinvent the party seems to have stalled out—and may have a hard time restarting despite their political opening.
The “’tis but a scratch” problem. In Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the Black Knight insists, against all evidence, that his wounds are not that serious—“’tis but a scratch.” Democrats, in the aftermath of losing two of three elections to the widely-disliked Trump and seeing their coalition re-configured by massive losses among both white and nonwhite working-class voters, are still in denial about how serious their wounds are. They are not but a scratch and cannot be fixed by anything less than a full-scale overhaul of the party’s approach and image. Tinkering around the edges, while easier, will not work.
The breaking point fallacy. Democrats have a hard time thinking outside their own views of Trump and the GOP. They are deeply convinced that Trump is perhaps the worst person to ever walk the earth and find it difficult to relate to voters whose views are more mixed. They are convinced that a breaking point from Trump’s actions will inevitably be reached where voters will wake up and realize Democrats were right all along, with happy political results to follow. This fallacy undergirded Democrats’ thinking in the 2024 campaign with rather unhappy results when that breaking point was not reached. Democrats’ reliably florid responses to Trump’s outrage-of-the-day in 2025 indicates that they are still hoping that breaking point can be reached and that they are puzzled, indeed outraged, that voters have not yet mounted the barricades. Conveniently, the expectation of a breaking point let’s Democrats off the hook from changing very much in their own party.
The “whatever it is, I’m against it” problem. In the classic Marx Brothers movie, Horsefeathers, Groucho uncompromisingly asserts: “whatever it is, I’m against it.” That pretty much sums up Democrats’ approach to Trump administration proposals and actions. With very minor exceptions, Democrats have refused to support any of it, even where these actions are popular and/or are targeted at clear areas of Democratic vulnerability that needed shoring up. Little to no effort has been made to stake out a middle ground that recognizes some of Trump’s actions address areas where Democrats have screwed up, while setting out a better (kinder, gentler?) approach that would more effective and less illiberal. Easier though to adopt Groucho’s approach and avoid the uncomfortable need to acknowledge mistakes and convince voters you won’t make them again.
The rising generations chimera. Many Democrats have seized upon the fact that leading Democratic politicians tend to be quite old, if not ancient (hello, Joe Biden!) and decided what is needed is younger Democrats. The changing of the guard—that’ll do the trick! On net, it seems like a no-brainer to move younger cohorts up in the party who can better communicate with young voters where Democrats have been losing ground. But what if these young communicators aren’t communicating anything to voters that would actually help Democrats dig out of the hole they’re in? Then the changing of the guard will only help at the margins.
Take Zohran Mamdani, the charismatic Millennial who pulled off an upset victory in the New York City Democratic primary and will likely be New York’s next mayor. His energy and media savvy are admirable but his radical cultural politics—only lightly sanded off recently—and his wildly impractical economic plans don’t seem likely to change the image of the Democratic Party in a good way. But he nevertheless will be a pole of attraction in the party, just as AOC and “the Squad” were in the aftermath of the 2018 election—and we saw how well that worked out. Democrats’ thirst for generational excitement, whatever its content, will make it even harder than it already was for Democrats to re-orient the party around an effective majoritarian politics.
Snip.
The “round up the usual suspects” problem. In the movie Casablanca, Captain Reynaud (Claude Rains) concludes the film by saying “round up the usual suspects.” The Democrats have an establishment and establishments don’t like change. Thus, there is a built-in tendency to blame messaging, narrative, lack of coalitional input, etc.—the “usual suspects”—rather than deeper problems of culture, economic policy, and class antagonism. Most recently this tendency was on display in the formation of a Project 2029 group drawn from various sectors of the Democratic establishment to craft a new, improved approach for the Democrats. As the Politico article on the group notes:
Some would-be allies are skeptical that such an ideologically diverse and divergent set of policy minds could craft anything close to a coherent agenda, let alone a politically winning one.
“Developing policies by checking every coalitional box is how we got in this mess in the first place,” said Adam Jentleson, who has spent recent months preparing to open a new think tank called Searchlight. “There is no way to propose the kind of policies the Democratic Party needs to adopt without pissing off some part of the interest-group Borg. And if you’re too afraid to do that, you don’t have what it takes to steer the party in the right direction.”
For Texas voters: “17 Proposed Amendments Head to Voters in November.” Expected a more detailed post on this sometime in October.
“Houston Parents Sue HISD Over Daughter’s Secret Social Gender Transition. A Houston family is taking the state’s largest school district to court, claiming their daughter was socially transitioned by school staff in direct defiance of their explicit instructions.”
Terry and Sarah Osborn, the parents of a Bellaire High School student, filed a federal lawsuit against the Houston Independent School District earlier this week, alleging the school socially transitioned their daughter against their explicit wishes. The lawsuit names several individuals, including Superintendent Mike Miles, Bellaire High School Principal Michael Niggli, school counselor Sarah Ray, and multiple teachers.
According to the suit, more than six Bellaire High School employees referred to the Osborns’ daughter—who is biologically female—using a masculine name and male pronouns for two years. The situation began in ninth grade, when the student’s theater teacher distributed a worksheet asking for students’ names and pronouns. Sarah Osborn specifically requested that the teacher use her daughter’s legal name and female pronouns. However, the student altered the worksheet, crossing out the original entry and writing in “he/him” pronouns.
The parents claim they did not learn about the consistent use of male pronouns by teachers until the student was well into her sophomore year. At that point, they formally requested that teachers revert to using their daughter’s biological pronouns. Despite these repeated requests, the lawsuit alleges that the teachers continued using male pronouns.
By the student’s junior year, the Osborns met with Principal Niggli to address the situation directly. They reiterated their concerns about the school’s handling of the matter. Principal Niggli attempted a compromise: teachers would refer to the student only by her last name to avoid using any pronouns at all. The Osborns, however, rejected this compromise and again instructed the school to use their daughter’s legal name and female pronouns.
The lawsuit also notes that the Osborns filed a request under the Texas Public Information Act, seeking employee communications regarding their daughter, HISD’s policies on the use of preferred names and pronouns, and documentation related to the student’s counseling sessions over the years. Elizabeth Rice, HISD’s attorney, responded that the request was too broad and asked for clarification. When the Osborns’ attorney insisted the request was sufficiently specific, Rice again claimed it was overly broad and said fulfilling it would require producing at least 77,344 pages of emails.
The lawsuit argues that HISD’s responses are evidence of “widespread past and ongoing treatment of their daughter as a boy by its employees,” carried out without parental consent and in direct opposition to explicit parental instructions.
The Osborns are asking the court to declare HISD’s policies in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, prohibit the district from using masculine pronouns or an alternate name for their daughter, and award attorney’s fees along with compensatory and punitive damages. The complaint states the district violated the parents’ “fundamental parental rights” under the Fourteenth Amendment and their “sincerely held religious beliefs” protected by the First Amendment.
Not only should the school district pay, but everyone involved in this should having their teaching certificate revoked and never be allowed to teach in the state again.
Yeah, Kerville has been hit hard by the flooding:
More good news: “Hamas leader and Oct. 7 mastermind Hakham Muhammad Issa Al-Issa killed in airstrike, IDF says.” Unlike Democrats, I think it’s a good thing when terrorist leaders get killed.
Diddy do it, but according to a jury, not all of it. “Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs was convicted of a prostitution-related offense but acquitted Wednesday of sex trafficking and racketeering charges.”
A steady stream of reports is now developing that suggests Covid vaccinations may indeed hurt fertility and pregnancy outcomes.
I reported on a rat study that clearly showed fertility was impacted after the animals were injected with mRNA Covid vaccines. A recently published study (not peer reviewed yet) looking at data from Israeli women found a substantially higher-than-expected number of eventual fetal losses associated with Covid vaccination during gestational weeks 8-13.
A newly published peer-reviewed study analyzing nationwide data from the Czech Republic has reported a significant association between Covid vaccination and reduced fertility rates in women of childbearing age. The study, which examined approximately 1.3 million women aged 18–39 between January 2021 and December 2023, found that women who received the Covid vaccine before conception had a substantially lower rate of successful conceptions (“SC”, i.e., pregnancies that resulted in live births) compared to their unvaccinated counterparts.
Of course, vaccine mandate advocates swore up and down it was absolutely safe. Meanwhile, it seemsto be harming those with very low chances of dying from Flu Manchu…
“Florida Gov. DeSantis Announces Tax Holiday On Guns.” September 8 through December 21. Your move, Greg Abbott…
On July 1, District Judge Ann Donnelly of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that there was sufficient evidence to proceed with a 16-count indictment against Huawei and its subsidiaries.
Huawei, which is closely tied to the Chinese communist regime, stands accused of racketeering, stealing trade secrets from six U.S. companies, and committing bank fraud.
With Donnelly’s ruling, the case will move forward toward trial. Currently, the proceedings are scheduled to begin on May 4, 2026.
Huawei stands charged with using a Hong Kong-based front company, Skycom, to conduct business in Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions and with misleading banks in order to facilitate more than $100 million in illegal money transfers.
Additionally, the indictment alleges that Huawei engaged in racketeering to expand its global brand.
“Harris County Agencies Reportedly Spent Millions With No Paper Trail.” Even lefty County Judge Lina Hidalgo has been raising the alarm over it. Maybe she didn’t get her cut…
“Famed Mexican boxer Julio César Chávez Jr. was arrested for overstaying his visa and lying on a green card application and will be deported to Mexico, where he faces organized crime charges.” (Hat tip: Dwight.)
“Spanish Operator of Proposed High-Speed Rail Liquidates American Subsidiary.” Yet another roadblock to the pie-in-the-sky Texas high speed rail project that will never be built.
So remember that story a while back in New York magazine’s The Cut, when the (I kid you not) Finance Reporter got scammed, withdrew $50,000 in cash from a bank, and handed it to a total stranger? To a lot of people, the details didn’t add up. Can you even withdraw $50,000 in cash without filling in a boatload for forms or triggering fraud warnings? One reporter went digging for the truth, and found out that, yeah, it looks like it’s true and you can just waltz out with that much cash…if you’re related to the Roosevelts.
So Diamond Distributors declared bankruptcy, and the new owners evidently decided, “Hey we can just sell all this consignment inventory we have, not pay the publishers for it, and use the money to pay back this Chase loan.” The publishers disagree…
It’s easy to get black pilled and feel that elections don’t matter, but there are few areas where the difference between electing Republicans over Democrats is as pronounced as that of gun rights. The Supreme Court victories in Heller and Bruen don’t happen without Republican nominees on the Supreme Court. Likewise, though Texas Republicans have real gripes about the cabal thwarting conservative legislation, Dwight sent over a Texas State Rifle Association piece on Second Amendment wins during the 89th Legislature’s regular session.
Art. 7C.002.b. LOCAL REGULATION PROHIBITED. (a) This An entity described by Subsection (a) may not adopt or enforce a rule, ordinance, order, policy, or other similar measure relating to an extreme risk protective order unless state law specifically authorizes the adoption and enforcement of such a rule, ordinance, order, policy, or measure.
Art. 7C.003. CERTAIN FEDERAL LAWS UNENFORCEABLE. A federal statute, order, rule, or regulation purporting to implement or enforce an extreme risk protective order against a person in this state that infringes on the person’s right of due process, keeping and bearing arms, or free speech protected by the United States Constitution or the Texas Constitution is unenforceable as against the public policy of this state and shall have no effect.
“Each of these new laws will take effect on September 1.”
Bill by bill, session by session, progress on Second Amendment legislation is made, at least in Texas. Meanwhile, Democrat-run blue locales like Colorado are still trying to pave the way for their longtime goal of complete civilian disarmament.
In a dramatic last-minute move, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) vetoed a total ban on recreational cannabis that had been backed by Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), causing a rare rift between the state’s top elected officials.
Abbott signed the veto of Senate Bill 3 on Sunday just one hour before its deadline, calling for a special legislative session in mid-July to address the state’s wild-west cannabis market.
The move came one day after Abbott signed House Bill 46, which dramatically expanded the state’s medical cannabis program to include a wide range of new conditions, put dispensaries across the state and allow the sale of new products such as vaporizers.
Senate Bill 3, which passed last month after a bitterly contested fight, represented what the Houston Chronicle has called a “civil war” between medical and recreational cannabis, in which medical — until Sunday — appeared to have won.
In a Sunday statement, Patrick blasted the veto — and Abbott. “His late-night veto, on an issue supported by 105 of 108 Republicans in the legislature, strongly backed by law enforcement, many in the medical and education communities, and the families who have seen their loved ones’ lives destroyed by these very dangerous drugs, leaves them feeling abandoned,” Patrick said.
Allowing Senate Bill 3 to become law — knowing that it faces a lengthy battle that will render it dead on arrival in court — would hinder rather than help us solve the public safety issues this bill seeks to contain. The current market is dangerously under-regulated, and children are paying the price. If Senate Bill 3 is swiftly enjoined by a court, our children will be no safer than if no law was passed, and the problems will only grow.
He further states that because SB3 bans any amount of THC, it falls below the federal threshold. “It therefore criminalizes what congress expressly legalized and puts federal and state law on a collision course.” He also notes the possibility of abusive private property seizures under the bill.
“Abbott urged lawmakers to consider an approach similar to the way alcohol is regulated, recommending potential rules including barring the sale and marketing of THC products to minors, requiring testing throughout the production and manufacturing process, allowing local governments to prohibit stores selling THC products and providing law enforcement with additional funding to enforce the restrictions.”
The 89th Texas Legislature will gavel back in for a special session on July 21 — called by Gov. Greg Abbott an hour after he vetoed the hotly-debated Senate Bill (SB) 3 banning THC-derived products on Sunday night.
Abbott specified five bills that he intends for the Legislature to address besides SB 3: SB 1758 by Sen. Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury), related to the operation of cement kilns;
SB 1253 by Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), regulating certain water projects;SB 1278 by Sen. Tan Parker (R-Flower Mound), on affirmative defense in cases of human trafficking;SB 2878 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola), concerning the operation of the state judicial branch; and SB 648 by Sen. Royce West (D-Dallas), related to recording requirements of real property.
“At this time, the Governor has identified several bills that were vetoed or filed without signature that will be placed on the upcoming Special Session agenda for further consideration,” his press release read.
“Working with the Texas Legislature, we delivered results that will benefit Texans for generations to come,” said Abbott in a press release shortly after midnight — the 20-day deadline for the governor to take action on bills passed during the regular session.
He noted that all seven of his emergency priorities passed during the regular 89th session, which spanned from January 13 to June 2 — property tax relief, generational investment in water, raising teacher pay, expanding career pay, school choice, bail reform, and creating the Texas Cyber Command.
The clash between Abbott and Patrick is interesting, because the state’s two highest elected officials rarely feud so publicly. (Privately is a different matter; those two are not best buds, but they have an effective working relationship.)
It’s also interesting because of the clash between conservative and libertarian impulses. Neither Texans nor the legislature have ever voted for full marijuana or THC legalization. It seems that Dan Patrick and the legislature are merely instructing localities to actually enforce existing state law. But, as Abbott notes, the threshold apparently clashes with federal law.
There’s a case to be made for marijuana legalization on the ground of personal autonomy, but both de facto and de jure marijuana legalization in other states have brought along with them considerable negative externalities, from sketchy potheads in broken RVs trashing formerly respectable neighborhoods to state and national forests trashed by illegal grow operations. Oklahoma has suffered from Chinese mob control of the marijuana trade. legalization seems to have made these problems notably worse, by making law enforcement disinclined to go after any grow operations.
In other states, the “medical marijuana” loophole has been expanded so far that you can drive several weed-filled 18-wheelers through it.
The Austin-area quasi-legal “three smoke shops in a half mile stretch” status quo (which SB3 would theoretically eliminate) probably isn’t socially healthy. But it’s entirely possibly that they’re less unhealthy than current full legalization regimes in other states.
On the other hand, marijuana prohibition at the federal level should be repealed because it violates the 10th Amendment, and the idea that the federal government can prohibit what someone can grow and consume on their own land is absurd, unconstitutional, and rests on the horrible precedent of Wickard vs. Filburn.
Polls seem to show a majority of Texas voters oppose a THC ban, but want to see it more heavily regulated. Usual poll caveats apply, and transient public opinion is not the final arbiter in representative government, but I think it’s safe to say that the majority of Texans are considerably less enthused about a THC ban than Dan Patrick.
I’m not entirely sure of the best way forward. Abbott’s suggestion for alcohol-type regulation going forward is probably better (and more likely to withstand legal challenge) than Patrick’s more heavy-handed approach. Whatever law is settled on, Austin and a few other locals will almost certainly continue to under-enforce it.
Marijuana legalization has often been cited as a slippery slope to full drug legalization, and we have seen much of that in deep blue hellholes like San Francisco. But in Texas, while there does indeed appear to be a slope, it doesn’t seem particularly slippery…
This guy is pushing Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson “Abundance Agenda,” which aims to offer an alternative to the Democratic Party’s current downer social justice agenda. I’m not going to cover that much, since I don’t think the “Abundance Agenda” has a snowball’s chance in hell of being adopted by the Party’s current ideological core. But I am posting this for his (admittedly incomplete) critique of how Democrats grievously harmed the very people they’re claiming to be working for by destroying the quality of life in the cities they run.
“Democrats, plain and simple, need to change not only to win elections, but also to help the people they claim to support.”
“Working and middle-class American families are leaving places like California, New York and Illinois by the hundreds of thousands, often relocating to conservative regions.” Just like I talked about earlier this week.
“In the words of progressive journalist Ezra Klein: ‘You cannot claim to be the party of working families when the places you govern are places working families cannot afford to live.'” Sure you can! You just need to deploy the time-honored Democratic Party rhetorical device known as “lying your ass off.”
“Donald Trump partly won the 2024 election due to scarcity in the most essential aspects of people’s lives: affordable health care [What, ObamaCare didn’t make health care affordable? I’m shocked… -LP], energy, food, and most importantly housing.”
“For much of America, housing is simply far too expensive. In American cities, especially the liberal progressive ones, there’s an artificial scarcity of housing, and little to none of the available housing is affordable.”
“In 1970 Los Angeles, homes were 2.5 times the median family income, according to Redfin. But in 2022, LA house prices reached over nine times that of median family incomes, requiring families to earn over $220,000 to afford a home.”
“Home ownership is increasingly out of reach for the average worker, and high housing costs have led to financial instability for far too many Americans.”
“Housing supply is partly constrained by zoning restrictions…When more and more individuals and families compete for a near fixed supply of housing stock, prices typically rise making cities unaffordable for existing residents.” You mean like, say, importing millions of illegal aliens to compete with American citizens for limited housing stock?
“Many of America’s most prosperous cities, from New York and Boston to Seattle and San Francisco, heavily restrict the construction of new housing, especially the taller, denser buildings which could house more people, but that’s not the case in all of them.”
“Houston, Texas for example, has some of the most affordable housing and lowest homelessness rates in the country, despite its metro region holding over 7 million residents. This is in part because Houston has essentially no zoning. As a result, because it is extremely easy to build apartments and homes in much of the city, market forces can provide new housing at a variety of price points.”
“In liberal cities attempts, at building housing and infrastructure are often so expensive and inefficient that very little is actually built for low-income Americans. Take San Francisco, for example. The city’s numerous requirements for using public money add millions of dollars to the cost of construction, causing the typical publicly subsidized apartment to take six years to complete with a price tag of 600K per unit.” So affordable!
“San Francisco requires separate reviews from the city’s arts commission and Office of Disability, mandates electricity come from a city-owned utility company, and demands preferential treatment to small local contractors, meaning builders are discouraged from working with contractors who operate at scale.”
“Individually each requirement may seem well-meaning and progressive, but together they cause delays increase costs and ultimately limit the construction of housing for the poor, which clearly is not a progressive outcome.”
“Obstacles aren’t restricted to liberal cities like San Francisco these days building anything in America often requires jumping through a multitude of veto points, allowing interest groups, organizations and hyper local concerns to stop critical projects in their tracks.” Oh, that’s very “progressive” and by design, because every obstacle, every bureaucratic touch-point, provides opportunities for rent- and graft-seeking opportunities to grease the palms of progressives. Look at Austin’s “Reimagining Public Safety” and how just about every recommendation amounts to “take money away from the police and give it to us. This death by a thousand cuts doesn’t deserve the assumption of “good intentions.” It’s a racket that rakes off graft for the hard left.
At this point the author wanders off into more “good intentions, bad outcomes” examples, like environmentalism etc., but non-lefties no longer assume good intentions on the part of the Democratic Party.
Things he fails to mention: How high crime in blue cities with Soros-back prosecutors ruin the quality of life for poor and middle class Americans, and (again) how the huge influx of illegal aliens raises housing prices and sucks up resources that used to benefit American citizens.
Toward the end he states “Democratic doctrine often focuses so much on redistribution rather than growing the pie as a whole,” sounding rather like Jack Kemp or Newt Gingrich in 1994. And I’m pretty sure Democrats at the time either ignored them or called them Nazis.
But the baseline truth is that the ideological core of the Democratic Party wants nothing to do with your white boy “abundance agenda” because it directly conflicts with their primary goals of increasing their own abundance of wealth and power, taking full control of the Democratic Party and using it to destroy Americas existing structures to rebuild them into their imaginary socialist utopia.
You can’t make someone see the advantages of your “abundance agenda” if their entire likelihoods are predicated on not seeing it.
Of the many self-inflicted dooms besetting the Democratic Party, the blue state exodus gets talked about far less than Trump Derangement Syndrome or the radical wokeness destroying the party (along with everything else it touches). But for a party that once crowed about “demographic destiny” making them the “permanent majority party,” the shifting demographics of people fleeing blue states due to lousy governance, and the resulting shift in electoral votes, is going make Democrats winning the presidency much more difficult in 2032.
“There is a year that should absolutely terrify Democrats. It’s not 2024 or 2026 or even 2028. It’s 2032.”
“The population movement right now is a flashing red warning sign for Democrats. The reason is the 2030 reapportionment. Every ten years, the US conducts the census. One big thing done with that data is the recalculation of how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives, and how many votes it gets in the Electoral College. And those numbers move in tandem. You gain two House seats. You gain two electoral votes. If you lose a House seat, you lose an electoral vote.”
“Democratic states are losing population and Republican states are gaining.”
“Here’s one way to think about it. In 2020, Joe Biden won* a 306 to 232 victory in the Electoral College. Then, after 2020, the census was finished and representation was reallocated for the 2022 midterms and 2024 presidential election. Under the new map, winning those same states would have shrunk Biden’s victory margin by six electoral votes to 303 to 235.”
“The next census will happen in 2030, and the map will again change for the 2032 presidential election. And right now, the outlook for that map is a disaster for Democrats.”
“Blue states like California and New York shedding House seats and electoral votes, and red states like Texas and Florida gaining four new electoral votes and House seats each.”
“In 2024, Donald Trump won a 312 to 226 victory in the Electoral College. Under this projection, the exact same state and vote breakdown would swell that margin by 20 electoral votes to 322 to 216.”
“Right now the wind is absolutely blowing away from Democratic controlled states and towards Republican controlled ones. And it’s worth asking why.”
“The red areas of the country are becoming a bigger and bigger share of the pie, and it gets to a flashing red problem for Democrats, both for their political survival and brand identity.”
“For the most part, it is expensive as hell to live in a blue area governed by Democrats. The data is clear eight of the ten states with the highest rent prices are solid blue states, and eight of the ten states with the highest cost of living index are also solid blue states.”
“Having a high GDP or on-paper prosperity doesn’t mean much when most people can’t afford their lives.”
“So why are blue cities and states in such an affordability crisis right now? Well, to start, obviously we’re all thinking it 1, 2, 3: taxes. It’s just the fact that Democratic controlled states tend to impose higher tax rates. Sometimes that means taxes that some GOP states don’t even have, like the income tax.”
“Culture is another part. By now it’s clear that Covid in 2020 presented a particular challenge for blue states and cities. Many of which, took a much softer approach to urban disorder and unrest and are still trying to reverse the damage.”
“On a lot of stuff, Democrats also just tend to be more lax or more compassionate, depending on your point of view.”
“The upside might be that a homeless person is treated with more dignity, or you won’t get thrown in jail just for having a bag of marijuana. But the downside might be that now a public park is inaccessible to families wanting to use it, or people are doing hard drugs on the street without the law intervening, which isn’t actually compassionate to anyone.”
“But more than taxes or culture or anything else. The overwhelming majority of this issue stems from one big fact: housing. It has just become really expensive for people to buy or rent a place to live in many blue states. By any conceivable metric, the US overall is in an affordable housing crisis right now. The average renting American now spends over 30% of their income on rent. The ratio of income to housing prices is at a record high right now, and at its highest in blue states.”
“And we have clear data showing us that this has now become a direct drag on Democrats. An NBC analysis of the 2024 presidential race found that Trump made his biggest gains in the counties that have the worst housing markets. Remember those top ten most expensive states and how eight of them were blue states? Five of those eight were also in the ten states that swung the most towards Trump in 2024.”
“And even when people don’t move out of a blue city or state, the people that stay are increasingly reacting to the high cost of living. By losing faith in the Democratic Party. Again, especially middle and working class people. It’s not a coincidence that Trump’s biggest gains in 2024 were in diverse, working class congressional districts in California and the New York City area, places where the Democratic Party has full control and has failed to address the cost of living.”
“But we also know that there is a way to address this in cities, mainly because many blue cities in red states have done it. Take Austin, which is the seat of a county that voted for Kamala Harris by almost 40 points. It’s seen explosive growth over the past 15 years, partly because the city and state have been very successful in making housing more affordable. That’s not because every landlord there suddenly became a socialist or because they banned Blackrock, but because they fundamentally just built more housing, making more space and lowering the prices.” The City of Austin government proper had very little to do with that, though I’m sure it’s several orders of magnitude easier to build apartment buildings here than in San Francisco, and you see them going up all the time. But Austin is surrounding by bedroom communities in far more growth-friendly counties, and Texas beats the hell out of California for pro-growth policies.
“That’s the kind of thing that makes families move there, companies open there, students stay there. And remember, each one of those people is a tiny little piece of building another electoral vote every ten years. By contrast, cities like New York and LA and San Francisco and Boston are in an absolutely different spot. It is simply incredibly expensive to live there.”
“The Democratic Party sees its political power decrease when fewer people live in the states that it controls, but it is the policies of its own politicians which are preventing more people from living in them.”
The only “growth” that blue state politicians seem to embrace is that of their own bank accounts and the ranks of illegal aliens—the same illegal aliens that drive up the cost of housing for ordinary, non-subsidized citizens. The bluer the city or state, the more likely they are to pursue actively anti-growth policies on the assumption that more people equal more destruction of the environment. And how can Democrats create safe cities when the Soros-backed Democrats they elect are determined to keep violent felons on the street as long as they hail from designated victim groups?
How can Democrats pursue pro-growth policies when so many core ideological constituents are anti-growth?
