Monday, January 26, 2026

Minneapolis Shooting Exposes Democrat Brinkmanship – They Don't Care Who Dies

Minneapolis Shooting Exposes Democrat Brinkmanship – They Don't Care Who Dies

AP Photo/Abbie Parr

Yesterday, tweets about Minneapolis ranged from the hysterical to the measured and everything in between. Of all those tweets, this one stuck out to me.

If Minnesota (or any state) wants to adopt ultra-lenient immigration enforcement—harboring undocumented immigrants, limiting cooperation with ICE, and issuing driver's licenses regardless of status—that might be their prerogative if the consequences stayed contained within their borders.

But they don't.

People, including those released under sanctuary policies, can freely move to neighboring states like Wisconsin, Iowa, or the Dakotas. No federal checkpoint stops them. A single driver's license from Minnesota enables legal driving across state lines, making it easy to relocate, work, or—if so inclined—commit crimes elsewhere.

The result? One state's 'compassionate' or ideological experiment in immigration policy imposes real costs—public safety risks, strained resources, eroded trust in law enforcement—on the entire country.

We don't allow states to nullify federal drug laws, gun laws, or environmental regulations in ways that spill over and harm neighboring states without consequence. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility for the same reason: borders and mobility make bad local policies a national problem. 

That's the irony at the heart of it all: Republicans and conservatives aren't seeking endless conflict or division. We crave stability—a return to civility where Americans can coexist peacefully, regardless of party lines. That's why we extend olive branches, reaching across the aisle in hopes of genuine dialogue and compromise with Democrats.

Yet time and again, this goodwill backfires spectacularly. History shows that negotiating with those who treat politics like a zero-sum game—holding key issues hostage to extract maximum concessions—rarely ends well. It emboldens brinkmanship, erodes trust, and leaves everyone worse off.Democrats, in their current form, often embody this approach: leveraging crises, from budgets to borders, not for resolution but for leverage.

Until both sides commit to good-faith bargaining without ultimatums, true progress remains elusive. Conservatives aren't the aggressors here; we're the ones repeatedly burned by the pursuit of unity.

What a nightmare.

https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2026/01/25/what-is-the-plan-minnesota-n2424343?utm_source=twdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Can You Feel the Excitement? Kamala Is Back and in the Lead!

Can You Feel the Excitement? Kamala Is Back and in the Lead!

AP Photo/Ethan Swope

warned you! It’s kind of hilarious, but a lot of folks don’t realize that the current number one candidate to win the Democratic nomination in 2028 is… not Gavin Hairstyle… not Alfred E. Buttigieg… not Jupiter B. Pritzker… not even Josh “Yeah Right, Democrats Are Gonna Nominate A Jewish Guy Who Won’t Apologize For It” Shapiro. It’s Kamala Harris. No, really, I’m serious.

“That’s crazy talk, Kurt. Why are you so crazy with your talking?”

I’m not crazy. The Democrats aren’t crazy, either – they are stupid and evil. I’m not giving them the insanity out – they need to own the sorry and degraded state to which they have devolved. But as wacky as it would seem to an outside observer, Kamala is not just in the mix. She’s at the top of it – she’s the froth on a defeat latte, and Democrats are about to gulp it down.

If you have doubts, that’s because you’re normal. After all, a normal person looks at Kamala Harris and sees a Chardonnay-sodden, cackling quarter-wit with a proven track record of failure. She not only famously lost the last election, but did so in such a way that, in a sensible party, she would be exiled to the political equivalent of Greenland before it became part of the United States.

Her first and most important decision in the 2024 election was legendarily dumb. She picked Tim Walz to be her running mate when she could’ve picked Josh Shapiro. I guess she had to nail down Minnesota for the Democrats rather than the swingiest of swing states, Pennsylvania. And more than that, her remarkable judgment led her to think that that mincing weirdo was going to win over all those male-identifying males who the Democrats have been disrespecting for the last few decades. Within the first couple of weeks, Governor Jazz Hands was revealed as a deployment-dodging, ChiCom-canoodling, show tunes-belting dork whose video antics trying to load a shotgun were the funniest thing to come out of his godforsaken freezer of a state until the recent video of Mogadishu West Mayor Jacob Frey pretending to enjoy forcing down a bowl of festering Somali swill. Of course, recently Tampon Tim was so wrapped up in the Somali fraud scandal he overlooked – putting it charitably – that he had to drop out of the race for reelection. That’s the guy she picked.

You had one job, Kamala, and you blew it – so to speak.

Her general election gaffes were the stuff of legend, including her inability to list even one thing she would’ve done differently from the human eggplant prior president, who held on to the power for as long as he possibly could, at least in part, because he absolutely knew his understudy would fumble the general election. Further, her campaign strategy was built on the reasonable notion that the more exposure human beings had to her, the more repelled they would be by her. She therefore avoided normal human beings and avoided interviews, and while this definitely hurt her campaign – Trump was everywhere, talking to everyone and doing hilarious and fun things like driving a garbage truck and working the McDonald’s drive-thru – one wonders if Kamala would’ve performed even worse with more exposure.

Signs point to yes. She comes off as stupid and annoying, which is a direct consequence of her being stupid and annoying.

But none of that matters because she’s a woman-identifying person of color. End of discussion. No, really, that’s it. That’s enough to win the election against the pale people o’ pallor who are her competition.

Every once in a while, somebody puts up a picture of her on Twitter and rants about how great it would be if she were president and not that mean old Donald Trump. This is either a result of people being stupid or thinking you are stupid. In fact, the biggest critics of Kamala Harris have always been other Democrats. They know she’s just an empty pantsuit that’s filled up with Franzia and commie nonsense. 

But she’s got that black thing going, and that double X chromosome thing, too, and don’t underestimate those. After all, this is the Democrat Party. Besides her unequivocal willingness to perform any act of submission to the pagan pinko gods, those are the only things that matter. She’s black and female, and that gives her a massive advantage because that’s all her party cares about.

Gavin Newsom is a white guy, the Patrick Bateman of the West Coast. That’s not going to go over with the Democrat base real well, although there are professional Democrat voices who are pretty much saying, “Hey, we gotta stop this nonsense with the naggy chicks and get us a white guy, or we will never win again.” But you’ve got to understand who really matters in the Democrat Party. It’s not the pros; it’s the activists and black women, and neither of those groups is going to pass over a BIPOC uterus-haver in favor of a rich boy who is about as ethnic as a Romney.

The activists want somebody who’s literally too stupid and weak to oppose them when their idiocy gets too alienating for normal people. A guy like Gavin Newsom has an animal cunning that allows him to realize that there’s a line that regular people are not going to cross. He can fake moderation. Kamala can’t. She’ll recognize Hamas is the true government of Israel. She’ll give back Iran the bomb. She’ll hand over Taiwan to the Chinese and the Philippines, too. She won’t even bother with plausible deniability when she throws the border back open. When the activists rub the bottle, a gaseous Kamala floats out, manifests, and announces, “Your wish is my command.”

The black women, who have an outsized role in the party, just love her, and with South Carolina likely to be the first contest in the primary, they will be decisive in picking the nominee. Who’s going to compete with her gyn-noir bona fides? Pete Buttigieg is running about zero percent with black voters, a number that frankly seems a little high. The same with JB Pritzker – what’s the argument for this guy? “Sure, he’s not white, and he presumably has a penis in there somewhere, but on the plus side, he’s enormously fat?”

And Josh Shapiro? Yeah, the activists are going to just love a guy who opposes “Holocaust II: Electric Boogaloo.” Likewise, I’m sure all those black Democrat women – as well as the sexually frustrated white wine women – would just love somebody who’s Jewish in the sense that he practices Judaism.

In case you don’t understand me, I’m saying that antisemitism is a key component of the modern Democrat Party. Our side may be stuck with the occasional dummies like Candace Owens, but their antisemites are the rule and not the exception.

Now, according to one poll, Kamala Harris is leading at 33 percent, and in others, she’s also doing well. JD Vance seems to think she’s the likely nominee at this point, suggesting that it’s a fight between her and Brylcreem Boy to determine “the dumbest candidate.” Commentator Mark Halperin has her in the mix as well. But the most important take is from Kamala herself. She seems to believe that her book tour was a gigantic success and that she isn’t the ridiculous buffoon that she obviously is. Her ego and raw appetite for striving will push her into the race. Of course, this time she’s on her own. At every other juncture in her life, she’s been given political gigs by more powerful men pursuant to various arrangements. But no one will give her this one. She’s got to go take it, and that’s the problem for her. While she’s well-positioned to win the nomination thanks to her immutable genetic characteristics, she’s got a couple of big disadvantages.

She’s an idiot, and she’s a loser. But then, she’s a Democrat, so maybe they’re actually advantages.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2026/01/22/can-you-feel-the-excitement-kamala-is-back-and-in-the-lead-n2669804?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

With anti-ICE fury, Democrats are playing with fire

With anti-ICE fury, Democrats are playing with fire

For a democratic republic to function, you need certain key elements. 

First, elections must be generally regarded as honest. 

Second, candidates and their supporters have to abide by the results of those elections when they occur.

Third, winners of elections must not behave in a way that makes losing the contest a matter of life and death (or lifetime imprisonment).

Democrats are undermining — or just outright wrecking — all three.

On the electoral trustworthiness front, Democrats are standing united against measures to ensure that only legitimate voters can cast votes, and that the votes cast are counted honestly and transparently.

When it comes to abiding by elections, the Democrats have treated President Donald Trump’s victories in both 2016 and 2024 as illegitimate. (In fairness, he did the same in 2020 — but accepted Joe Biden’s presidency after Inauguration Day.)

In Trump’s first term, Democrats formed a “resistance” movement — as if the administration of a duly elected president was analogous to a German occupation government in World War II — and pushed the patently false claim that his victory was a “hacked election” or the product of (nonexistent) “Russian collusion.” 

In his second term the “resistance” is expanding, with suggestions that Trump is ruling as a “king” — and now with the often violent protests aiming to block the legitimate enforcement of duly enacted immigration laws. 

Democratic governors and mayors in Minnesota, Oregon and Illinois have gone so far as to actively enable the chaos by withdrawing police protection.  

Finally, winners of elections must not pose an existential threat to the losers; they can’t carry out, or even hint at, mass imprisonment or blanket prosecution.  

Take a lesson from history: Julius Caesar led his army across the Rubicon to seize power in Rome because his political enemies were plotting to subject him to political prosecutions that could have led to his death or exile.  

Caesar saved himself (for a while) — but his action, and the behavior of his opponents that triggered it, killed off the Roman Republic.

Historically in American politics, electoral losers have accepted the results, however grudgingly, and concentrated on winning the next election. 

This new trend of treating Republican electoral victories as inherently illegitimate is a departure — and very dangerous.

It’s made more dangerous by widespread threats from important Democratic figures to prosecute not only Trump and his administration, but lower-level officials — and now, even federal law-enforcement agents. 

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has been raising this specter for months, and other prominent leftists are following his lead.

In September, Jeffries said that Democrats would prosecute members of Trump’s Justice Department once they regain power: “Donald Trump and this toxic administration will be long gone, but there will still be accountability to be had.”

In December, he issued a message on X to “all these GOP extremists and [Trump] sycophants . . . the statute of limitations is 5 years! It will be well beyond the end of the Trump admin.”

We’ve heard similar statements from Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, Democratic consultant James Carville and ex-CNN gadfly Jim Acosta. 

This month, the drumbeat got louder amid stepped-up immigration-enforcement operations in Minneapolis, Minn.

Leftist commentator Jennifer Welch recently used her podcast to push “relentless” prosecutions of Trump, Elon Musk, Stephen Miller and other Republicans if Democrats regain power, arguing it would be necessary for “true national reconciliation.”

And just last week Jeffries was back warning rank-and-file ICE officers to expect a Democratic administration to prosecute them for any crimes it could discover (or perhaps, given the history of efforts to prosecute Trump in the past, invent).

“Every single one of these people who we see brutalizing the American people, they’re gonna be held accountable,” Jeffries said of ICE agents. “And the statute of limitations . . . is five years.”

As Caesar’s experience demonstrates, you can’t have a democratic republic if every election is an existential struggle in which the loser risks extinction. 

People don’t want to be rendered extinct, and they can be expected to take steps to prevent it.

If Democrats keep up this thuggery, Republicans will be all but forced to respond in their own defense — and any action they may take could destabilize the nation even further.

The last time such a breach happened in the United States was in 1860, where pro-slavery Democrats seceded from the country rather than abide by the results of a presidential election. 

That resulted in a Civil War that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans and devastated much of the nation — a war driven by Southern “fire-eater” rhetoric that’s not unlike what we’re hearing from some Democrats today.

It needs to stop, or the consequences might be much worse this time around.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.

https://nypost.com/2026/01/19/opinion/with-anti-ice-fury-democrats-are-playing-with-fire/