polecat news and views

Tuesday, September 29, 2026

Hot Takes: Obama Fumbles Big Time on Issue of Women in Power, and People Have Thoughts — *AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File*

The Democrats' pandering to women over the years has always been so cringe and insulting, basically reducing women to the sum total of their lady parts. Ironically, it was the 60s and 70s era 2nd Wave "feminists" who helped usher this in with their abortion obsession and their campaigns to destabilize the traditional family unit - because a woman needed a man like a fish needed a bicycle, in their view.

Over the years, though, the pandering was fine-tuned to add the following message: We need more women in positions of government power because men have supposedly made such a mess of things, and women can do a better job. This was said with a straight face despite the fact that the guiding force behind the women to whom the message was primarily directed had been preserving the "right" for women to terminate the lives of their unborn children.

Former President Barack Obama has spouted off his version of this message over the years, including at a recent public speaking engagement at Salem State University in Salem, MA:

Even when I was president, I sometimes fantasized about if you put uh women in charge of every government for like two years and then just kind of saw, all right, how how how are things going? I have a strong belief that things would they wouldn't be perfect, but they'd be better.

Watch:

In another version of this commentary from 2019, during a Singapore event, Obama added that "If you look at the world and look at the problems, it’s usually old people, usually old men, not getting out of the way."

Not surprisingly, and especially in light of current events, including the female Clancy jurors controversy as well as the abuse allegations against Alaska Democrat Senate nominee Mary Peltola (not to mention the WNBA lunacy), people had thoughts (language warning on a few of them):

Here's the thing: The United States has had some great presidents, some not so great ones, and some pretty mediocre ones, and they've all been men. If by some chance we'd had some female presidents over the last several decades, the same would be true, because not every woman is like Kathy Hochul or Stacey Abrams or Katie Wilson or your average woke WNBA coach.

But the problem here is that when Democrats like Obama talk about the supposed advantages of having women in power, such as being president, they aren't talking about conservative Republican women who would be more than capable, like Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

They're talking about Democrat women, the very ones who, in addition to their warped policy positions, are most prone to temper tantrums (Hillary Clinton), freakouts (AOC), drama-queening (Jennifer Siebel Newsom), vulture-like behavior (Katie Porter), nitwittery (Liz Warren and Kamala Harris), intentional deception (Abigail Spanberger), and getting grossly offended over perceived slights (Michelle Obama). Not to mention how they treat other women, as Erickson mentioned above. The horror stories are endless.

As I've said many times before, women can truly be their own worst enemies.

At the end of the day, though, the question here is not whether a woman president will be better for America than a male president. The real question is, if the president has to be female, which one should it be? The Constitution-abiding, America-loving Republican or the woketivist, America-trashing Democrat that has increasingly become the norm in the Democrat Party? The answer is clear.

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2026/09/24/hot-takes-obama-proclaims-world-would-be-better-with-women-in-charge-and-people-have-thoughts-n2207357?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

UK's Burnham Moves Toward Authoritarian Rule, and That Means Trouble for the U.S.

UK's Burnham Moves Toward Authoritarian Rule, and That Means Trouble for the U.S.

Robert Spencer Follow @jihadwatchRS

Here we go again: leftists have shown us again and again that they hate dissent and debate, which are the foundations of any free society. Now the U.K. is heading decisively toward authoritarianism as its crazy-left prime minister, Andy Burnham, has just announced that he plans to establish a "National Centre for Information Defence" in order to fight — you guessed it — "disinformation."

The “National Centre for Information Defence“ is a canny name. It beats Old Joe Biden’s abortive “Disinformation Governance Board” in couching the whole totalitarian move as “defense” (as we spell it in the land of the free and the home of the brave) rather than “governance.” This is intended to give Burnham’s hapless citizenry the impression that what’s being done to them is not more control from the ruling elites, but protection from the evil machinations of deceivers.

Yeah, Andy, the Mafia offered protection, too. Anyway, GB News reported Wednesday that Burnham, “the Prime Minister, addressing the United Nations, announced the centre to improve ‘community cohesion’ and prevent a ‘distorted and untrue narrative about Britain.’” As a result, Burnham “ordered security chiefs to set up the quango, which will detect, attribute and disrupt ‘hostile information attacks’ and ‘deepfakes’ which hurt British interests.”

A “quango” is an organization that receives government financing but is ostensibly an independent group. And we all know that the far-left British government will stay fastidiously out of the affairs of an organization that is charged with stamping out “hostile information attacks” that supposedly “hurt British interests,” now, don’t we?

GB News explained that this new National Centre for Information Defence “is initially being led out of the Office for the Prime Minister and Cabinet, with the new centre working alongside intelligence agencies, Government departments, the police and social media firms.”

What could possibly go wrong, with all those agencies that have nothing but the best interests of the British people at heart running this new center? Surely it will only censor genuine disinformation, and not what the political elites falsely claim is disinformation because it could harm them politically, a la Hunter Biden’s laptop, right?

Burnham insisted that this censorship agency was necessary because there was no "national security without a strong, cohesive society. That’s the starting point for everything we hold dear and everything we want to achieve. But the fact is that it has been under attack." From whom? Russia was the only attacker he focused upon, but once this monster is up and running, what is to prevent the Labour government from using it against the British patriots it smears as “far right”? Why, nothing, of course.

Burnham claimed that Russia was leading an "industrial-scale assault by hostile actors on the information environment.” He asserted that the Russians were using "every means at their disposal to spread lies and disinformation and prey on people's fears." The left is big on stamping out “fear.” They are, after all, relentless crusaders (jihadis?) against “Islamophobia.” They insist that patriots consistently exaggerate the threats of jihad, Sharia, open borders and more in order to exploit people’s “fears.” And so it’s no surprise that British leftists would want a government organ they can use to fight “fear,” by which they mean opposition to their agenda.

"They’ve used bots and fake websites," Burnham thundered on. "Falsified newspaper articles and forged the branding of 28 British organisations – including universities and the BBC. They’ve amplified far right narratives. And we have evidence that they tried to interfere with the 2019 General Election." There you go: they’ve “amplified far right narratives.” And the Conservatives won the 2019 election, so it’s all right to suspect that it was stolen; if anyone suggested that about the 2024 election, which Labour won in a landslide, Burnham and his comrades would react much the way Democrats do at the suggestion that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Burnham said that Russia was trying to "stoke tensions and unrest in the wake of horrific events," and termed what they were doing "repulsive." No, Mr. Prime Minister. Whatever the Russians may or may not really be doing, what is genuinely repulsive is your attempt to destroy the freedom of speech in one of the lands where it came to its first flowering, and bring Britain’s days as a free society to an end.

Future generations of free Britons, if there are any, will know very well who was really the repulsive one here. But make no mistake: if Burnham manages to pull this off, the U.S. will be next.

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2026/09/25/uks-burnham-moves-toward-authoritarian-rule-and-that-means-trouble-for-the-us-n4957645?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Trump Made Democrats Look Stupid Again

Trump Made Democrats Look Stupid Again

Matt Margolis Follow @mattmargolis

When President Donald Trump announced a new helipad for the White House South Lawn, Democrats lined up to trash it as another monument to his ego.

Boy, do they look stupid now.

Trump announced the project earlier this year. The helipad, with an estimated price tag of $5 million to $6 million, would serve the new fleet of more powerful presidential helicopters. According to Trump, those aircraft generate so much force on landing that they've been chewing up the lawn. He added that the pad could also host other White House events and press conferences.

And what made it even better was that Sikorsky, the Lockheed Martin subsidiary that has built Marine One helicopters for decades, footed the bill.

"They didn't tell us how powerful these helicopters were and they felt a little bit guilty," Trump said.

None of that slowed down the outrage machine. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) called the project a "joke."

"Trump has refused to sign a bipartisan housing bill that would lower costs for working Americans, build more housing, and stop private equity from buying up homes. But he's laser-focused on building a new helipad," she said.

DNC Rapid Response Director Kendall Witmer piled on, calling the helipad one of Trump's "endless vanity projects."

A vanity project? Not even close. In fact, the Washington Post reported that multiple administrations had considered building this exact helipad, because the new VH-92A Marine One helicopters could scorch the White House lawn.

Trump didn't dream up the problem. He solved it.

And guess who put those lawn-torching helicopters into service? Joe Biden. The VH-92A fleet entered service in 2024, and Biden took the first flight aboard the Sikorsky-built aircraft. That same year, the military announced that Sikorsky had delivered the last of 23 helicopters and touted the fleet's "increased performance and reduced maintenance costs" compared with older models.

Democrats spent the summer blaming Trump for fixing a mess that Biden's shiny new helicopters created. Sound familiar?

The funniest part came from Connecticut, where Sikorsky happens to be based. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) released a joint statement that tried to have it both ways. They opened by gushing over their home-state employer.

"The men and women of Sikorsky produce the world's finest helicopters, and their top-notch craftsmanship and innovation deserve to be celebrated," the group wrote. "The issue of Marine One engine exhaust burning the White House South Lawn goes back years and must be addressed to bring Sikorsky's next-generation Marine One helicopters into service."

So they admitted that the problem was real, had lingered for years, and needed fixing. Then they turned around and attacked the guy who fixed it.

"But once again, President Trump is rushing to complete yet another White House project without providing the American people with the transparency they deserve. It's a slap in the face to workers who'll have to work overtime and the taxpayers who may end up footing the bill," the statement continued.

Taxpayers who "may" foot the bill? Sikorsky covered the $5 million. A Lockheed Martin spokesperson told Time that "this specific contribution was made to the National Park Service," adding, "Our engagement with the federal government is guided by rigorous ethics and compliance standards and conducted in full accordance with all applicable laws and regulations."

The helipad had its ribbon-cutting earlier this week, and I don't care who you are; it looks beautiful.

It was also obviously necessary, just like the White House ballroom project was necessary and even wanted by previous administrations. Democrats chose knee-jerk opposition anyway, because opposing Trump is the only move they have left, even when he's right.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/09/25/trump-made-democrats-look-stupid-again-n4957633?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Monday, September 28, 2026

Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Just Crossed a Line With the Holdout Juror

Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Just Crossed a Line With the Holdout Juror

Matt Margolis Follow @mattmargolis

When a Massachusetts jury deadlocked in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial, her defense team went hunting for someone to blame, and it zeroed in on the one juror who refused to find her not guilty.

Clancy’s lawyer argued that severe postpartum psychosis made her not guilty by reason of insanity for brutally murdering her three young children. Prosecutors told a different story. They pointed out how Clancy planned the killings in advance and even schemed to get her husband out of the house long enough to carry out the murders. One juror, Michael Desronvil, a hero in my book, refused to call that insanity. His vote deadlocked the jury, and Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial earlier this month.

Now Clancy’s defense attorney, Kevin Reddington, wants Desronvil investigated. His motion asks Sullivan to look into whether Desronvil gave inaccurate answers during jury selection and claims he used his cellphone during deliberations. Reddington also wants the judge to order Desronvil's phone carrier to hand over call and text records for every day of deliberations. He also wants Desronvil forced to surrender his phone to a "neutral examiner" who would dig through its data.

Think about the implications of this. A private citizen answers a jury summons, sits through a gut-wrenching trial about three dead children, votes his conscience, and his reward is not only being forced into hiding, but also having the defense lawyer demand access to his phone.

Reddington's case leans heavily on fellow juror Nick Dargie, who told ABC News in an interview that Desronvil ignored the other panelists and scrolled on his phone during deliberations. However, according to Desronvil, he was hardly the only one looking at a screen.

ICYMI: CNN Insiders Are Panicking Over This Bombshell Development

Ray Marcel, host of the true-crime YouTube channel Fugitive TV, now serves as Desronvil's spokesperson. He sat down with NewsNation's Brian Entin to respond to the allegations.

"He said everybody had their phone on them. It wasn't like they took their phones away and locked them away," Marcel said.

Marcel claimed that other jurors were "posting on social media, allegedly... while deliberations [were] going on," though he refused to name them. He added that Desronvil told him "people were sitting back there on their phones you know that's how it was."

On his show, Marcel said Desronvil Googled "psychosis" to "make sure he has it right" and looked up "altruistic filicide," a term he had never encountered. Marcel argued that the paper jury instructions leave a "gray area" because they don't explicitly forbid jurors from looking up an unfamiliar word at home.

He went further in an X post Wednesday, alleging that the judge ordered jurors off their devices only after some had already used their phones to look up definitions during deliberations. "So the court already knows," Marcel wrote. He also accused jurors of posting on social media and discussing the case with friends, and he claimed one unnamed juror posted in a Karen Read Facebook group.

"If we're going to start looking at Michael's phone records, then let's be consistent: Let's look at EVERYONE'S phone records," Marcel wrote.

"Don't single out one juror. If Michael's communications are relevant, then the same standard should apply across the board," he added.

Massachusetts trial court rules let jurors keep their phones but bar them from using them during trial or deliberations. Judges have the power to confiscate phones before deliberations begin, and no evidence shows Sullivan did that here. If phone use tainted this jury, the problem reaches well past one man, and Reddington surely knows it.

So why target Desronvil alone? Because he's the juror who stood between Clancy and the verdict her defense (and a bunch of lunatic Karens) wanted. Reddington hasn't asked to comb through the phone records of the 11 jurors who sided with his client. He wants the one holdout's texts, calls, and data, and nobody else's. If Sullivan grants that request, the message to future jurors is unmistakable. Vote the wrong way, and your private life becomes evidence.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/09/24/lindsay-clancys-lawyer-just-crossed-a-line-with-the-holdout-juror-n4957606?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Liberals Again Celebrate Charlie Kirk’s Assassination, Proving We Can Never Let Them Regain Power

Liberals Again Celebrate Charlie Kirk’s Assassination, Proving We Can Never Let Them Regain Power

RedState Guest Editorial

By Cliff Maloney

It’s that time again — we’re rapidly approaching the midterm elections and facing the potential of a lame duck presidential administration.

And I know you hear this every two years, so I understand the irony of what I’m about to say, but the stakes have never been higher.

We’ve all seen the government overreach under the previous administration, and every Democrat currently in office, as well as every new candidate running for office, is promising more of the same. But that’s not what I’m most worried about. We’ve also all seen the absurd woke agenda pushed by the left at all levels of society. That’s not what I’m most worried about either. And we’ve all watched in horror as the vast resources of the federal government have been weaponized against anyone who stood against the radical left. Even that isn’t what I’m most worried about.

I expect all of that and more from today’s Democrats.

What I’m most worried about is the absolutely abhorrent, bordering on psychopathic behavior from the average liberal voter.

It was put on full display last year when my friend Charlie Kirk was brutally assassinated in front of thousands of onlookers, streamed live to millions of Americans. And immediately after this repulsive act of terrorism, millions of liberals began gleefully celebrating. TikTok dances, Halloween costumes, graphic memes, songs, and even video games — millions of “ordinary” liberals took immense pleasure in mocking the murder of a man who wanted nothing more than to peacefully debate ideas.

And they did all of that simply because he had a different opinion than they did.

This wasn’t a one-time event, an outlier, or a fluke, either. As we approached the anniversary of Charlie Kirk’s assassination this year, I saw all the same repulsive celebratory behavior spring up yet again. And again. And again. That makes it clear that this wasn’t just a knee-jerk reaction driven by extremely poor judgment.

It’s who they are at their core. The sad reality is that modern liberals, for the most part, completely lack any sense of morality.

If Democrats win the midterm elections, especially following the massive legislative and social wins Republicans have achieved over the last two years, they will see it as validation of their worldview. They will be emboldened to double down on their extreme ideology, and more importantly, they’ll embark on a suicide mission for what they see as retribution. Only it won’t be their suicide — it will be America’s.

I genuinely believe that if that happens, we may never be able to recover as a nation.

They will plunge America deeper into unsustainable debt, weaken our military, and destroy our free enterprise system. But more importantly, they will completely shred the fabric of our society, and that’s what makes America what it is.

Without traditional American values, our country will become just another cesspool of liberalism where the government, rather than the people, has all the power, and we become subjects rather than citizens.

I’m doing everything in my power to fight back.

We’ve knocked over 9 million doors to support America First candidates across the country, achieving 452 crucial wins as a result. And we’ve mobilized the entire Citizens Alliance network of doorknockers to support patriots in the midterms.

But I can’t do it alone.

If we’re going to win the 2026 midterms, every single patriotic American needs to not only show up and vote — we need to get active and vocal leading up to the election.

We need to rally our families, friends, and communities. We also need to talk about the issues that matter, both online and in person. The left is already doing that, so we need to do it on a larger scale and louder to show others who share our views that they’re not alone. And unlike in recent years, we have an advantage because we’re no longer being censored on social media.

And it’s bigger than keeping the House and Senate. Don’t get me wrong — we absolutely need to achieve victory there. But if we truly want to stop the radical left from destroying the progress we’ve made over the last two years and then doubling down to destroy America, we need to achieve victories across the country in even the most local races.

That’s where the left has historically been especially effective. They’ve built a massive grassroots network of elected officials at all levels of government, which has given them exponentially more power as well as a false impression of widespread support.

This election is ours to win or to lose, and the deciding factor is mobilization. It’s time for action.

https://redstate.com/redstate-guest-editorial/2026/09/25/liberals-again-celebrate-charlie-kirks-assassination-proving-we-can-never-let-them-regain-power-n2207254?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl