polecat news and views

Monday, October 19, 2026

AOC Is Wrong: Elected Officials Should Never Ask Businesses to Fight Immigration Battles for Them — *AP Photo/Jose Juarez*

After last week’s shooting of Oscar Belgal in Marble Hill, Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) demanded that Target stop “offering” its Bronx properties as staging sites for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The company, however, says it has no cooperative agreements with ICE or any other immigration-enforcement agency. Obviously, reports that agents simply used a parking lot, as is their legal right, do not establish that Target invited, authorized, or even knew about the agents doing so.

On October 16, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and more than 100 other officials followed AOC’s lead in a letter urging private parking lot and garage owners across the city to deny ICE the use of their facilities for enforcement staging. Their letter asks owners to inform ICE agents that they are not authorized to use their properties, which is potentially an illegal and obstructive request to law enforcement.

The letter goes further in demanding compliance and asks the recipients to demonstrate that they will actively keep agents away from their premises, while acknowledging that ICE’s use of parking facilities may involve a formal agreement, an informal arrangement, or “no arrangement at all.” In other words, a business need not have invited federal agents or agreed to support their work to become responsible, under this new political standard, for stopping ICE agents from using their property.

While the original accusation against Target demanded evidence of cooperation (for which there is none), the expanded campaign demands action regardless of whether cooperation occurred. That is a significant shift, and before this trend spreads beyond New York, Democrat lawmakers need to wake up and realize whose shoulders this new burden of theirs is falling upon.

A garage operator has customers to serve, and a retailer has employees to supervise, deliveries to receive, and a business to run. Now, political leaders want these employers and young employees to manage the fallout from a confrontation between federal and local immigration policies.

The consequences will not be an exchange of letters between elected officials and corporate executives. The consequences are someone working at a garage or store being forced to jump into action when agents arrive, explain company policy, and summon help if a dispute develops.

If ICE agents refuse to comply with being asked to vacate private spaces intended for public use, such as parking lots, when doing so falls within the established legal rights of law enforcement, and the business owner or employee refuses to budge on asking them to leave, then it’s easy to see how some of these interactions masterminded by Democrat lawmakers will not go well.

For a young employee learning to manage a shift, this could become a responsibility with untold consequences. Imagine a 17-year-old kid working in the parking garage at Bronx Terminal Market, going and finding shopping carts and returning them to their proper location. Now imagine that kid having to go up to idling cars with people in them, since ICE agents sometimes operate in plain clothes and unmarked cars, knock on windows, ask if they are ICE agents, and then demand that they leave if they say yes. Why would Democrat lawmakers want to put that burden on that young person?

Elected officials are supposed to spend their time alleviating burdens on the public and making things easier and simpler, not issuing demands for citizens to obstruct law enforcement. Immigration policy is the responsibility of government. Elected officials have the authority, staff, and public mandate to challenge enforcement practices, seek records, and pursue changes in law. They should use those tools and accept responsibility for the results rather than deputizing the public to be immigration and customs enforcement watchdogs.

While the Marble Hill shooting warrants investigation, as do all arrests during which a law enforcement officer discharges a firearm, lawmakers who have chosen to drag private companies and their employees into this political fight have gone too far.

AOC and her colleagues have moved from inaccurately accusing one company of cooperation to asking businesses across New York to prevent staging activity for federal officers. Conservative lawmakers in Washington must call this behavior for what it is: asinine, counterproductive, and dangerous.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2026/10/17/aoc-is-wrong-elected-officials-should-never-ask-businesses-to-fight-immigration-battles-for-them-n2684843?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-4skS7qAyEG&utm_term=&_nlid=4skS7qAyEG&_nhids=ncyGZHlai1kbls

The Perils of Believing the Pollsters Every October

The Perils of Believing the Pollsters Every October

Tim Graham

Everyone absorbing the elitist media spin on the midterm elections cannot avoid the swirling symphony of doom for the Republicans. Conventional wisdom suggests a good night for Democrats, and that's before you look at the president's dreadful approval rating. Polls can be tricky: one can disapprove of Trump and still vote the Republican party line.

All this doom might be accurate — or it might turn out like 2016. Hillary Clinton had a 98 percent chance of winning, they said. Then-"CBS Evening News" anchor Scott Pelley suppressed his delight as he claimed, "Time is running out for Donald Trump ... No candidate down this far, this late, has ever recovered." Over on ABC, Jonathan Karl echoed: "Donald Trump is down 17 points among women. You do not get elected ... if you are down 17 points among women."

When all of the media's polls turned out to look like Fake News, Democrats immediately suspected the election had been stolen and then spent four years denying reality.

So it was amazing when the front page of The New York Times on Oct. 15 boasted new research on the president's second-term statements about his loss in 2020: "Trump's Relentless Campaign To Cast Doubt On Elections With Lies and Bold Claims." They don't have the slightest bit of shame about anyone turning that around on them. They won a Pulitzer Prize for their "relentless campaign to cast doubt" on Trump's 2016 election, and they weren't going to send it back in disgrace.

In 2024, the networks spent the last few weeks of the campaign wildly speculating about how Donald Trump wouldn't accept his impending defeat and it would be complete chaos. They eagerly shared the alleged data point from the Des Moines Register that Kamala Harris was up 3 points in Iowa — and then she lost by 13.

When Trump was victorious again, PBS pundit Jonathan Capehart concluded on Election Night: "I can't help but wonder if the American people have given up on democracy." This wasn't a one-time emotional reaction. Days before Trump's second inauguration, Capehart repeated himself on PBS: "with these results, the American people just sort of gave up on democracy, or wanting to, hey, let's try this authoritarianism ... Let's give that a shot."

Conservatives and Republicans must always contend with the supercilious supposition that "democracy" is only genuinely in place when they lose. The Left believes the "right side of history" must inevitably prevail. The Capehart types all borrow from Martin Luther King that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." Democracy "dies in darkness" if they don't get their way.

But what we suddenly face in these midterm elections is a "Democrat" Party in thrall to the "Democratic" Socialists of America, whose platform includes repealing the Supreme Court, the Senate and the presidency. If our media elites were champions of democracy instead of Democrat partisans and enablers, they would strongly oppose that extremist tendency. They would defend norms and institutions. Instead, they want to accommodate the DSA so they can gain a majority.

The natural momentum here would lead to Democrats winning back the House, and possibly the Senate. What happens when the DSA faction in those majorities starts undermining norms and institutions? Democrat candidates like Sherrod Brown are already promising to refuse to confirm any new Trump judicial nominations. Sadly but surely, we can guess that journalists will continue to promote and enable whatever tactic gives their side the most power to bend that "arc of justice."

https://townhall.com/columnists/timgraham/2026/10/16/the-perils-of-believing-the-pollsters-every-october-n2684774?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-UseBkJurNT&utm_term=&_nlid=UseBkJurNT&_nhids=ncyGZHlai1kbls

Climate Attribution Is Moving Faster Than Science

Climate Attribution Is Moving Faster Than Science

The Heartland Institute

When Hurricane Isaias approached the Gulf Coast on October 9, Climate Central released a rapid attribution analysis claiming human-caused warming had “supercharged” the Gulf waters beneath the storm and added approximately 7 mph to its winds. The claim was quickly repeated by WSMV-TV and other news outlets.

There is a problem with this increasingly common style of climate journalism. The attribution claim appeared while the hurricane was still occurring, before there was time for the sort of careful post-storm analysis normally expected when assigning causes to a complex meteorological event.

Warm ocean water is certainly necessary for hurricanes. Tropical cyclones are heat engines, drawing energy from warm water through sensible and latent heat transfer. But saying warm water fuels hurricanes is very different from claiming that an anomalously warm Gulf made a particular hurricane's winds precisely 7 mph stronger.

Meteorologist Chris Martz examined that question using two long-running National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) datasets. His analysis does not prove that sea-surface warming has no influence on hurricanes, but it raises an important question about the confidence being attached to claims about individual storms.

The first distinction is simple but frequently lost in reporting: a sea-surface temperature anomaly is not the actual temperature of the water. It is the departure from an average.

The Gulf is naturally very warm during the heart of hurricane season. In late August, September, and early October, its absolute water temperatures routinely exceed the threshold necessary to sustain powerful hurricanes. A Gulf running above its climatological average therefore does not mean hurricanes suddenly have access to fuel that was previously unavailable.

Martz tested whether warmer-than-average Gulf temperatures historically corresponded to stronger Gulf hurricanes. He used NOAA's National Hurricane Center HURDAT2 hurricane database, extending back to the 19th century, and NOAA's Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 5 dataset.

He identified 269 tropical cyclones that reached hurricane strength while in the Gulf between 1854 and 2025. For each, he compared the storm's maximum sustained winds while in the Gulf with the average sea-surface temperature anomaly along its Gulf track.

The result was striking.

Martz calculated a Pearson correlation of just +0.036 and a correlation value (R²) of just 0.001. In that simple historical comparison, Gulf sea-surface temperature anomalies explained approximately one-tenth of one percent of the variation in maximum hurricane wind speed. The relationship between water temperature and hurricane strength was not statistically significant, not even a blip.

The wide scatter of the data is equally instructive. Some extremely powerful Gulf hurricanes occurred with sea-surface temperatures below the modern 1991-2020 average. Conversely, some hurricanes traveling across unusually warm Gulf waters remained relatively weak.

This should not be surprising. Hurricane intensity depends on much more than sea-surface temperature. Hurricane formation is a complex process.

Vertical wind shear can tear apart a developing hurricane. Dry air can disrupt convection. Atmospheric stability, upper-level outflow, storm structure, forward motion, and ocean heat content below the immediate surface all matter. Internal processes such as eyewall replacement cycles can cause substantial changes in intensity even when the surrounding environment remains favorable.

That complexity is precisely why the rush to assign a specific climate-change contribution to a hurricane while it is still making headlines should make journalists cautious.

Climate Central's analysis is model-based attribution with a false conclusion. The estimated 7 mph increase is not something that was measured by a hurricane hunter aircraft or weather buoy. There is no second Hurricane Isaias moving through an otherwise identical Gulf without anthropogenic warming against which the real storm can be compared. The counterfactual hurricane only exists in model output, not reality.

That does not make attribution modeling worthless. It does mean its results should be reported for what they are: estimates dependent upon assumptions about how the storm would have behaved in a hypothetical climate.

Martz's analysis has limitations as well. A simple historical correlation cannot isolate every variable controlling hurricane intensity, nor does it by itself disprove a thermodynamic influence from long-term ocean warming. But that is precisely the point. Hurricane intensity is a multivariable problem, which makes the media's confident reduction of a particular storm to a single climate number all the more questionable.

Instead, the attribution process increasingly seems to work backward. A damaging weather event occurs. A rapid model estimates how much worse climate change supposedly made it. The resulting number becomes a headline, and the qualification that this is a modeled counterfactual often disappears somewhere between the scientific analysis and the evening news.

There is nothing wrong with studying whether long-term climate change affects hurricanes. There is something wrong with presenting uncertain attribution estimates as though scientists had placed Hurricane Isaias on a laboratory scale and measured the additional wind supplied by carbon dioxide.

The public deserves the distinction between observation and modeling, between correlation and causation, and between what scientists know and what they estimate.

Climate attribution should follow the evidence. Increasingly, the headlines seem to be arriving well before any evidence does.

https://redstate.com/heartlandinstitute/2026/10/17/climate-attribution-is-moving-faster-than-science-n2208208?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Sunday, October 18, 2026

How Trump stopped the green ideology that nearly conquered the country.

How Trump stopped the green ideology that nearly conquered the country.

America came closer to going net zero than many realize. To explain its rise, we need to consider a prophetic 1983 essay, “Risk and Culture,” by British anthropologist Mary Douglas and American political scientist Aaron Wildavsky. They argued that the risks a society deems most serious are a product of culture. “Each social arrangement elevates some risks to a high peak and depresses others below sight. This cultural bias is integral to social organization,” they wrote.

Douglas and Wildavsky observed the rise of the environmental movement as an insurgent political force, or what they termed the “border.” Led by white Boomer liberals inspired by the African Americans’ fight for civil rights, environmentalists appropriated the movement’s moral absolutism and refusal to compromise.

They predicted the border insurgency would conquer the political center thanks to generational turnover and because it would co-opt green ideology to avoid being on the losing side. Their predictions have been vindicated. Campaigning for the presidency in 1988, George H.W. Bush said he would tackle the greenhouse effect with “the White House effect.” Less than two decades later, his son George W. Bush complained of America’s addiction to oil and then signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act, requiring tougher fuel economy standards and biofuels, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, which imposed mandatory greenhouse gas reporting.

Co-option was followed by conquest. “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” Barack Obama declared in June 2008 after winning the Democratic nomination for president. Once in the White House, he met early disappointment. Obama carried forward his predecessor’s objective of agreeing to a global climate treaty that included the largest emitters from the Global South. The November 2009 Copenhagen climate conference sought to produce such a treaty, but these efforts were sabotaged by the Global South, led by China and India.

That same year also saw the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill die a lingering death in the United States Senate. The Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to overcome, spared America the type of aggressive climate legislation enacted on the other side of the Atlantic. Britain’s Climate Change Act, passed the previous year, imposed a goal of 80% decarbonization by 2050, which in 2019 was raised to 100%, or net zero.

The Democrats’ shellacking in the 2010 midterms put a definitive end to the prospect of Congress passing any climate legislation. At a post-election press conference, President Obama promised that cap-and-trade had been just one way of “skinning the cat.” For the rest of his presidency and into a third Obama term under Joe Biden’s titular presidency, the strategy was the same: do climate policy while bypassing Congress and refusing to let the Senate give its advice and consent on any climate treaty. Todd Stern, Obama’s climate envoy, used to joke that if you took the Declaration of Independence and stamped “climate change” at the top, it wouldn’t have gotten any votes in the Senate.

The strategy required pretending to believe two things that Obama’s presidential memoir tells us he knew were untrue. He justified his “happy talk” about a painless shift to a carbon-free future as necessary in the “highly irrational world” of American politics. There wouldn’t be any climate policy, Obama’s 2008 campaign strategist David Plouffe pointed out, “if we lose Ohio and Pennsylvania.”

The second involves what Paul Tucker, in his 2022 book Global Discord, calls the “Humean institution of promising,” on which any global climate treaty would have to rely. At every international forum he attended, Obama was struck by how “few nations felt obliged to act beyond narrow self-interest…China, Russia, and even genuine democracies like Brazil, India, and South Africa still operated on different principles.” “They abided by the established rules only insofar as their own interests were advanced…and they appeared happy to violate them when they thought they could get away with it.”

The Obama Administration’s post-Copenhagen approach sought to get around potential treaty vetoes from China and the U.S. Senate by having each country create its own climate pledges. At the start of his second term, Obama formed a climate G2 with China, opening the way to the Paris Climate Agreement and its novel structure, which can best be understood as synchronized unilateralism.

There was a catch that should have sent the resulting agreement to the Senate. The Paris Agreement states that developed-country parties should continue to take the lead by setting economy-wide emissions cuts. Worse, once they submitted their initial pledges, the United States and advanced democracies became subject to a legally binding ratchet that sets increasingly stringent emissions targets irrespective of what the rest of the world is doing. In practical terms, the Paris Agreement is not so very different from the discredited 1997 Kyoto Protocol: the West is on the hook for mandatory emissions cuts while the non-West is exempt, the principal difference being that the West gaslights its citizens by falsely claiming that under the Paris Agreement, everyone is in it together.

The domestic counterpart of the Paris Agreement was the Obama Administration’s war on fossil fuels, coal in particular. In 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) imposed onerous standards on mercury emissions from coal-fired power stations (the MATS rule) that entailed billions in costs for trivial environmental benefits. The Supreme Court struck down the rule in 2015, but not before the EPA had proposed the Clean Power Plan, which aimed to achieve a nearly one-third reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from power generation. In 2016, the Court stayed the plan’s implementation, and in 2022, it decided that the regulation exceeded the EPA’s statutory authority.

With the Supreme Court closing off the Clean Air Act as a substitute for Congress passing climate change legislation, the Biden Administration found a more insidious way of doing climate policy. Having announced its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 only two weeks after Biden’s inauguration, the White House issued an executive order on climate-finance-related risk that sought to use the financial system to achieve net zero. This was the high point of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing.

The Securities and Exchange Commission would require companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions, and suppliers, customers, and big institutional investors would do the rest. In his 2021 letter to chief executives, BlackRock’s Larry Fink said he wanted companies to submit a plan showing how their business model would align with a net-zero economy. Corporate America was being made a net-zero offer it couldn’t refuse.

The Obama Administration’s climate policy was stymied by process (the Senate filibuster) and the Supreme Court (Justice Scalia died four days after the Court issued its stay). Biden failed for different reasons. Asset managers got cold feet at the threat of an antitrust suit launched by Republican state attorneys general while the stock market did the rest. Energy was the S&P 500’s top-performing sector in 2022. At the same time, ESG indices and exchange-traded funds suffered double-digit losses.

Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky described environmentalism’s ideological ascendancy as co-option followed conquest. What was missing was confrontation. No Western political leader dared challenge the environmental movement—until Donald Trump.

“The environmental [sic] is the biggest tool for stopping growth,” Trump told Joe Rogan during the 2024 presidential campaign. As a New York real estate developer, Trump saw firsthand the scam run for the benefit of environmental consultants and lawyers. And he grasped the strategic importance of the shale revolution in giving America unparalleled energy dominance.

Even before Trump re-entered the White House, his election victory was a political turning point. Chief among its casualties was climate catastrophism, which is essential to environmentalism’s Malthusian substructure of sin, punishment, and redemption. It serves as a form of rhetorical blackmail, with any instance of denial framed as risking the planet’s future, thereby making climate policy ever more extreme—the moral absolutism Douglas and Wildavsky noted.

Without catastrophism, environmentalism loses its potency and renders the prospect of planetary salvation meaningless. Trump’s example is likely to encourage other Republican politicians to follow his lead. A return to a stringent climate policy under a Democratic president will look far more like a grubby rent-seeking affair than a noble crusade against an existential threat.

President Trump has permanently changed the politics of climate change. Net zero will never happen in America.

https://americanmind.org/salvo/americas-net-zero-near-miss/?utm_source=nl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=rcp-today-2026-10-17&mc_cid=842f28aa80&mc_eid=698afad55f

Who the Left Attracts, Part 1

Who the Left Attracts, Part 1

A.J. Christopher

For decades, it’s evident to anyone paying attention that the entire political program of the far left is one that’s riddled with contradictions, inanities, and falsehoods. Leftists do not base their arguments on logic, science, virtue, or common sense. Rather, they rely on the vulgar manipulation of feelings and emotions to drive their base to both the voting booth and the streets.

But who is falling for this manipulation? Who is letting their feelings and emotions override the reasoning skills which we all possess? Primarily, the left preys on the emotionally immature, the insufferably narcissistic, and the mentally ill.

I don’t throw around the term “mentally ill” lightly, nor do I employ it to mock or demean. There are millions of Americans suffering from mental illness for whom this categorization does not apply. The problem becomes when these mental illnesses are not properly treated, but rather are enabled and weaponized.

Gender Dysphoria

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. There is nothing good or evil, forgiving or judgmental, bigoted or compassionate about that statement. It’s a simple fact. Those who suffer from it aren’t “freaks”; they’re God’s children who need medical and psychological help. And more often than not, gender dysphoria is a symptom masking a deeper disorder that, when discovered and treated, removes the gender dysphoria as well. But when others enable this illness, when its sufferers hear that the problem is not their mental illness but rather the world around them, the result is anger, bitterness, and hate. The result is violence and school shootings. And this is exactly the result that was sought.

Histrionic Personality Disorder

In plain English, this disorder describes people who validate their existence based on the amount of attention they get from others. If you’re fifty and you’re still dying your hair blue and piercing your extremities, you need psychological help. Again, I don’t say that mockingly. You are suffering, and you seriously need help. Guys who ride penny-farthing bikes? You need help. Women who pretend to be witches? You need help. People who announce their pronouns upon first meeting? You need help. This disorder gets weaponized when channeled into political outlets, in which its sufferers garner the most attention by staking the most outlandish, radical political positions. The disorder becomes performative art. Treat the disorder, and you remove the political symptoms.

There are other mental conditions that, while professionals do not classify them as mental illnesses, nonetheless describe patterns of emotional and psychological behavior that inhibit an otherwise healthy life. These include:

Overpathologizing

There are people among us suffering from severe trauma. Think war veterans. Rape victims. An inner-city child who witnessed an older sibling. And then there are people who experience minor inconveniences yet treat them as traumatic events. Think having to work a steady job. Or seeing an Israeli flag. Or hearing someone disagree with you. College campuses make “safe spaces” for you, complete with crayons and coloring books and comfort animals. Your entire life you’ve never been taught how to handle adversity, and it’s being weaponized and sold to you as a political ideology.

Victim Mentality

Anything bad that happens to you is filtered through a lens of cosmic injustice. Some jerk cut you off in traffic? It must be because I’m (insert victim group here). I didn’t get the promotion I wanted? It must be because I’m (insert victim group here). The injustice couldn’t possibly have been incidental, and it couldn’t possibly be due to any fault or shortcoming of its receiver. Victim mentality allows people to avoid accountability. And as long as bad things keep happening to the person (and they will), there will never be any shortage of Others to blame.

Inappropriate Guilt

You accept the responsibility for the sins of others that you had nothing to do with due to some sort of perceived connection or link (racial, gender, religious, etc.) to the sinner. Had the guilt been genuine, it could stem from depression or an anxiety disorder, but too often the guilt is not genuine. Its purpose is to be worn as a badge of virtue. It’s meant to showcase moral superiority. And the underlying goal is to elicit praise. That’s not the behavior of someone feeling actual guilt. How can we tell? Because you yourself are not sacrificing anything to atone for your alleged sin, you are demanding others within your “oppressor” group do so instead.

Doomscrolling

A healthy personality requires real-life relationships with other people. It requires hobbies. Proper exercise and diet. Fresh air. Human interaction. Adult responsibilities. Meaning and purpose. But for some people, especially, and unfortunately, young people, putting down their phones to explore the world around them is an option that never occurs to them. They get trapped in information bubbles, logarithmically calculated to reinforce their stereotypes. Before you know it, their belongings, their freedoms, their planet, and their lives are about to be taken from them by an Enemy so omnipresent that nothing can be done to stop it. Because their phone told them so. Indulgent parents and a worthless public school system never taught them how to think critically. The result, again? Depression. Loneliness. Isolation. And a desperate willingness to follow any false prophet who offers instant, painless solutions.

Messiah Complex

If you help people for the sake of helping people, good for you. If you help people out of a psychological fixation on being needed, or because you think you know what’s best for others, or because you have no boundaries, well then, you might want to start your own religion. Call it Karenism or Braydenism.

The problem lies in that most of these “conditions,” for lack of a better term, are rooted in pride, arrogance, and pomposity. The very nature of these conditions holds an instinctual disdain for self-reflection and insight. And the left is nothing if not full of its own sense of importance.

How do we counter this, if reason and logic prove insufficient? Wait for these people to mature out of these ways of thinking? But as I’ve mentioned above, the specter of witnessing this behavior being conducted not by teenagers but by middle-aged adults raises the question of how much more time these “adults” need to grow up, and if we can even expect that to happen at all.

The old adage that people gradually grow more conservative with age no longer applies. Middle-aged adults who should long ago have matured out of the conceited and ignorant presuppositions of inexperienced youth insist on stubbornly clinging to them.

I don’t know what the solution to this is. The people with legitimate mental illnesses need legitimate professional help. For the others, the only cure seems to be when the left goes so far off the deep end that some of these people find themselves the digested end of the axiom that all revolutions eventually eat their own. Think some liberal women after mediocre men began destroying their sports, some liberal Jews who realized on 10/7 that their supposed allies want them dead, or some liberal minorities when they realized the left considers them interchangeable pawns to be discarded once their usefulness is exhausted.

But it’s not enough. No advanced society, modern or ancient, has suffered so many of its citizens to delude themselves so efficiently over such a wide swathe of their own mental faculties which should have been, but has not been, checked by a chimpanzee’s ability to think critically. The left exploits this mental weakness, because that’s what the left does.

And its adherents will walk willingly to the gallows of their own revolution so long as the final words they hear are ones of assurance and confirmation that they were right.

https://pjmedia.com/aj-christopher/2026/10/17/who-the-left-attracts-part-1-n4958404?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Trump Halted the Green Card Lottery After Deadly Shooting — a Biden Judge Just Ordered It Restarted

Trump Halted the Green Card Lottery After Deadly Shooting — a Biden Judge Just Ordered It Restarted

Teri Christoph Follow @TeriChristoph

A Biden-appointed federal judge in California has ordered the Trump administration to restart the controversial “green card lottery” program it had suspended following last December’s deadly shootings at Brown University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta of the Southern District of California i ssued a preliminary injunction Wednesday that ordered the State Department to move forward with the fiscal year 2027 Diversity Immigrant Visa program. Under Ohta’s order, registration must open by October 18 and remain open through November 19.

That gives the Trump administration only a few days to get the system up and running again.

NEW: California-based federal judge Jinsook Ohta (Biden appointee) has ruled that the U.S. State Department must reinstate its Diversity Immigrant Visa lottery for fiscal year 2027 by Sunday.
The program offers permanent residency in the U.S. to 50,000+ applicants every year, typically from countries with lower immigration to the U.S. Many come from Africa.
The Trump admin suspended the program last year after a Portuguese national who came to the U.S. via the diversity lottery was suspected of a deadly shooting at Brown University & the murder of a MIT professor before taking his own life.

According to USA.gov, the green card lottery program makes up to 55,000 immigrant visas available each year to people from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States. Those who "win" the lottery don't automatically receive green cards, but they are given the opportunity to apply for an immigrant visa and undergo the required State Department screenings and vetting process.

The Trump administration put the lottery program on ice last December after authorities identified Portuguese national Claudio Manuel Neves-Valente as the man who carried out the shootings at Brown University and MIT that left three people dead. Neves-Valente, it turned out, had entered the U.S. through the green card lottery system, and the pause in the program allowed the administration time to screen the existing vetting process for any national security risks.

California immigration firm Red Eagle Law sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio over the program's suspension, which led to Judge Ohta’s ruling this week. The judge had previously denied the firm’s request for a temporary restraining order but has now granted its request for a preliminary injunction.

The State Department does not appear to have publicly responded to the ruling as of Thursday afternoon.

https://redstate.com/terichristoph/2026/10/15/ca-judge-forces-trump-administration-to-restart-immigration-lottery-n2208184?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl