polecat news and views

Tuesday, June 16, 2026

He Said What He Said: Sen. Kennedy Flattens Schumer, Platner As the 'Platner Wing' Tightens Its Grip

He Said What He Said: Sen. Kennedy Flattens Schumer, Platner As the 'Platner Wing' Tightens Its Grip

As I wrote on Thursday, the results of the Maine Democrat Senate primary made clear that a majority of the Democrats who voted wouldn't care if Graham Platner kicked puppies, crushed butterflies with his bare hand, and stole old ladies' purses, much less be a Nazi sympathizer and allegedly physically abusive towards a woman, provided he does his part in giving the party control of the U.S. Senate.

While he has his true believers in the Senate, like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), others, like Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have been purposely avoiding saying too much about Platner, and his Republican colleague, Sen.John Kennedy (R-LA), knows exactly why.

Kennedy has made it a point this week on at least two occasions - one on the Senate floor and one in a Fox News interview - to point out how it's now the "Platner wing" of the party that controls it, and also to warn folks exactly what that entails and the kind of person Graham Platner is and what he represents.

In his Senate floor speech, Kennedy observed that Schumer was now "taking his orders from the Graham Platner wing of the Democratic Party" because that wing of the party "is in control."

"Many members of Democratic leadership are scared to death, and they're gonna do what the Graham Platner wing of the party wants," he went on to say. They want to "burn it down, they want chaos, because they think it will help them win the midterm elections."

Watch:

And just who is this guy, the leader of this wing of the Democrat Party? Kennedy explained it on Fox News as only he can and in a way that would make a great campaign ad for Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who Platner (and Schumer) would love to defeat:

Mr. Platner seems to be one of the new faces of the loon wing of the Democratic Party. Clearly, he’s angry. When I see him on TV, he always looks like he’s straining to have a stool.
His supporters say no, you don’t understand him. He’s just idiosyncratic. I guess he goose steps to the beat of his own drummer. But his history shows there’s more than that.
I mean, this guy makes...he makes Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez look like Aunt Bea in Mayberry. Mr. Platner’s comments about black people, his cavalier attitude towards rape, apparently his stated preference for masturbating in a porta-potty, his contempt for America.
I think at one point he implied he wished the Taliban were better shots to kill our people. This is not normal. I mean, this guy is 10 exits past normal.
Then he says well, that was in my past. I’ve been born again. But just recently we found out through his wife that Mr. Platner has been sending sexually explicit messages, digital messages, to other women.
He calls it sexting. He says, 'Oh, there’s nothing to see here.' Well, Anthony Weiner was sexting. We all said what is that about, and we found out he was sending pictures of his penis to young women.
Now, I’m not saying Mr. Platner is doing that. I don’t know. But he needs to release those text messages. I want to know if he’s a sexual predator! I mean, the people of Maine deserve to know. This guy is...he’s like a Saturday Night Live skit!

Watch:

In another clip, Kennedy talked about how, though the Republican Party was not perfect, "the other side is crazy. I mean this is not normal behavior," he said of Platner and the Platner wing of the Democrat Party:

And more to the point, Maine voters - outside of the ones who don't care about the Nazi tattoo, the sexting, the Kik account, and the allegedly physically abusive behavior - deserve to know the truth about the guy who wants to be their next senator, because he certainly hasn't been keen to tell it. And because he won't, it's up to the people who do respect the voters of this country and love America to get the word out that this guy is seriously bad news.

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2026/06/12/sen-john-kennedy-discusses-graham-platner-n2203303?utm_source=twdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Great Electricity Rip-Off: Why Your Bill Keeps Going Up

The Great Electricity Rip-Off: Why Your Bill Keeps Going Up

Ken Blackwell

The Great Electricity Rip-Off: Why Your Bill Keeps Going Up — *AP Photo/David J. Phillip*

For all of my adult life, I have believed that free markets incentivize innovation, generate lower costs, and improve services. Indeed, confidence in the value of free markets is one of the foundations of conservatism, and why I align with the Republican Party.

I have also always felt that conservatives need to be on the lookout for industries that try to co-opt the free market movement, to take advantage of their customers, and do so under the guise of competition. Giving customers options is a good thing, but only if they actually deliver innovations, better services, and lower prices.

Speaking of lower prices, electricity is an issue that is getting a lot of attention. Even our President has weighed in on ensuring the American people are protected from rate increases tied to data centers. Another issue that is impacting how much people pay for electricity is how utilities are, or are not, regulated.

Specifically, it’s worth asking if three decades of deregulation across the country, which has forced utilities to compete to sell power to customers, has delivered lower prices. Or have the deregulated states allowed utility customers to be overcharged by fraudsters masquerading as competitors to regulated utilities?

After taking a hard look at our energy sector, specifically how Americans get electricity, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the old-fashioned, regulated electricity model with a single incumbent electricity provider makes a lot more sense than the so-called deregulated markets. The bottom line is that fully regulated electric utilities consistently provide customers with lower-cost power. In other words, deregulation has not delivered lower prices, innovations, or better services to utility customers. Instead, the opposite is true.

Consider a recent report from the John Glenn College of Public Affairs at the Ohio State University, titled “How Deregulation Made Electricity More Expensive, Not Cheaper.” The leading cause of higher rates identified by the report is a group of middlemen called retail suppliers that promise to help customers secure lower-priced electricity. They do this by taking customers off of the regulated rate charged by the incumbent utility – known as standard offer service – and transferring them to a system of competitive rates.

But the problem is that while these retail suppliers might initially offer a rate lower than the standard offer service, the contracts allow them to auto-renew the agreements into variable-rate plans that consistently raise prices.

Some might call this style of marketing by retail suppliers a “bait and switch” or a scam. Whatever you call it, it’s not a free market, and retail suppliers should stop pretending they care about utility competition. According to one watchdog, in 2024 alone, retail suppliers overcharged 11.4 million customers in the U.S., a whopping $4 billion more for electricity than what those customers would have paid if they had simply stuck with their incumbent utility.

Now, even though President Donald J. Trump has eliminated many of Joe Biden’s programs that exacerbated inflation, millions of Americans are still struggling with affordability. With that in mind, I think it’s time that lawmakers and policy experts around the country come together and help the American people with lower electric bills by promoting sensible utility regulation that blocks retail suppliers from overcharging their customers.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kenblackwell/2026/06/12/the-great-electricity-rip-off-why-your-bill-keeps-going-up-n2677633?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-gUNPAsuPNP&utm_term=&_nlid=gUNPAsuPNP&_nhids=ncexnCPgUexLls

Monday, June 15, 2026

Italian Woman Beheaded as Attacker Recites Passages From a Book. Yeah, THAT Book.

Italian Woman Beheaded as Attacker Recites Passages From a Book. Yeah, THAT Book.

Robert Spencer

The new Europe is going to take some getting used to, but at least it’s clear now what it’s going to be like. Populating it will be people who believe that they have a responsibility to carry out the decrees of the creator of the universe, and they believe that among those decrees is a mandate to kill those who do not believe in that creator unless they submit to the hegemony of his law.

And so in Italy recently, a woman was beheaded, in accord with commands found in the holy book of a rapidly growing segment of Italy’s population, and in case anyone remained determined to miss the point of what he had done (as many European authorities are), the perpetrator helpfully quoted from that book in justification of his actions. Welcome to the new Europe.

The Italian-language Firenze Today reported Friday that Issam Chlih, “a 29-year-old homeless Moroccan national,” is “the sole suspect in the murder of Silke Sauer,” who was “a 44-year-old German woman found decapitated near an abandoned farmhouse in the park of the former CNR site in Scandicci.” CNR is the National Research Council, an Italian government agency devoted to scientific and technological exploration.

Preliminary Investigations Judge (GIP) Roberta Di Maria ordered Chlih detained “due to the risk that Chlih might flee or reoffend.” This was a sensible decision, as the “‘brutal’ nature of the murder and the suspect’s personality led the judge to believe he might turn to contacts in his home country to escape. Furthermore, the judge noted that the circumstances of the crime and the attempt to clean up the crime scene demonstrated ‘an extraordinary level of criminal persistence.’”

Once again, welcome to the new Italy. Issam Chlih, however, is not your average hardened criminal or garden-variety recidivist. This is clear from the details of what happened on the fateful night in which Chlih beheaded Silke Sauer. “According to the Carabinieri's reconstruction,” Firenze Today notes, “Issam Chlih and Silke Sauer were together on the evening of February 16 and had stopped at a bar in Florence near the Leopolda station. Witnesses reported that Chlih shouted incoherent phrases and harassed customers. Police arrived at the scene after the bar manager called the emergency number (112).”

The police were, however, too late: the couple had already left the bar. Early in the morning of the following day, however, “they returned to Scandicci by tram. Video surveillance cameras captured them walking toward the abandoned farmhouse. They reportedly began arguing right near the building.” It was at this point that “other homeless individuals present in the park at the former CNR site reportedly heard screaming and a male voice reciting verses from the Qur'an, shouting that the devil had taken possession of the woman. Immediately afterward, a female voice—presumably Silke Sauer’s—was heard shouting ‘stop’ in Italian.”

Issam Chlih did not stop. And “the following day, in a state of agitation, Chlih reportedly drove away anyone approaching the dog park adjacent to the farmhouse. Passersby called emergency services, and the twenty-nine-year-old was admitted to Torregalli Hospital. The next day, Wednesday, February 18, Silke’s body was discovered.”

How could something like this have happened? Well, that ain’t exactly rocket science. What Qur'an verses could Issam Chlih have been reciting? These are good candidates: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks...” (47:4) And: “When your Lord inspired the angels, I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then strike the necks and strike their fingertips.” (8:12)

Now, just because something is commanded in the Qur’an, and a Muslim acted in accord with that command and quoted that same book, that doesn’t mean that he actually carried out his actions because that’s what the book told him to do. But it certainly makes it likely, except to the terminally blinkered and willfully ignorant. And there are plenty of those.

In Italy and elsewhere in the West, we will soon be told that Issam Chlih and others like him are mentally ill, and that Islam doesn't condone this sort of behavior. The people who are "experts" in the field of "counterterrorism" will assure us of this. And no one will contradict them, as those who know what the Qur'an says have already been vilified and dismissed as "Islamophobes." And so Silke Sauer will by no means be the last person to be beheaded in this manner.

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2026/06/13/italian-woman-beheaded-as-attacker-recites-passages-from-a-book-yeah-that-book-n4953937?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Limit and Give It: Scott Jennings Schools Grabby CNN Dems Who Want to Kneecap Trillionaire Elon Musk

Limit and Give It: Scott Jennings Schools Grabby CNN Dems Who Want to Kneecap Trillionaire Elon Musk

Warren Squire

Entrepreneur Elon Musk is now the planet’s first trillionaire, and the leftist meltdowns have already begun. These economic illiterates are getting louder. They can't comprehend that Musk has earned his wealth, and leftists are already conspiring to confiscate it and put limits on his (and likely others') ability to innovate, invent, and invest. Late Friday, Republican commenter Scott Jennings confronted these self-appointed masters of limitation on CNN NewsNight.

Here’s more. (READ)

CNN NewsNight has a meltdown over @ElonMusk becoming the world's first trillionaire.
Cari Champion literally says people "shouldn't be allowed to have a trillion dollars."
Scott Jennings shuts it down: "We already tax the rich... is it for us to sit around and say there's a limit on what you can build?"
Classic left envy on full display. WATCH:
Cari Champion: “There should be some checks and balances in this society. People shouldn't be allowed to have a trillion dollars.”
@ScottJenningsKY: “Rich people in this country pay the vast majority of taxes, and I hear people today saying, "Oh, it's time that we tax the rich." Folks, I got news for you. We already tax the rich. But is it for us to sit around and say, "There's a limit on what you can build, there's a limit on what you can earn," and it's now my job to tell you what to do with your money?”

Here’s Jennings being the voice of reason on CNN yet again. (WATCH)

No one on that CNN panel (or America for that matter) would be better off if Musk had less wealth.

Jennings tried to pull the Democrats on the panel out of their crabs-in-a-bucket mentality. (READ)

@ScottJenningsKY just torched the liberal meltdown over Elon becoming the world's first trillionaire:“
All day long, I've been listening to liberals, count and spend Elon's money for him. This envy, jealousy, hatred of success. Why is it immoral? Why is it wrong for somebody in our system, our capitalist system, in the greatest nation on earth, to go out and build a company, build companies, build technologies, go into space, aim to go put a colony on Mars, give internet to half the world, all the things he's doing? Why is any of this wrong or bad? Why would we want to discourage entrepreneurship? Why would we want to discourage anybody building anything?”
Exactly. Success isn't a crime.

Here’s how that went down. (WATCH)

1. Does anyone else notice 'they' always set the 'Too Rich Cap' above their own heads? If they themselves have 100s of thousands, then millions is too much. If they have millions, then billions is too much. Just like Bernie Sanders.
2. And Elon is mostly stock wealth; it's not a vault with money lying everywhere. If he began cashing out money, he'd tank his business value. They depend on his powerful forward motion. The guy is a workaholic; leave him be.
— Elle Spring (@Spring23459) June 13, 2026

That’s what's enlightening about these limousine leftists. Not too long ago, they were arguing against millionaires before they joined the club. Now these mendacious millionaires are screaming that billionaires (and now trillionaires) are the real threat. Try to put limits on them and their wealth, and see how fast they resort to, 'It's mine, you can't have it!'

https://twitchy.com/warren-squire/2026/06/13/scott-jennings-defends-trillionaire-elon-musk-on-cnn-newsnight-n2429195?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-j5fz7kUtQH&utm_term=&_nlid=j5fz7kUtQH&_nhids=ncexnCPgUexLls

'Christian! Love Means You Let Us Sin All We Want to, and Pay for It With Your Tax Dollars!' – Part One

'Christian! Love Means You Let Us Sin All We Want to, and Pay for It With Your Tax Dollars!' – Part One

Mark Lewis

'Christian! Love Means You Let Us Sin All We Want to, and Pay for It With Your Tax Dollars!' – Part One — *AP Photo/Elise Amendola, File*

The Left, of course, knows—and cares—nothing about true New Testament Christianity. They hate Christianity because the religion condemns the promiscuous, licentious, godless lifestyles they crave to live. It’s not surprising. The world hated Jesus and killed Him (John 7:7), and it wasn’t because He preached love. Well, yes, it was, but the kind of love He preached—“Love God with all your being,” but especially, “go and sin no more”—a love whose first order is to be submissive to God isn’t the kind of “love” the Left and the world can tolerate.

We are told that the world will hate Christians, too (1 John 3:13). And it’s for the same reason they hate Christ: Christians oppose sin. It’s actually the most loving thing a person can do—to try to get people right with God so that they can escape iniquity’s current and eternal consequences, but again, when men want to sin, as most people do, then they don’t want others trying to urge them out of it, like Jesus tried (He died for the attempt). Read Mark 10:21ff for a good example of true love from Jesus’s perspective.

So, the Left tries to twist Christianity into the pretzel they want it to be and condemns true Christians when they don’t measure up to the standard the Left sets up as “true Christian love.” But they don’t fool, or convince, anybody but themselves, and the people who want to be fooled.

To the Left, giving government money, through taxpayers, to various targeted groups is the definition of “true charity,” and any Christian who would oppose it is a hypocrite and not a true Christian. But again, this shows absolutely no understanding of true Christianity. That the religion teaches that we should help the poor is undeniable, and any Christian who doesn’t do it when he/she has the resources and opportunity to do so is not living the kind of compassionate life that Christ would demand of His followers. Helping the needy poor is an absolutely essential part of the Christian religion (and Jewish), though not the totality of either, of course. An example.

At the risk of sounding boastful (and please forgive me for doing so), since I moved to Thailand four years ago, I have personally given, out of my own wallet, not through government taxation, literally thousands of Thai “baht” to various people who I perceive are less fortunate than I. Not a single week passes when I do not give my own money (usually several times) from my own pocket to help those I believe have a need. I believe that is what Christianity teaches we should do, and I try to do it.

I would be curious to know, from any leftist who considers me a hypocrite, how much money do the leftists, personally, directly, give to the poor? Or do they let the government do all their “charity” for them? I truly hope all leftists are very generous with their own resources. They should be.

But government “charity,” for reasons I shall note, is what the Left really wants. And anybody—especially a Christian—who has the slightest question about our bloated welfare state is, at best, a hypocrite, or a “CINO”—“Christian in Name Only.” The Left has no imagination, either, except when it comes to promiscuity. They can create all kinds of ways to do that.

But what about “government charity”? Is it “Christian” (or Jewish)? The problem with government “charity” is manifold. First, it’s not even constitutional, and for good reasons. There is nothing about government charity in our Constitution, and James Madison flatly said that “charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” He further stated, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” I’ll consider their reasoning for that as we go along.

The New Testament (and the Law of Moses) also says nothing about “government charity.” Folks, there is no virtue in being forced to be “charitable.” Where is the virtue in that? If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to “be charitable and give them all your money,” well, you might have to do it, and that person might even truly need the money more than you do. But I seriously doubt you would consider it “virtuous” to give him your money. Everything the government does, including and especially taxation, is by force; that’s what government is by definition: the nationalization of force (or state). So, whether it accomplishes something “good” or not, forced charity is an oxymoron, not virtuous.

Our Founders knew that and wanted a virtuous republic. So do Christians. The Left doesn’t—except, of course, forced government “virtue.” They want Christians to be forced to pay for their sins because they hate Christianity. That’s a major crux of the matter.

So, the first problem, in America, with the government “charitable” welfare state is that it is unconstitutional—not that our Congress pays the least bit of attention to the Constitution anymore. But I’m just saying, the Founders, for varying reasons, didn’t put “charity” in the Constitution as a duty of government. A second problem with “government charity” is one reason why they didn’t put it in the Constitution: the one I already mentioned, i.e., forced charity is the antithesis of virtue, and they wanted a virtuous republic, not one increasingly dependent upon government. Virtue is freedom; dependence upon government is not.

And a people who allow government to buy their votes with their (or somebody else’s) money, is neither virtuous nor free.

In my next article in this series, I will consider more about government “charity” versus true godly charity.

https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2026/06/13/christian-love-means-you-let-us-sin-all-we-want-to-and-pay-for-it-with-your-tax-dollars-part-one-n2677696?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-XwSQvHtJGS&utm_term=&_nlid=XwSQvHtJGS&_nhids=ncexnCPgUexLls

polecat news and views

Tuesday, June 16, 2026

He Said What He Said: Sen. Kennedy Flattens Schumer, Platner As the 'Platner Wing' Tightens Its Grip

The Great Electricity Rip-Off: Why Your Bill Keeps Going Up

Recommended

Related:

Monday, June 15, 2026

Italian Woman Beheaded as Attacker Recites Passages From a Book. Yeah, THAT Book.

Limit and Give It: Scott Jennings Schools Grabby CNN Dems Who Want to Kneecap Trillionaire Elon Musk

Recommended

'Christian! Love Means You Let Us Sin All We Want to, and Pay for It With Your Tax Dollars!' – Part One

Recommended

Related: