polecat news and views

Friday, February 6, 2026

New Poll Crushes Dem, Media Narrative: Americans Demand Mass Deportations, Back ICE Overwhelmingly

If you've consumed a moment of news from the legacy media in recent weeks, one might forgive you for developing the impression that the American people despise U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). That they think they're the ones committing crimes. That they need to be abolished.

But that is a view held almost exclusively by radicals in the Democrat party, then amplified by their sycophant worshippers in the field of journalism.

In a stunning rebuke to the left's relentless portrayal of immigration enforcement as divisive and extreme, a brand new national poll from Cygnal reveals overwhelming American support for mass deportations and ICE's role in upholding the law.

The results show that, by a two-to-one margin (61-34 percent), voters back the deportation of illegal immigrants, while a massive 73 percent agree that crossing the border illegally constitutes—you're not going to believe this—breaking the law!

Oh, and let's keep this one under wraps if you could: Democrats who honestly believe they've found a winning political angle on their wholly fabricated ICE controversy will be sad to learn 58 percent of Americans oppose defunding ICE—including majorities of Independents and swing voters. One has to imagine that number rises significantly when discussing abolishing ICE outright.

White House Blasts ‘Buffoon’ Hakeem Jeffries, Fires Off Staunch Defense of Stephen Miller

Cygnal reports that voters don't even support the idea of shutting down the government (something Democrats were all too happy to latch onto until President Trump intervened) in order to cut funding for immigration enforcement.

"When voters are told Democrats want to defund ICE or even shut down the government to stop ICE from enforcing immigration law, the political fallout is immediate and severe," the firm writes. "The generic ballot flips from D+4 to R+0 if Democrats oppose ICE."

They describe defunding ICE as "politically toxic" due to the resistance party being "on one side of an issue where voters are in strong majorities on the other."

The latest poll goes on to demonstrate that the Democrats are living in a world not even vaguely aligned with reality. They are the only group listed who view the border as "not a problem." Swing-state voters, midterm voters, and Independents all consider it an issue. And it's not particularly close.

“Voters see illegal immigration as a simple question of law and order,” said Cygnal CEO, Brent Buchanan. “The data leaves no wiggle room. Americans want the law enforced, they want illegal immigrants removed, and they punish politicians who try to block ICE from doing its job.”

Last month, this same polling firm published some seriously disturbing results, which show white, liberal women at an alarming rate feel it's okay to go beyond peaceful protest to thwart ICE, even if those actions break the law. Renee Good and her wife certainly operated under that premise.

The unhinged base of the Democrat party does not live in reality. Their actual politicians have zero grasp of the support behind ICE. The GOP has a golden opportunity to show solidarity with law enforcement and hammer home the fact that they are the party of law and order.

https://redstate.com/rusty-weiss/2026/02/03/new-poll-crushes-dem-media-narrative-americans-demand-mass-deportations-back-ice-overwhelmingly-n2198773?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Trump Was No Draft-Dodger, and Here's the Timeline That Proves It

Trump Was No Draft-Dodger, and Here's the Timeline That Proves It

Stephen Green

"Five-time draft dodger," the "Rich man’s draft dodger," and, of course, "President Bone Spurs." Those are just three of the many slurs used by lefties and TDS sufferers to describe the current commander-in-chief, who was eligible for the draft during the Vietnam War, but somehow never served.

But is there any truth behind the slurs?

Honestly, it isn't something I ever worried about. I know people who volunteered during the war, some who got drafted, others who got deferred for college or health, and one who actually did proudly dodge the draft.

That last guy did something I'm uncomfortable with, even though I believe in a 100% volunteer military. Still, I won't name any names. It was before my time and not my war. Besides, President Donald Trump didn't exactly run off to Canada after burning his draft card — he stayed home and built a real estate and entertainment empire.

Yeah, I give bonus points to people who build things, create jobs, and make life a little more fun for anybody who enjoys casino resorts and those first few awesome seasons of The Apprentice.

He's still pretty fun on TV, if you hadn't noticed.

Heh.

But I digress.

The whole President Bone-Spurs controversy re-lit, I'm sorry to say, with one of my home-state congresscritters, Jason Crow (D-Colo.).

Late last week, Trump border czar Tom Homan said after arriving in Minnesota, "I met with a lot of people, a lot of the [ICE] agents... some of the people have been in theater for eight months," explaining why agents were rotating out of Minnesota, and fresh agents are rotating in.

Pretty innocuous stuff, really.

Enter, stage left: One grandstanding Colorado Democrat.

Except, of course, that's not what Homan said at all, as you can clearly see in the embedded clip. "In theater" just means "where the action is." Homan — hardly a goon, or at least he wasn't when he served at ICE under Barack Obama — never compared anything to combat.

But it's the draft-dodging part that stuck in climate researcher Willis Eschenbach's craw. For whatever reason, Eschenbach chose to lay out the facts in an image, but I've transcribed it for you so you can copy, paste, and send it to all your lefty friends in a desperate and failed bid to break through their reality distortion field.

Sorry, I got ahead of myself.

Here are the facts, simply laid out by Eschenbach and verified by Yours Truly using both Grok and ChatGPT. A couple of the dates are slightly off, but everything checks out.

Trump registered for the draft after his 18th birthday on June 24, 1964 (draft dodgers don't register*).
He was given an S-2 (college) deferment on June 28, 1964 (perfectly legal, not a draft dodger).
His S-2 status was renewed on Dec 14, 1965 (legal, not a draft dodger), and he was then classified on Nov. 22, 1966, as 1-A (available for service).
Dec. 13, 1966, his S-2 was again granted to attend Wharton (legal, not a draft dodger). His final deferral was granted on Jan. 16, 1968.
After graduating from Wharton, he was reclassified 1-A on July 9, 1968. He went to his Armed Forces Physical (something a draft dodger probably would not do) on Sept. 19, 1968, and was categorized as 1-Y, disqualified for service except in war or national emergency (due to bone spurs in both heels).
He received a high draft lottery number and was never called up. On Feb. 17, 1972, after the abolishment of the 1-Y classification, he was classified 4-F (not qualified for military service).

I'd add — again, confirmed by two LLMs — that in the 1969 draft lottery (implemented for 1970 inductions), Trump's birthdate drew a high number (356 out of 366), which would have likely exempted him from being called up even without the medical classification.

(*Some draft dodgers actually registered, but then dodged the call when it came.)

All along the way, Trump followed the rules, and as fate would have it, probably wouldn't have been called up even without bone-spurs.

Still, I decided to dig deeper and asked my two most reliable LLMs whether Trump would have fallen under President Jimmy Carter's blanket pardon for roughly 570,000 men who had either been charged for draft-dodging offenses, or who had not been charged but had done things like fail to register of fled to Canada.

Short answer: No.

Grok's slightly longer answer: "Trump would not have qualified for Carter's pardon because he did not violate the Selective Service Act—he registered, complied with classifications, and used legitimate deferments without committing any evadable offenses. Even if the bone spurs claim were proven fraudulent today, it wasn't challenged or prosecuted at the time, so no pardon-eligible violation occurred."

So there you have it. Trump wasn't a draft-dodger.

You should definitely share this with your lefty friends. You won't convince them of anything, but it might be fun.

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2026/02/02/trump-was-no-draft-dodger-and-heres-the-timeline-that-proves-it-n4949017?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

Theft Is Popular

Theft Is Popular

The adage holds that if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul. For a long time–during the 1980s, for example–I thought this saying was too cynical. There were lots of Americans who didn’t think government was an excuse for theft.

Nowadays, “too cynical” is not a phrase I find myself using. Today, you can’t be cynical enough. Thus, a solid majority of Californians are down for stealing other people’s money:

A staggering 60% of California voters back the billionaire wealth tax proposal, even though they admit it will spark businesses to flee the state and kill jobs, a new poll found.

I wrote about the baleful effects of the wealth tax proposal, which California is already feeling, here.

A firm 52% of likely voters admitted that the tax will push entrepreneurs and jobs out of the Golden State, but only 48% agree that there are concerns with long-term revenue from a wealth tax, while 42% had concerns about Silicon Valley getting damaged, the poll found.
***
Progressive activists have rapidly been garnering the 875,000 signatures needed by the end of spring to put the 2026 Billionaire Tax Act up for vote on the ballot, which would impose a one-time 5% tax on Californians with net worths over $1.1 billion, as well as a phase-out from $1.1 billion to $1 billion.

Of course it won’t be one-time, and it won’t be limited to billionaires. The wealth tax is the latest sign of the degeneration of our politics. Conservatives on the rightward edge of the spectrum used to say that taxation is theft, but that was an overstatement. These days, though, it is increasingly true that government is a participant in, or accessory to, theft on a cosmic scale. Just ask those of us who live in Minnesota.

I suppose it is only natural for Californians to wonder why immigrants should be the only ones to turn government into a racket.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/02/theft-is-popular.php

Thursday, February 5, 2026

Yikes: Anti-ICE Crew Allegedly Assaults Journalist for Investigating Their Minneapolis 'Checkpoint'

Yikes: Anti-ICE Crew Allegedly Assaults Journalist for Investigating Their Minneapolis 'Checkpoint'

By Nick Arama

If you didn't already think the anti-ICE folks had gone off the rails, the story I reported on earlier Monday indicated they were making an even more problematic move. They were setting up what they termed "community-driven checkpoints" in intersections in Minneapolis.

The idea is that they would thereby screen for and stop ICE agents from getting into their neighborhood. You know, almost like a border check. The irony was just off the charts.

Now, as I reported, this is a bad idea all around. Start with the fact that they shouldn't be doing that in the middle of the street; that's impeding traffic. Plus, it ticks off the regular people who have to drive through the neighborhood, and the activists are likely encounter people who are going to be very unhappy with what they're doing, which could lead to a confrontation. Police should be clearing them out, but it's Minneapolis, so the unhinged Democratic officials are in charge.

But the Daily Caller's Jorge Ventura encountered a problem when he went to report on a roadblock protesters set up where they were allegedly checking cars for IDs. Ventura is a long-term reporter on protester action, so he knows how to handle himself. But he said he was assaulted when he tried to get closer. He is stopped by men in masks. You can see him being shoved on camera.

They tried to intimate me and forced to leave by shoving , as a journalist I have the right to be here and report

He said they also tried to take his phone.

So again, I'm confused. There are mysterious men in masks asking for IDs and allegedly assaulting people? I thought that was supposed to be bad? Yet, these folks aren't even acting within the color of the law, like ICE, which has the right to arrest people. Yet they're mad at ICE? Who are the fascists? Make it make sense. "Mostly peaceful," right?

Where is the Left to come to Jorge's defense and talk about freedom of the press? Isn't that what we were hearing in regard to former CNN leftist pundit Don Lemon? I'm willing to bet we hear no such support for Ventura here.

This guy explained they'd run the plate and seemed to let them go, once they realized his Uber driver was a Somali.

I don't know what you call this, but anarchy springs to mind. The officials aren't holding these people to account, so who cares how it might hurt or affect the regular people in the neighborhood? Democrats should stop this. Now. But they won't.

It's unhinged, and more people are going to get hurt.

None Dare Call It Insurgency

None Dare Call It Insurgency

Well, we do, of course. But the New York Times disapproves:

The Times disapproves of the language of war and wants “civil debate”? Great. I look forward to their denouncing everyone who says the Trump administration is fascist, or Trump is another Hitler. I can’t wait until they excoriate Tim Walz for musing about calling out the National Guard to battle ICE, or saying that Minnesota is “at war with our federal government.” Or likening his own actions to Fort Sumter, an act of war that triggered the Civil War.

I suppose the real reason the Times doesn’t like “insurgency”–I am sure they disapprove of “insurrection,” too–is that an insurgency isn’t a peaceful protest, or a mostly peaceful protest, which is the lie that the Times, along with all other spokesmen for the Democratic Party, tell about the insurrection that is going on in Minnesota.

It is touching, though, to see that the Times is concerned about “lower[ing] the bar for violence on both sides.” Hey, if this insurgency talk continues, someone might take a pot shot at Donald Trump. Or Steve Scalise. Or Charlie Kirk. Or mobs might attack the federal courthouse in Portland. Or someone in Minnesota might try to run over an ICE agent with her vehicle. You never know what might happen!

Actually, now that I think about it, the insurgents are already plenty violent. I suppose what the Times really fears is that their violence might be reciprocated.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/02/none-dare-call-it-insurgency.php

There’s a Revolt at CNN Over Scott Jennings

There’s a Revolt at CNN Over Scott Jennings

Matt Margolis

I don't watch CNN, but there's something undeniably satisfying about catching clips of Scott Jennings absolutely dismantling his liberal co-panelists regularly. The guy has a gift for cutting through nonsense with surgical precision, and if you've ever wondered why he hasn’t been booted from the network yet, you're not alone.

So, it should come as no surprise that his presence isn’t just irritating the pundits on set. According to a report from The Daily Beast, furious staffers confronted CEO Mark Thompson during an internal town‑hall meeting, demanding to know why the network hasn’t “reined in” Jennings. They complained about his politics, his tone, and even his vocabulary. 

CNN boss Mark Thompson was pressed by staff about why the network has not reined in MAGA mouthpiece Scott Jennings’ on-air rhetoric.
Thompson hosted an all-hands meeting with CNN employees, giving them the opportunity to raise questions and concerns about the network’s current state and future.
During the meeting, staff questioned the behavior of Jennings, who frequently gets into verbal spats with other CNN guests as a firebrand Trump loyalist.
One area of concern was Jennings being allowed to describe undocumented immigrants as “illegal aliens,” a term that violates the network’s editorial standards, according to Status.
In a typically fiery appearance on CNN’s NewsNight on Jan. 19, Jennings went on a furious tirade against fellow panelist Cameron Kasky, a survivor of the 2018 Parkland school shooting, after Kasky chastised him for saying ICE should be allowed to “chase down illegals” in Minnesota.
“Who are you to tell me what I can and can’t say? I’ve never met you, brother. I can say whatever I want,” Jennings said. “They’re illegal aliens. And that’s what the law calls them. Illegal aliens. That’s what I’m going to call them.”

At least one employee repeatedly pressed Thompson about why Jennings is "allowed to exist" in his current role at CNN. Let that sink in for a moment. They literally asked why he's allowed to exist there. The staffers branded him a "MAGA mouthpiece" and a "firebrand Trump loyalist" who "frequently gets into verbal spats with other CNN guests." Heaven forbid someone actually challenges the groupthink.

ICYMI: Gutfeld Returns to ‘The Five,’ Promptly Humiliates Jessica Tarlov Again

Consider the contrast with Jessica Tarlov on Fox News's The Five. For sure, plenty of conservatives complain about her presence there, but you don't see Fox News employees staging an internal revolt demanding her removal.

Why not? I’m sure a big part of it is that Jennings is actually smart and effective at countering prevailing views, while Tarlov often sounds like she's reading from a DNC talking points script. I’ve mocked her plenty of times here, which is always fun.

But that’s not the main reason.

Personally, I appreciate having a left-leaning voice on The Five, but Tarlov doesn't hold a candle to Harold Ford Jr., or past liberal co-hosts like Juan Williams in terms of intelligence and thoughtfulness. Yet, there’s never been any revolt about any of the smarter liberal cohosts either.

The revolt at CNN over Jennings tells you everything you need to know about the state of that network and the left in general. They can't handle one conservative who's actually effective at making his case. Instead of rising to the challenge and countering his arguments with better ones, they're demanding he be silenced or controlled. If CNN's staff is this rattled by one smart conservative, maybe the problem isn't Scott Jennings. The problem is that their worldview can't withstand basic scrutiny.

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/02/01/theres-a-revolt-at-cnn-over-scott-jennings-n4948984

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Jonathan Turley Self-Awareness Nukes Hillary Clinton After Her Lecture About 'MAGA's War on Empathy'

Jonathan Turley Self-Awareness Nukes Hillary Clinton After Her Lecture About 'MAGA's War on Empathy'

Doug P.

*AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, File*

Take another lying Hillary Clinton screed and combine it with The Atlantic, and you know you're going to end up with a massive level of projection and BS.

Such is the case with this:

Trump wants to replace democracy with theocracy? Funny stuff coming from Hillary's side, for which things like climate change fearmongering, abortion zealotry and anti-science trans gaslighting have become religions unto themselves that they're trying to force on everybody else.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley easily described what a joke Hillary Clinton has served up:

Speaking of Benghazi...

Liberty or Security?

Liberty or Security?

Mark Lewis

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." – Benjamin Franklin

"When you abandon freedom to achieve security, you lose both and deserve neither." – Thomas Jefferson

Brilliant statements from Franklin and Jefferson, and I certainly couldn't improve upon either of them. Freedom obviously demands some security, but the more security one has (if that security is transferred into the hands of government, as it almost always is), the less freedom there will be. The Founders hoped that our security would come largely from personal virtue (i.e., the Judeo-Christian moral code); even Franklin wrote, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." If people choose to be virtuous—that is, if they select true freedom—their liberties will be secure. If security is forced upon them, they lose those freedoms. And usually security as well. Is forced security really security? Is government "security" to be trusted? Ask the people of the Soviet Union, China, and other communist countries.

So, it isn't a strict choice between security and freedom. We do need some of the former to protect the latter. But the less security-producing virtue that comes from within us, the more freedom-limiting power we must give to government. And what government ever stops trying to gain more power? You "lose both and deserve neither" liberty or security, for what part of either do we have under a tyrannical, totalitarian government?

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," John Adams wrote. Limit government to protect against tyranny. Exalt individual virtue to enhance both liberty and security. That was the system our Founding Fathers believed in and constructed for America.

A government that is not strictly limited and controlled with defined powers, a government with the arbitrary power to do anything it wants to do and can get away with, a government that gives people everything they want, can also take everything they've got, and does not provide true liberty or security.

How free and secure were the people of Germany under Adolf Hitler? How free and secure were the people of Russia under the Soviet Union? How free and secure were the people of China under Mao Zedong, and are they under Xi Jinping? There is no true freedom or security under totalitarian government. Government has been the greatest killer in human history. It wasn't virtuous people in Germany who started World War II; it was their government. It wasn't the people of China who killed 60-70 million Chinese under Mao Zedong, or thousands at Tiananmen Square in 1989, or who turned the COVID virus loose on the world; it was their government. Only a government of virtue, limited by strict Constitutional boundaries, can provide freedom. And even that government should never be trusted. Witness 250 years of American history.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We either believe that or we don't. American "conservatives" believe it; the "Left" in America does not. "But, but, but," Lefty says, "the Founding Fathers didn't even believe it. They were slaveowners." But they lived in a different world than we do, a world where slavery existed, a world where they led the way to the ending of slavery because of the words above! We don't live where slavery exists, and the principles the Founders spoke are eternal in their nature because they are based in the very nature of God. We have no excuse today for not believing what they said in the Declaration of Independence. But the Left has a different view of the world, a different view of government, a different view of God, and of what they want America to be. The divide is unbridgeable at present. Two polar opposite worldviews.

We conservatives want in America a virtuous, limited government with a populous of industrious, virtuous, godly, compassionate, loving people. A country where freedom and security are not based on government, but on the laws of God. As James Madison so correctly stated, "The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." That is where true freedom and security reside. The Left wants neither freedom nor security because the "security" they want will be based on government ("our rights come from government," Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine recently said), and government robs freedom and gives no one true security (witness again the USSR and China). So, it's a choice between virtue or hedonism, freedom/security or totalitarian government. I believe in God. The Left believes in government.

I close with Edmund Burke: "Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." Virtuous freedom and security—or totalitarianism. Those are the only two choices.

https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2026/01/31/liberty-or-security-n2670433?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

polecat news and views

Friday, February 6, 2026

New Poll Crushes Dem, Media Narrative: Americans Demand Mass Deportations, Back ICE Overwhelmingly

New Poll Crushes Dem, Media Narrative: Americans Demand Mass Deportations, Back ICE Overwhelmingly

Trump Was No Draft-Dodger, and Here's the Timeline That Proves It

Theft Is Popular

Thursday, February 5, 2026

Yikes: Anti-ICE Crew Allegedly Assaults Journalist for Investigating Their Minneapolis 'Checkpoint'

None Dare Call It Insurgency

There’s a Revolt at CNN Over Scott Jennings

Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Jonathan Turley Self-Awareness Nukes Hillary Clinton After Her Lecture About 'MAGA's War on Empathy'

Recommended

Liberty or Security?

Recommended

Related: