polecat news and views

Saturday, September 26, 2026

Fake Trump Approval Numbers Are Coming. Like, REALLY Fake. — *AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein*

When Mark Mitchell says a poll smells fishy, it's worth paying attention. The former head pollster at Rasmussen Reports now runs The Honest Poll, an independent polling and media company he founded, and he's sounding the alarm about a push to drive President Donald Trump's approval rating into the 20s before the midterms.

Mitchell laid out his case in a video posted to The Honest Poll's YouTube channel.

"Well, they're doing it again. Major pollsters are absolutely lying about the numbers," Mitchell said. "And it was the most predictable thing in the world."

According to Mitchell, two pollsters have already dragged Trump toward that floor, and both did it within days of each other.

"They're gonna try and turn Donald Trump into George W. Bush, or, even worse. Jimmy Carter," he said.

Exhibit A comes from American Research Group, which just put Trump at 29% approval and 68% disapproval. You don’t have to be a polling expert to know that number is garbage. But here’s some extra context: At Rasmussen, Mitchell never recorded Joe Biden below 38%, and Biden finished his term at roughly 45% or 46% in its tracking. The same ARG chart that now shows Trump at 29% had him at about 37% or 38% for most of his first term, a stretch when Rasmussen showed him at 48% to 50% through the back half.

"Now, obviously, this number is crap," Mitchell said. He also noted that it's the lowest approval figure anyone has published for Trump across either term. "And, of course, the problem is it will embolden everybody else," he warned.

The broader data shows what a real number looks like. The RealClearPolitics average has Trump at 39.5% approval, 20 points underwater. The Honest Poll's own September national tracking poll put him at 42% among registered voters, 15 points underwater. Then come the outliers. The Economist/YouGov has him at 35% and 28 points underwater, while Reuters/Ipsos showed 35% among registered voters and, for reasons nobody can quite explain, also published an all-adults number of 32%.

ICYMI: Karoline Leavitt Outs the White House Press Corps

Mitchell does see some good news.

More of the pollsters feeding the aggregate are trying to get it right, and that track record counts for something. Back in 2024, the RealClearPolitics average beat both 538 and the Silver Bulletin in predicting Trump's national popular-vote margin and his performance in the battleground states. That makes it harder for a handful of outliers to hijack the conversation, though it won't stop them from trying.

"A lot of these left-leaning pollsters that have sort of like inherent selection and confirmation bias are going to start testing those lows. They're going to start pushing Trump lower," Mitchell said.

Expect a lot more of them.

The Bush comparison shows where this is headed. On this date in 2006, George W. Bush sat about thirteen points underwater. After Republicans lost the midterms that fall, his approval slid into the mid-20s, and he left office at 26%. That's the template. Pollsters want voters to see Trump as a lame duck before anyone casts a single midterm ballot, because a president who looks finished makes his party look finished, too.

Trump does have real problems in the numbers, and Mitchell doesn't pretend otherwise. His own polling has Trump well underwater, which doesn’t bode well for the upcoming midterms. And there may not be time to turn things around.

"People have made their opinions clear about what they think about Republican Party governance led by Donald Trump. And the reviews are not great," he said.

Still, a president at 40% and a president at 29% tell two very different stories. ARG's number sits more than ten points below the RealClearPolitics average and thirteen points below The Honest Poll's own September figure. Trump's real approval rating hovers right around 40%, and anyone who tells you it's in the 20s is selling you a narrative, not real data.

The Smithsonian Belongs to Those Who Voted for Trump, Too

The Smithsonian Belongs to Those Who Voted for Trump, Too

Amy Curtis Follow @RantyAmyCurtis

The Smithsonian Belongs to Those Who Voted for Trump, Too — *AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin*

The Democrats love to play this little game where they pretend to speak for the majority of the country while living in isolated ideological bubbles. When you don't talk to anyone who disagrees with you politically, of course you think your views reflect the majority. They forget that a vast swath of this country — that flyover country they hold so much disdain for — is populated by people who do not agree with them on the issues.

So when Rep. Melanie Stansbury says the Smithsonian "belongs to the American people" she's lying. What she really means is it belongs to the American people she agrees with ideologically.

See, 77.3 million Americans voted for President Trump in 2024, in part to address the issues that were plaguing our institutions of higher learning and culture, like the Smithsonian.

This is what the Smithsonian promoted, lest we forget.

This is absolutely racist, and not just against white Americans. I would argue it's more racist against non-white communities, because it's arguing that they're not capable of being independent; they can't have a solid family structure; they're incapable of rational thinking; they can't work hard; and they're rude.

One of the best exchanges in Congress was Rep. Brandon Gill excoriating Smithsonian Director Anthea Hartig.

That document also attacks the foundations of our legal system, arguing that English common law and property protection are somehow wrong, and that intent shouldn't matter when committing crimes.

The Smithsonian also implied that Founding Father and abolitionist Benjamin Franklin used slaves in his electroshock experiments. What sort of ahistorical garbage is that? Franklin opposed slavery, and there is zero evidence of this claim. Yet the display "pondered" whether or not he'd done such a thing.

If it belongs to "the people," as Stansbury claims, I'm willing to bet a paycheck that most Americans would be appalled by the Smithsonian's definition of "whiteness" and its portrayal of Franklin. I would also wager that Stansbury hasn't talked to anyone outside the beltway about these issues, either.

And there's a reason for that. She doesn't believe the Smithsonian belongs to "the people." She believes it belongs to her people. That is, her voters and her ideological allies, both in and outside of D.C. This is nothing more than political grandstanding, the performative act of a politician who holds half the nation in contempt and thinks the other half is the only one that matters. The people voted two years ago, and they chose President Trump. Which means he's doing exactly what the people wanted, at the Smithsonian and elsewhere.

https://townhall.com/news/amy-curtis/2026/09/23/vip-hands-off-smithsonian-n2683453?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-VSC2aDQuNq&utm_term=&_nlid=VSC2aDQuNq&_nhids=nck9ztnjCEwnls

The Marxist Long March in America Must Be Stopped

The Marxist Long March in America Must Be Stopped

The Heartland Institute

Unlike the bloody Bolshevik Revolution that hastily brought Marxism to Moscow and eventually Eastern Europe, American socialists have sought a different path.

In the United States, socialists have pursued revolution through stealthier, softer, and slower means, what many academics refer to as the “long march through the institutions.”

Whether this strategy should be credited to Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci or German student activist Rudi Dutschke is beside the point.

Suffice it to say, in America, the socialist long march has triumphed.

As many polls show, socialism is more popular than ever in America, especially among young Americans.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), “the largest socialist organization in the United States,” wields more political power than ever.

The DSA has scores of members in political offices throughout the country, with hundreds more on the ballot in November. It has money. It has momentum.

But most importantly, it has the hearts and minds of young people.

Long story short: the Left’s long march has already succeeded.

To understand why the long march has been so successful, one must recognize its cornerstone: education indoctrination.

Not that long ago, I was a public high school social studies teacher.

I want to describe my experience briefly.

Before entering the classroom, I had to earn a degree from an accredited teacher college.

I am not exaggerating when I say that my two-year program at a prominent educator college in Chicago did little to prepare me to be an effective teacher. To my frustration, ample time was devoted to long discourses on far-left political and social ideology.

Social and emotional learning methods were deemed far superior to content mastery. We were told to fixate on academic equity, not academic excellence.

Most of my professors were more concerned with preparing us to become social justice warriors far more than they were concerned that we would be good teachers.

During my student teaching period at a high school in a Chicago suburb, my mentor teacher reinforced this narrative. The teacher groupthink was startling. Frankly, I was afraid to speak out on the grounds that I would be reprimanded somehow.

Unsurprisingly, I encountered this same dynamic during my several years as a social studies teacher in Illinois and South Carolina.

Here is one anecdote. The day after President Trump won the 2016 election, nearly every teacher in the social studies department wore all-black clothing because they “were in mourning.” This happened in ruby red South Carolina.

Parents must understand that the level of Marxist indoctrination occurring in public schools has reached a crisis point.

A generation of American students has been intentionally misinformed about the evil nature of socialism. On the contrary, they have been miseducated into believing that socialism is righteous.

Millions of American students have no idea that socialism has been tried and failed time and time again. They are unaware of the mass poverty, misery, and murder that socialist governments have wrought upon their people.

Even worse, they are being brainwashed into believing that individual liberty and free enterprise are the real enemies.

As a libertarian, I am generally not for government intervention and mandates. However, in the realm of public education, I think the case is so dire that those heavy-handed solutions might be the only way to force change.

To his credit, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis saw this problem coming years ago.

In 2024, DeSantis signed SB 1264 into law, which “requires instruction in public schools about the history of communism.”

In 2025, the Florida Department of Education approved “new History of Communism standards” to equip “students with a truthful, in-depth understanding of how communist ideologies suppress individual freedoms, abuse power, and inflict widespread suffering.”

Anastasios Kamoutsas, Florida’s Education Commissioner at the time, emphasized that the “standards will ensure that students learn the truth about the brutal realities of life under communism and gain a deeper appreciation for the blessings of liberty that define our nation.”

“With the resurgence of communist ideologies across the United States,” he added, “it is more important than ever for students to understand the catastrophic failures and human suffering caused by communist regimes.”

I could not agree more.

This fall, Florida public students are learning the truth about socialism. Could this be the beginning of the end of the long march? I sure hope so.

https://redstate.com/heartlandinstitute/2026/09/23/the-marxist-long-march-in-america-must-be-stopped-n2207217?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Friday, September 25, 2026

A State’s Right to Secede

A State’s Right to Secede

Mark Lewis

“If the states do not have the right to secede, then they have no rights at all.” — Dr. Walter Williams

Dr. Williams is one of the few men I’ve ever read who understood the American Constitution. That marvelous document has been so warped all through U.S. history that very few Americans truly understand what our Founders did in the Constitution. It isn’t going to change any time soon, and Dr. Williams’ statement is probably shocking to many. Let’s look at it.

The Declaration of Independence created 13 “free and independent states”; it did not create the United States of America (read it). Those states (colonies under England) jealously guarded their individual colonial rights and privileges. When they declared independence, leading minds convinced most colonists that there were certain matters (like fighting a war) that were better accomplished collectively than individually. Many, many of the new Americans were very suspicious of any nationalized government (that was, remember, the very thing they were rebelling against), but enough of them went along with it to establish the United States, and finally, in 1789, provide a constitution for the new nation. That Constitution went into effect only when nine of the states ratified it; the other four didn’t have to, but they eventually did. Each state voluntarily joined the American Union; none of them was forced in, and none of the subsequent 37 states have been “forced” to join the Union, either. That wouldn’t be freedom if they had.

In that 1789 Constitution, the “national” government was allowed very limited power. Congress, the only branch with the authority to make laws, was given only about 17 powers (read Article 1, Section 8); that’s all. The powers of Congress, the president, and courts were clearly defined in the Constitution. And just to make sure Congress stayed within its authorized powers, a Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, was added in 1791 to tell Congress what it could not do. The last of those 10 amendments specifically proclaimed that any power not “delegated” to the “United States” belongs to the states or the people.

James Madison, who basically authored the Constitution, said that the federal government’s powers were few and defined; the powers that resided in the states were many and indefinite. It made perfect sense. The states were closer to the people; thus, theoretically, they should be more responsive and aware of their needs. A one-size-fits-all protocol probably wouldn’t work in a country as geographically, economically, and ethnically diverse as the United States.

So, 13 (eventually 50) states voluntarily joined the Union. They were given most of the governmental rights, and the federal government was not to infringe upon those rights. A contract. But power being what it is — even in the hands of Americans — the feds did, indeed, begin to usurp certain rights that belong only to the states. In other words, the federal government broke the contract. What recourse did the states have? Only submission to tyranny?

No, as Dr. Williams said, they had the right to secede if they (eventually) so chose. If they didn’t (don’t), then they really have no rights at all. If all they can do ultimately is submit to whatever Washington, D.C., tells them to do, then what is “states’ rights”? A state only has a “right” if the federal government allows it to have it? That’s not states’ rights; that’s tyranny.

Undeniably, throughout American history, states have abused their powers at times, but I encourage readers to peruse Article 1, Section 8 in the Constitution and show me where 99 percent of what Congress spends money on today is found in those defined powers the Constitution gives it. States haven’t abused their powers nearly as often as Congress has abused its. And every abuse of congressional power is tyranny against the states and the people — taking away a right the Constitution gives only to the states and people.

And when one denies the states have a right to secede against tyranny, then…well, there remains only a tyrannical, totalitarian national government.

Did our Founders have a “right” to secede from England? Did Texas have a “right” to secede from Mexico? Did the Southern states have a “right” to secede from the United States? We may not — and shouldn’t — like slavery, but that’s a different question. Actually, “freedom” would mean a people have the right to secede from their country for any reason. Jefferson in the Declaration: Government’s “just powers” are created by and given from “the consent of the governed.” What can the “governed” do if they no longer “consent” to the government? If they are unwillingly forced to remain in a union they no longer “consent” to, they are no longer “free” to govern themselves. That’s a total denial of the Declaration’s main point. If the American colonists could secede, why can’t the states?

So, yes, if states have no right to secede, they ultimately have no rights at all, except whatever the national government allows them. That’s not the American Constitution, that’s Communist China.

So, that’s why the Democrats…

Disagree with Dr. Williams? Check out Abraham Lincoln: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any port of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement.”

Unless, of course, they do it when Abraham Lincoln becomes president.

https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2026/09/22/a-states-right-to-secede-n2683334?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-2NUV6AkZfc&utm_term=&_nlid=2NUV6AkZfc&_nhids=ncvGmHjPF91Nls

The Cost of Government's Choices

The Cost of Government's Choices

Joe Abraham Follow @angeldadjoe

When elected officials knowingly create or fund a policy carrying a foreseeable risk, they should account for that risk on the other side of the ledger.

If officials spend a dollar on such a policy, a dollar should be accounted for to address the risks borne by innocent people.

One dollar on the policy side. One dollar on the risk side.

The ledger should balance.

Government demands accountability from the private sector. Public officials should do the same: what does a policy cost, what risks does it create, who bears them and what happens when officials get it wrong?

We should consider the experience of someone facing deportation. But we should also consider the innocent family sitting at a red light when an intoxicated driver comes toward them at nearly 80 miles per hour.

People choose whether to enter a country illegally, obey its laws and drive intoxicated.

The innocent family sitting at that red light didn't make those choices. They simply bore the consequences.

Empathy cannot have a preferred side of the ledger. Neither can accountability.

I know what the other side of the ledger looks like. Her name was Katie.

Katie was 20, visiting friends at the University of Illinois and sitting in a car stopped at a red light in Urbana.

She did not create Illinois immigration policy or choose the risks officials had accepted.

She simply went out with friends.

An intoxicated illegal immigrant who had previously been deported and was using a false identity came from behind at nearly 80 miles per hour.

Katie is now in a grave.

Officials make policy in Springfield and Washington. For my family, the consequences showed up on a roadway in Urbana.

She was my daughter.

Consider Illinois.

Illinois has spent at least $40 million on grants and administrative expenses associated with Welcoming Centers. Taxpayers should also ask how much government spending is being used to facilitate, accommodate or sustain the consequences of illegal immigration.

If government spends taxpayer money addressing the consequences of illegal immigration, where is the accounting for those who bear the risks?

Where is the money for prevention? Where is the money for enforcement? Where is the money for innocent victims?

My daughter Katie was killed because the consequences of immigration policy eventually reached a red light in Urbana.

Months later, Operation Midway Blitz was launched. The Department of Homeland Security dedicated the operation to Katie.

I reject the argument that enforcement accomplished nothing because not every person arrested was classified as a serious public-safety threat.

We do not wait for another law to be broken before deciding the first one should be enforced. We do not wait for another victim before deciding an existing violation matters. We should not have to wait for another family to lose a daughter like Katie before deciding that someone who has no legal right to remain here should be removed.

Every violation addressed is one less unresolved violation. Every dangerous person removed is a risk that may never become another victim.

We will never know the names of victims who never became victims. That is prevention.

I believe Katie would still be alive if the Biden administration, Congress and Illinois officials had done their jobs instead of allowing politics to dictate immigration enforcement, screening and cooperation.

If those responsible for enforcing the law had done what they were supposed to do, Katie would not have been violently killed on a sanctuary street in Urbana.

And that is why Operation Midway Blitz matters.

The federal government was finally identifying and removing people unlawfully present, doing what should have been done before my daughter was killed.

Now consider the other side of the ledger.

Rep. Ilhan Omar's Make ICE Pay Act would redirect nearly $140 billion allocated to ICE and CBP toward states, local governments, nonprofits and small businesses she says were harmed by federal immigration-enforcement operations. Illinois and Operation Midway Blitz are specifically included.

But what about the people who followed the rules?

What about Americans who waited their turn, followed the law and paid their taxes? What about innocent victims who suffered because immigration laws were not enforced?

Why should people who followed the rules be asked to finance benefits for people who did not, while victims absorb the costs themselves?

If government is going to identify one group as deserving compensation for the consequences of immigration policy, it has an obligation to account for everyone else who bears those consequences too.

Government cannot continually count the costs incurred by people who violate immigration laws while ignoring the costs imposed on the people who followed them.

That isn't balance.

That is a ledger with one side deliberately left blank.

This isn't an argument against legal immigration. My own family came to America legally from a developing country. Immigration and the rule of law should work together.

Government decides what laws to enforce, what risks to accept and what warnings to heed. When officials knowingly accept a foreseeable risk and an innocent person pays the price, accountability cannot end with the policy decision.

Some will say you can't put a price on human life.

Exactly.

I'm not putting a price on Katie. I'm putting a price on policy.

Instead of asking only, "How much will this policy cost?" we should also ask: What risks are we accepting? Who bears them? And who pays if we're wrong?

Katie should be 22 today. Her family is learning how to build a life around her absence.

Katie never chose the policy or accepted the risk. But she paid the price.

Policymakers must account both for those their policies help and innocent people harmed by their choices.

If officials insist on spending one side of the ledger, they must be willing to account for the other.