polecat news and views

Thursday, February 5, 2026

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

An Existential Crisis Looms for the Democratic Party

An Existential Crisis Looms for the Democratic Party

Matt Margolis

It’s 2026, and naturally, the big question is what’s going to happen in the midterms. The balance of power could shift and have enormous consequences on the second half of Trump’s second term, but something perhaps even more consequential looms, and it’s not good for the Democrats: the 2030 census.

This week, the Census Bureau dropped its 2025 population estimates, and frankly, they weren’t all that surprising to anyone who’s been paying attention.

Red states, of course, boomed, while blue states bled residents. Florida and Texas led the charge in raw growth numbers. It’s not rocket science; people flee high taxes and sky-high living costs in places such as California and New York. They chase jobs and freedom down south.

Jonathan Cervas, a redistricting and apportionment expert at Carnegie Mellon University, crunched the numbers and sees Florida and Texas each gaining four new House seats after the 2030 Census. California, New York, and Illinois lose eight seats combined. Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho pick up one apiece. Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island each drop one.

The Republican American Redistricting Project sees more modest shifts for GOP-leaning states. Texas still nets four seats, but Florida gets two. Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho each still gain one, and California loses four. New York, Illinois, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island all lose one as well.

Both projections not only hand Republicans more safe seats, but also give Republicans a stronger advantage in the electoral college.

"The Rust Belt states and Sun Belt states will continue to be the battleground,” Adam Kincaid of the National Republican Redistricting Trust told Politico. “The difference is that Republicans will be able to win the White House without a single Rust Belt state, whereas Democrats would have to sweep the Rust Belt and win in the Sun Belt."

Win the Sun Belt? And how are they going to do that? I don’t see it.

The Democrats’ only hope here is that blue state refugees bring their far-left politics with them.

Marina Jenkins of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee believes this is happening, and suggests that these new voters will sway statewide races, just as migration from Massachusetts to New Hampshire made the Granite State a more blue-leaning swing state. But I haven’t seen any evidence that this is happening right now. We’ve been reporting on the blue-to-red state migration for years, yet the two biggest gainers in net migration, Florida and Texas, have only swung more Republican in recent elections.

So there’s no way to sugarcoat this for the Democrats. They are in real trouble after the next census. If the migration trends don’t result in a significant change in how red states vote, the Democrats’ only option to win will be to move back toward the center.

Can you see them doing that?

Tuesday, February 3, 2026

Play Civil War Games, Win Civil War Prizes: Trump Draws a Red Line for the Blue Cities

Play Civil War Games, Win Civil War Prizes: Trump Draws a Red Line for the Blue Cities

Robert Spencer

With Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson, and other hard-leftists out there trying to conjure up the spirits of Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson, President Donald Trump has just made it clear that he is not going to tolerate any more of this low-grade but escalating insurrection.

“I have instructed Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem,” Trump wrote on Saturday afternoon, “that under no circumstances are we going to participate in various poorly run Democrat Cities with regard to their Protests and/or Riots unless, and until, they ask us for help.” This apparently means that Trump intends to deny the Democrats what they want most: Trump sending the National Guard to restore order in cities where leftist leaders are using the lack of order as a political weapon, and are salivating at the chance of being able to claim that they’re holding the line for “our democracy” against the fascist Trump and his jackbooted thugs.

That doesn’t mean, however, that Trump is going to leave those cities to drown in the mayhem that leftist leaders are encouraging in order to protect the Democrats’ voter base. He continued: “We will, however, guard, and very powerfully so, any and all Federal Buildings that are being attacked by these highly paid Lunatics, Agitators, and Insurrectionists.” Yes, that’s right: leftists are in favor of insurrectionists now, because the present insurrection, as opposed to the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection theatre, is real, and being ginned up on their side.

Trump added a pointed warning for future Renee Goods and Alex Prettis: “Please be aware that I have instructed ICE and/or Border Patrol to be very forceful in this protection of Federal Government Property. There will be no spitting in the faces of our Officers, there will be no punching or kicking the headlights of our cars, and there will be no rock or brick throwing at our vehicles, or at our Patriot Warriors. If there is, those people will suffer an equal, or more, consequence.” It’s likely that if he follows through on that, he would find that doing so was wildly popular. The American people have had quite enough of these rabid ideologues interfering with law enforcement operations on behalf of criminals.

At the same time, the president reminded insurrectionist city leaders of the responsibilities they swore to uphold: “In the meantime, by copy of this Statement, I am informing Local Governments, as I did in Los Angeles when they were rioting at the end of the Biden Term, that you must protect your own State and Local Property. In addition, it is your obligation to also protect our Federal Property, Buildings, Parks, and everything else. We are there to protect Federal Property, only as a back up, in that it is Local and State Responsibility to do so.”

This could be the most important part of Trump’s statement, for it is going out to numerous local officials who have not only been ignoring that responsibility, but actively contravening it for their own short-sighted political ends. In reminding them of which side they are supposed to be on, Trump is once again raising the specter of consequences. Play civil war games, win civil war prizes.

Trump continued with a specific example. “Last night in Eugene, Oregon,” he wrote, “these criminals broke into a Federal Building, and did great damage, also scaring and harassing the hardworking employees. Local Police did nothing in order to stop it. We will not let that happen anymore! If Local Governments are unable to handle the Insurrectionists, Agitators, and Anarchists, we will immediately go to the location where such help is requested, and take care of the situation very easily and methodically, just as we did the Los Angeles Riots one year ago, where the Police Chief said that, ‘We couldn’t have done it without the help of the Federal Government.’” It’s hard to imagine Tim Walz or Jacob Frey ever saying such a thing, but easy to imagine the law-abiding citizens of Minneapolis being grateful for the relief.

The president’s statement concluded on a resoundingly Trumpian note: “Therefore, to all complaining Local Governments, Governors, and Mayors, let us know when you are ready, and we will be there — But, before we do so, you must use the word, ‘PLEASE.’ Remember that I stated, in the strongest of language, to BEWARE — ICE, Border Patrol or, if necessary, our Military, will be extremely powerful and tough in the protection of our Federal Property. We will not allow our Courthouses, Federal Buildings, or anything else under our protection, to be damaged in any way, shape, or form. I was elected on a Policy of Border Control (which has now been perfected!), National Security, and LAW AND ORDER — That’s what America wants, and that’s what America is getting! Thank you for your attention to this matter.” That is indeed what America wants. Let us hope that it is what America gets.

https://pjmedia.com/robert-spencer/2026/01/31/play-civil-war-games-win-civil-war-prizes-trump-draws-a-red-line-for-the-blue-cities-n4948975?utm_source=pjmediavip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm