polecat news and views

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

New: Missouri Sues Census Bureau to End Counting of Illegal Aliens and Request 2020 Recount

New: Missouri Sues Census Bureau to End Counting of Illegal Aliens and Request 2020 Recount

By Susie Moore

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway announced Friday that the state, along with several individual plaintiffs, had filed suit against the U.S. Commerce Department and the Census Bureau seeking to bring an end to the counting of illegal aliens in the Census, as well as forcing a recount of the 2020 Census and 2021 apportionment.

The press release from Hanaway's office gives additional details:

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – To defend our fundamental right to representation in government, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway filed the most significant election lawsuit in a generation. This first-in-the-nation suit was filed against the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and the Census Bureau for unconstitutionally allowing illegal aliens to commandeer the path to The White House and compromise our elections.
“The State of Missouri and its voters can no longer ignore the ongoing denial of their right to self-government and fair representation,” said Attorney General Hanaway. “United States citizens and lawful permanent residents have a right to representation, unlike illegal aliens and temporary visa holders. In America, the People, the members of the social compact, are the only legitimate source of the government’s power. We are taking a stand against those who are cheating our system.”
The DOC and the Census Bureau’s current policy of counting illegal aliens in the census tabulation is unjust, unlawful, and unconstitutional. Attorney General Hanaway is demanding a Census recount and that the Court prohibit the inclusion of illegal aliens in the Census.

The 96-page complaint names as defendants the U.S. Department of Commerce, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, the U.S. Census Bureau, and George Cook as Acting Director of the Census Bureau.

The press release gives additional background regarding the suit:

Federal representation is being stolen from states who uphold immigration law, including Missouri, and transferred to sanctuary states who artificially inflate their population by harboring illegal aliens. Attorney General Hanaway will not allow open-border states like California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland to steal an estimated 11 congressional seats, 11 electoral votes, and billions of dollars in funding.
Prior to the 1980 Census, the Carter Administration unilaterally decided that all illegal aliens and temporary visa holders should be counted in the decennial Census and included in the apportionment of congressional representation. The framers of the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment would have been shocked by this policy. They could never have imagined an absurd system where 15 million illegal alien trespassers would receive representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

But here's the really notable twist:

In July of 2020, President Trump issued a memorandum requiring the Secretary of Commerce to exclude illegal aliens from the decennial apportionment base, even though illegal aliens were counted in the 2020 Census. California and New York immediately sued against the President’s action. Ultimately, the Supreme Court vacated all the injunctions, but these legal delays opened the door for the Biden Administration to reverse course and include illegal aliens in the apportionment base for federal representation.
If President Trump had succeeded in excluding illegal aliens from the 2021 apportionment, Missouri would have received an extra congressional seat and an extra vote in the Electoral College. Instead, the Biden Administration hijacked the representation of Missourians by reversing the Trump Administration’s action.

Census Bureau: Illegal Immigration Plummets by Over 50 Percent

The suit has initially been assigned to Judge Maria Lanahan, who was confirmed by the Senate in September of 2025. However, due to the nature of the claims, it will likely go to a three-judge panel:

28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) requires a “district court of three judges [to] be convened” in this action because it involves “the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts.” 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a).

The complaint asks the court to:

Declare that including illegal aliens and temporary visa holders in the 2020 Census and the 2021 Apportionment base violated Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act;
Require the Census Bureau to redo the 2020 Census and 2021 Apportionment, removing from the apportionment base all illegal aliens and temporary visa holders through the best available methods, including by re-conducting the 2020 Census enumeration if necessary;
Declare that including illegal aliens and temporary visa holders in the 2030 Census, and the 2031 Apportionment base would violate Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act; and
Prohibit the Census Bureau from including illegal aliens and temporary visa holders in the 2030 Census tabulation.

This one will be interesting, so we'll definitely keep an eye on it and report on any notable developments.

https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2026/01/30/new-missouri-sues-to-end-counting-of-illegal-aliens-in-census-and-request-census-recount-n2198689?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Experience “Melania”

Experience “Melania”

by Don Polson

After seeing well over 10,000 movies of every sort and genre, and having the critical eye and sense to analyze every aspect of any one of them, I recommend going to see Melania Trump’s self-titled autobiographical documentary, “Melania,” but only if you bring an open mind and warm heart.

There are no political or policy messages to be found; no wading into issues of national or international import; and none of the now-customary Trump-ian stump speech-ifying. Instead, the viewer is treated, and I use the word advisedly, to the minute-by-minute subdued-but-focused activities of a president’s wife, and a mom, and arranger and organizer of a vast White House operation.

You become more than an observer as this is not a bland, objective documentary as seen on public channels. You walk away feeling as if you’ve been the proverbial fly-on-the-wall to a life that can only be imagined—a world that is both elite and approachable. You can almost put yourself in the shoes of the intense security personnel, or the maids and hotel staff, or the wardrobe people.

Now, I’ll admit, being a guy, that the initial segment having to do with the minutia of gowns, robes and clothing was a bit over-long; however, once the narrative assumed the pace of the inner workings of the campaign and transition to being First Lady, it was, to this movie cynic, a fascinating and immersive experience.

A necessary few words about what movie-going used to be like in the early 80s in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles. A local Woodland Hills theater had “dollar night,” when you could see the movies that had been full-price ($4) only weeks before, for a fraction of a current cup of coffee. A family could buy tickets, popcorn and beverages for no more than the cost of the two tickets I bought online for the Regal Theaters in Bend, Oregon—almost $29. I did, however, get to select our seat in one of the biggest screen-to-theater ratios I’ve ever seen. They did refill the $10 bucket of popcorn ($1.50 back then), so we munched on it after skiing on Saturday.

Don Polson

It's Started: Oxford Imposing '15-Minute City' Driving Limits With Fines For Going Outside Your Zone

It's Started: Oxford Imposing '15-Minute City' Driving Limits With Fines For Going Outside Your Zone

David Strom

Remember when we were warning you that "15-Minute Cities" were not just about ensuring that you CAN live in a nice, walkable, and convenient city, but rather that they were about restricting mobility and controlling where you are able to go?

Naah, we were told, that is conspiracy theory thinking. Next you will tell us that the elite wants us to "own nothing and be happy," just like the communists promised.

Well, sorry to tell you this, but we were right. Again.

It's getting tedious, especially since the "I told you so" never gets followed up with, "you're right, we have to fight back." Instead, the liberal jerks who voted for this ask for more totalitarianism.

Remember, as bad as this is, it is just the beginning. I've been watching the creeping destruction of mobility here in the US, where first there were bike lanes taking away parking, then taking entire lanes of traffic, then proposals to close throughways and make them two-lane "walkable" streets, and we even had a proposal to close down the Interstate connection between Minneapolis and St Paul (so far, that has yet to move forward after people screamed bloody murder).

Oxford, that happy little berg hosting the eponymous university, is rolling out its 15-minute city plan, and it sure is a nice start to the movement.

Labour has approved a rollout of “Stalinist” 15-minute cities across the UK, The Telegraph can reveal.
Ministers have said that they will allow councils to use driver licence databases to impose fines on drivers who fall foul of “traffic filters”, which restrict driving in certain areas.
The controls on motorists, which are to be implemented for the first time in Oxford city centre later this year, have been described as “perverse” by motor groups.
The 15-minute city is based on the idea that a person can access amenities within a quarter of an hour by walking or cycling. In some cases, this could result in traffic restrictions being brought in for drivers.

What sort of restrictions? After all, I thought this was about making it easier for people to get access to the goods and services they need without long drives.

Under the scheme, drivers would need a residents’ permit that allows 100 days of free travel per year through six traffic filters during operating hours.
Meanwhile, a separate permit allows 25 days of free travel per year through six congestion charge locations during charging hours, and after this, drivers face fines if they travel without the relevant permission.
Greg Smith, shadow transport minister, said: “This is the blueprint for a national rollout. Labour has given the green light for draconian councils like Oxfordshire to police how people live, move and drive, using cameras and fines backed by DVLA data.
“Oxford is the test case, but this is Labour’s blueprint for the country.”

Yes, you read that one right. One permit you must apply for is for "100 days free travel," and another for 25 days through another set of roads.

Break the rules to drive more, and you get punished.

"Stalinist" is a bit hyperbolic, for the moment, since the punishments are fines (although presumably failure to pay could land you in jail, I suppose), but this is just the opening bid. How long until the access will be gated? How long until complaining online will get you a visit from the police, as happens all day, every day for similar offenses?

🚨 Oxford just capped how often residents are allowed to drive.
You now get 100 free days per year passing through camera-controlled zones.
Go over → automatic fines from the county council.
Expanded areas? As few as 25 days a year.
This isn’t a one-off. It’s a preview.
Under C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group planning targets:
• Meat: ~16 kg per person per year, with the long-term goal trending to zero
• Flights by 2030: 0–1 short-haul flights per person per year
• Cars: sharply reduced private vehicle use inside cities
Officials call it sustainability.
Critics call it managed movement and consumption becoming policy.
At the same time:
• Multiple U.S. cities are studying similar traffic-restriction models
• A Gates-backed smart city is already building core infrastructure in Arizona (full build still years out)
Climate progress… or hunger games?

Of course, liberals will tell us that we are hyperventilating over nothing. This is just a quality-of-life thing, and we should be happy about it. Nobody will get punished; you will still get to drive. And if you can't, well, that is good too. Really, if you oppose it you SHOULD go to jail. Opposing it is stochastic terrorism, you Nazi!

Remember when I told you that the elite want you to eat bugs, and that in Europe several insect ingredients have been approved for human consumption?

Conspiracy theory!

Yeah, well, no. People are now having to scan ingredient lists to find out if the complicated-named ingredients are really bugs.

The funny, or not-so-funny, come to think about it, thing is that you can find all these plans advertised on websites like the World Economic Forum, and watch the regulations move forward. It is not some hidden conspiracy. It's just so evil that nobody quite believes that it is true, and once it is done, the liberals believe it really was a good thing anyway.

I'm glad it is Friday. I am burned out, disgusted, and angry, and need a break before the next riot in Minneapolis.

Yes, they are still happening.

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2026/01/30/its-started-oxford-imposing-15-minute-city-driving-limits-with-fines-for-going-outside-your-zone-n3811392?utm_source=twdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl