polecat news and views: 2026

Tuesday, May 12, 2026

The Crash Out Over the VA Redistricting Ruling Commences, and It's Only Going to Get Worse

The Crash Out Over the VA Redistricting Ruling Commences, and It's Only Going to Get Worse

Things have gone from a joyous celebration to an incredibly bleak state on the Left in record time. After beginning the mid-decade redistricting battle years ago, Democrats were convinced they had outmaneuvered the GOP response in Texas with the passage of a 10-1 map in Virginia, eliminating four Republican seats in the otherwise purple state.

Obnoxious State Sen. Louise Lucas (D-VA), who was more recently raided by the FBI and is under investigation for corruption, led that fight. Here was a bit of her arrogance.

At the end of April, though, things began to shift. The Supreme Court handed down a ruling invalidating Louisiana's racially gerrymandered map, which had been drawn after Democrats sued to create a second majority-black district. As has so often been the case, left-wing lawfare backfired big time.

See: Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Map in Major Voting Rights Decision

Then the hammer dropped. On Friday, the Supreme Court of Virginia nuked the Democrat referendum that led to the passage of the 10-1 map, holding that it violated the state's constitution. With that came the end of the road. While a desperate appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States is being made, it's fairly obvious they don't have jurisdiction, nor would you expect them to rule in the Democrats' favor anyway. Depending on how far the electorate swings in November, it may not save House Republicans, but they at least now have a fighting chance of holding onto the majority.

Naturally, the crash out has been epic. Newly minted left-wing darling Hasan Piker threatened violent revolution, while CNN hosts like Abby Phillip tried their best to hide their rage. Let's just say she wasn't successful.

Oddly enough, Phillip had none of this concern when Virginia passed that 10-1 map, which was clearly a step further than anything Republicans had done in Texas or elsewhere. She also didn't seem too worried about "representation" when it was rural voters being screwed over, so Democrats could racially gerrymander to their benefit. The moment the advantage changed hands, though, she was suddenly deeply upset. Very convenient.

The flailing didn't stop there. Others demanded, either directly or indirectly, that Virginia Democrats enforce the illegal, struck-down map anyway and elect representatives under it.

I've never seen people so incapable of understanding that actions have consequences. Almost every political escalation can be traced back to Democrat overreach. Whether it's suing over everything, leading to precedents that ultimately blow up in their faces, or eliminating the filibuster for judges, paving the way for Trump to get three Supreme Court justices through, they just can't seem to grasp that sometimes it's better to not keep pushing the envelope. All the Left knows is barrelling forward, whether there's a brick wall in their way or not.

So let me explain this plainly. The proposed remedies for their defeats, from stacking the Supreme Court to using illegal maps in Virginia, would only destroy the very institutions they are trying to take over. Does anyone think Republicans would sit idly by while Democrats seat illegally elected representatives in the House? Or that a Republican governor would ever listen to a ruling from a Supreme Court that was expanded and stacked by Democrats in Third World fashion? That would be the end.

Democrats have a choice. They can accept that they don't get to do illegal things and stack courts that rule against them, or they can tear the country apart, and I don't say that lightly. I'm usually pretty dismissive of such rhetoric, but some lines can't be crossed with any reasonable expectation of acceptance. Perhaps that's what they want, though? That's the scariest part to ponder.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2026/05/09/the-crash-out-over-the-va-redistricting-ruling-commences-n2202161?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Nick Shirley Shares More About His 24 Hours in Cuba and... You Just Need to See This

Nick Shirley Shares More About His 24 Hours in Cuba and... You Just Need to See This

Sarah Anderson

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

On Monday, I shared with you how independent journalist Nick Shirley went to communist Cuba to try to get an idea what's really happening on the ground there and how the people feel about everything — their "leadership," communism, Donald Trump, the lack of oil and electricity, etc.

What resulted — and I don't think even Shirley expected any of this — was that the regime didn't let him have a moment of peace. Upon arrival, his cameras and equipment were seized at the airport, he and his two bodyguards were followed by undercover agents, they were interrogated by a two-star general, and they essentially had to flee the country, cutting the trip a couple of days short.

Shirley has been promising video from his trip all week (they didn't take his iPhone or a tiny microphone he'd bought, so he was still able to do some field work), and he finally released it. To be honest, I hadn't planned on working much this weekend, but I sat down and watched the video and knew I had to share. It's pretty powerful.

But it's not the threats to Shirley and his team that caught my attention. It's the responses from the Cuban people he was able to talk to before the regime began harassing him. Many of them refused to speak, fearing for their own safety. Some spoke but with their faces blurred. Others spoke but got quiet when he asked them certain political questions. And some, you could tell, just didn't give a flying flip anymore and were ready to share with the world what their lives are like. They're tired and losing their fear.

One guy who spoke at length had a great response when Shirley asked him what he would tell people in the United States who are beginning to embrace socialism and communism more and more these days. He said:

No. That's the worst thing that could ever happen, the worst thing you could ever do in life, is to go for socialism or communism, because it's utter crap. It's a no-go. It leads to misery, to oppression, to hunger, to everything. Look, nothing you can do... Nothing.

Your salary is only enough to buy a bottle of cooking oil. How do you think you can live like that? How can you live with a ration book that only gives you one or three pounds of sugar and one pound of salt? And there, every fifteen, every four, six months, seven years, they give you a chicken breast or an egg. The egg hasn't come for a year. It's been a year since we last had eggs. Imagine that.

He spoke of all the countries, like Mexico, sending humanitarian aid to the Cuban people, confirming that they never see it. "Those people who are coming, bringing all that aid, you don't see that aid," he said. "I don't know where they're delivering it, but you don't see that aid."

As I reported earlier this year, when Mexico's Claudia Sheinbaum sent tons of food and hygiene products to Mexico, it was sold in military-controlled stores that only accept U.S. dollars, and it was sold it bulk at prices few in Cuba can afford.

Something else that was blatantly clear is that everyone Shirley spoke with is hopeful that Donald Trump and Marco Rubio will save them from the regime soon, so they can live normal lives. When Shirley asked this particular gentleman what he thought of Trump and Rubio, he said:

Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, I'm waiting for you, please, to see if we can live like people, live like human beings, have our basic needs met like a human being, because we're living worse than animals. We're living worse than animals.

"Do you think it would be good for the United States to help Cuba?" Shirley asked.

"Sure, of course. Everyone's waiting for the intervention. The intervention, because people think that the intervention will kill people, no," the man replied. "They already know the key points, they know there's a central committee, that there's ground zero, they know. Everyone knows where the Castros are."

That seemed to be the sentiment with everyone willing to talk.

The conversation ended there because a woman began recording them with her phone. It's not clear if she was someone undercover working for the regime or simply a snitch. In countries like Cuba, there is major incentive to report your anti-regime neighbors, potentially landing them in jail. It's like that in Venezuela, too. It's sort of what many Democrats tried to bring to the U.S. during the COVID pandemic.

In March, a group of Code Pink idiots and Hasan Piker and a bunch of other leftists went to Cuba and said these people like living like this. It's their "island mindset." Shirley's video tells an entirely different story, and I hope you'll take the 35 minutes or so and watch it to get a clear picture of what life is like there. It's something you won't find anywhere else.

Glenn Beck Spots Something VERY Telling for Sale at The Obama Center's Merch Store

Glenn Beck Spots Something VERY Telling for Sale at The Obama Center's Merch Store

Doug P.

The Obama Presidential Center in Chicago has been architecturally compared to a giant dumpster or a North Korean guard tower at the DMV. It's a real looker:

And if you want to visit the Obama Center, make sure to bring a photo ID for entry to the Irony Wing and everywhere else.

The Obama Center also has a merch store, and Glenn Beck and his staff noticed a certain book that's for sale there. This might not surprise you:

Yep, it's real:

This description is really disgusting:

First published in 1971 and written in the midst of radical political developments whose direction Alinsky was one of the first to question, this volume exhibits his style at its best. Like Thomas Paine before him, Alinsky was able to combine, both in his person and his writing, the intensity of political engagement with an absolute insistence on rational political discourse and adherence to the American democratic tradition.

The Obama Center site says that proceeds from the sale of Rules For Radicals will basically go toward creating future Alinsky-ites.

What a romantic!

https://twitchy.com/dougp/2026/05/09/literally-selling-it-glenn-beck-spots-something-telling-for-sale-at-the-obama-centers-merch-store-n2428026?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Monday, May 11, 2026

Why Dems Ignore Rules

Why Dems Ignore Rules

Kevin McCullough

Why Dems Ignore Rules — *AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite*

One of the defining characteristics of the modern American Left is that it treats rules the way toddlers treat vegetables: tolerated only when unavoidable and immediately discarded the second they become inconvenient.

That sounds harsh until you watch the pattern repeat itself over and over and over again.

If they lose an election, the system is broken. If a court rules against them, the court is illegitimate. If constitutional checks prevent them from getting what they want immediately, then the checks themselves must be removed.

Not debated. Removed.

Which brings us to Virginia.

Following the Virginia Supreme Court’s rejection of a Democrat-backed gerrymandering effort, voices on the Left are now openly floating ideas that amount to court-packing at the state level—expanding, restructuring, or politically purging the court itself because it refused to produce the preferred ideological outcome.

Think about how insane that actually is.

Not “we disagree with the ruling.” Not “we’d like to challenge the legal reasoning.”

No. The reaction increasingly sounds like: “If the institution won’t obey us, we’ll replace the institution.”

Jonathan Turley rightly pointed out the danger in this mentality. What’s especially revealing is how quickly national Democrats and activist voices moved toward the same familiar conclusion Americans have now watched for years: if constitutional structures stand in the way of progressive power, then constitutional structures themselves become the enemy.

And the justification for all of this? A low-turnout election. That’s the part conveniently skipped over in much of the coverage.

Yes, there was a special electoral result tied to the redistricting issue. Yes, “the people” voted. But pretending a low-turnout off-cycle election somehow represents an unquestionable, overwhelming moral mandate while simultaneously dismissing the constitutional role of the Virginia Supreme Court is intellectually dishonest. Especially because the Virginia Supreme Court itself is not some alien occupying force imposed from Mars.

Its justices are selected through votes in both legislative chambers—meaning the court itself also reflects representative government and the expressed will of elected officials chosen by Virginians.

In other words, checks and balances did exactly what checks and balances are supposed to do.

One expression of public will collided with another constitutional safeguard representing the broader structure of governance.

That’s not democracy failing. That’s constitutional order functioning properly.

But the modern Left increasingly cannot tolerate outcomes it does not fully control. And that gets to the deeper issue underneath all of this.

The reason so many activists on the Left ignore rules is because many no longer believe in objective morality at all.

Rules are not viewed as fixed principles rooted in enduring truths. They are viewed as temporary tools. Useful when they produce desired outcomes. Disposable when they do not.

That’s why procedures only matter selectively. That’s why institutional norms suddenly become sacred during one presidency and oppressive during the next. That’s why the filibuster must alternately be protected or destroyed depending entirely on who currently benefits from it.

There is no stable principle underneath any of it except power.

Acquire it. Protect it. Expand it.

And if rules interfere with those objectives, then the rules themselves become obstacles to eliminate.

We’ve watched this mentality spread everywhere. The Electoral College is illegitimate when Republicans win. The Supreme Court is illegitimate when originalists rule constitutionally. The Senate is unfair. Voter ID is racist. Free speech is dangerous. Religious liberty is threatening.

Eventually, you realize the problem is not actually with any individual institution. The problem is that constitutional systems were intentionally designed to slow raw power from consuming everything. That was the entire point.

America’s Founders did not trust concentrated authority because they understood human nature too well. They knew majorities could become tyrannical just as easily as monarchs could. So they built friction into the system intentionally.

Checks. Balances. Competing branches. Constitutional restraints. Not to frustrate democracy, but to preserve liberty. Because liberty without restraint eventually collapses into coercion. And coercion is precisely where radical political movements always drift when they stop believing truth exists beyond their own desires.

That’s what makes the Virginia situation so revealing.

The court did not stage a coup. It did not suspend elections. It did not invent authority from thin air. It interpreted constitutional boundaries and exercised judicial review inside the structure Virginians themselves established. And because activists disliked the outcome, some now openly discuss restructuring the court itself.

Think about the precedent that creates.

Every time one branch disappoints you, you simply threaten to replace it? That’s not constitutional government. That’s political extortion. And it’s profoundly dangerous.

Because once societies abandon neutral rules, all that remains is raw tribal power. At that point, constitutions become meaningless pieces of paper because whoever controls enough institutional muscle simply rewrites the rules in real time.

History is filled with regimes that followed exactly that path. It never ends well. Which is why this moment matters beyond Virginia.

The issue isn’t maps. The issue is whether Americans still believe constitutional restraints apply even when they prevent us from getting what we want immediately.

Mature societies understand delayed gratification. Stable civilizations understand limits. Free people recognize that power restrained today may preserve their own liberty tomorrow. But movements driven entirely by ideology rarely think that way. Because when politics becomes a substitute religion, opponents stop being fellow citizens and start becoming obstacles to history itself. And once that happens, rules become intolerable.

Checks become offensive. Courts become enemies. The Constitution becomes negotiable.

That’s the road the modern Left keeps moving down. Not because they are uniquely evil, but because political movements untethered from objective morality almost always end up in the same place eventually: Believing their own righteousness justifies overriding every safeguard standing between them and total power.

The Founders understood something many modern politicians have forgotten: The greatest threat to freedom is not disagreement. It is human beings convincing themselves that they are virtuous enough to wield unlimited authority without restraint.

No society survives that delusion forever.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2026/05/11/why-dems-ignore-rules-n2675884?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-KFHHKUWC9r&utm_term=&_nlid=KFHHKUWC9r&_nhids=nc3loIPYh4a7ls

Commies Grow Bolder: Your Stuff, 20 Hours, Total Control

Commies Grow Bolder: Your Stuff, 20 Hours, Total Control

By Ward Clark

The far left, when you boil their agenda down, always comes down to the same three things: "We want more stuff, less work, and control over everyone else." Oh, they deny that, or at least, the less stupid ones do, in an attempt to deceive. But it's interesting to see what socialists and communists say when the mask comes off. In Minneapolis, we recently had a great example of just that; remember, more stuff, less work, control.

Communist and socialist activists are increasingly joining broader liberal protest movements, where they are promoting a 20-hour workweek, rent caps, seizure of private property and confiscating wealth from billionaires.
The proposals, outlined in interviews with Fox News Digital at a recent Minneapolis demonstration, would mark a dramatic shift away from private ownership and free-market principles toward a worker-controlled model if they were ever to come to fruition and would fundamentally change the United States as we know it.

More stuff: Rent caps, seizure of private property, and confiscating wealth. They don't bother to mention any legal means for doing that; therefore, we may very well presume that they intend to do this the old-fashioned, Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Castro way, at gunpoint. Less work. A 20-hour workweek, which we can presume comes with being paid for 40 hours. Again, the doubled wage will be required at the threat of gunpoint. And all of that requires they be in control.

This is who they are.

'Come Again?' FBI Director Claps Back at Walz's New MN Fraud Raid Credit Grab

And this is one of the young knuckleheads who has torn the mask off.

"We are building a party of professional class fighters, people who are seriously looking at the system of capitalism and coming to the conclusion that we need a revolution… on a socialist basis," said Owen Phernetton, a member of the Revolutionary Communists of America. He was holding a copy of the group’s newspaper, The Communist, and was wearing a sweater that read "Communism Will Win."
"This means handing political and economic power to the working class."

And:

Phernetton said their vision includes placing factories, mines and businesses under collective control, limiting rent to a fraction of workers’ income and using confiscated wealth to fund government-backed healthcare, education and housing.

All of that will be an utter disaster. These people have no idea how to "collectively control" industries as complicated and intensive as any major manufacturing or mining operation. They are, quite literally, advocating for turning over the entire economy to a bunch of Ethnic Underwater Dog-Polishing Studies majors.

Think about this kid's statements, though. This means the far-left, the nutcase left, is intending to seize power. Notice they don't mention anything like elections. They don't intend to be voted into power. They intend to take it. They intend to overthrow the existing order, and they are letting us know it. We should believe them.

Here's the fun part: This may have worked in Russia, China, or Cuba. It won't work here. The United States is too big, too vast, with too many people in cities and just enough in the outlying areas to shut off supplies to the cities; and the far left, mind you, is mostly in the cities. And a lot of us are veterans.

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2026/05/08/commies-grow-bolder-your-stuff-20-hours-total-control-n2202145?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

What 'Rights' Do They Want That They Don’t Already Have?

What 'Rights' Do They Want That They Don’t Already Have?

Mark Lewis

What 'Rights' Do They Want That They Don’t Already Have? — *AP Photo/Alex Sanz*

As we all know, the political leaders of the Democrat Party have absolutely no conscience whatsoever. Most politicians, around the world and in America (on both sides of the aisle), fall into that category, but Democrats are especially guilty of it. They lie, they propagandize, they demagogue, they cheat, they steal, they do whatever they believe is necessary to obtain and hold the power they lust for. It doesn’t matter what they need to do, how immoral it is, how egregious it is, how harmful it is to fellow Americans—if it puts them in power, they’ll do it. No conscience whatsoever. And they’ll hope sufficient Americans are blind and naïve enough (I hate to use the word “stupid,” but that’s what it amounts to) to believe their propagandistic lies.

Claiming, or implying, that certain groups don’t have the same “rights” as other (mainly white male) Americans do, is one of their major ploys. The great Thomas Sowell once wrote, "If you believe in equal rights, then what do ‘women's rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all." If homosexuals or woman or blacks must have their own special set of “rights,” then that means, as Sowell so correctly points out, that “equal rights” means nothing. “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none,” Thomas Jefferson said, but that isn’t what the Democratic Party believes.

Of course, the Democrats like to claim that “gays,” “blacks,” and “women” are denied “equal rights” that other Americans have. Well, even if they are (more on that in a moment), why not insist upon “equal rights” for everybody? That would include blacks, women, homosexuals, white males, etc. Why do they need to single out certain groups? Historical grievances and inequalities are invalid unless those historical inequalities can be proven to be happening now. And that can’t be done. What are they?

The Democrats shout “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” whatever special group of “rights” they can concoct for one purpose and one purpose only—to try to obtain votes. And they lie incessantly to accomplish it. Hence, no conscience, only lust for power.

I’d very much like to know what rights I, as a straight, Caucasian male, have that homosexuals, blacks, and women do not have. What rights have been, by law, given to me that haven’t been given to them? What rights do they WANT that they don’t now have? Do blacks want the right to vote? Well, they have that. No law in the land prevents them from doing so. Do women want the right to work any job they wish, run for political office, or have equal pay for equal work? They, by law, have all those things. Do homosexuals want the right to have sex with whomever they wish? Well, they have that, though we aren't going to give them the right to abuse children. They can’t have that “right”; children have rights, too. But the Democrats have given transgenders the right to butcher children (a right they shouldn’t have); so, what is it they want that they don’t now have? What do “gay rights,” “women’s rights,” and “black rights” mean in a practical sense? What rights do other Americans have that they don’t have, and what equal rights do they want they don’t now possess?

Again, this “gay rights,” “women’s rights,” etc., issue has nothing to do with true rights and everything to do with votes and power. The Democrats continue to lie, telling their constituents that America continues to be unfair to them and that Democrats are fighting for their “rights,” rights they already have, and Democrats can’t say what rights they don’t have. “Trump and Republicans are trying to take away blacks right to vote.” That is, 100 percent, a bald-faced lie, and every Democratic politician knows it. So, it’s back to my first point—these people have no conscience whatsoever. And people with no conscience are evil, the most dangerous people on earth. America’s greatest enemy today is not Iran, Middle Eastern terrorists, Vladimir Putin, Cuba, or even China. America’s greatest enemy, the barbarians, are already on our shores—evil, conscienceless Democrats who will say and do anything to have power over us. And countless millions of Americans are too blind to see it. It will destroy the country if not corrected soon.

There isn’t a black citizen in the country who doesn’t have the right to vote (if they are old enough). There isn’t a person (citizen or not) who doesn’t have the right to have sex with any consenting adult they wish. And the only “right” women no longer have is the right to compete fairly in sporting events against members of their own gender without males also competing in those contests—and that is a right Democrats have taken away from them, not Trump or Republicans. If certain groups must have their own special “rights,” then those are not equal rights for all Americans; those are special privileges for some, a principle directly opposite to what true America stands for.

Again, I ask, what rights do straight, white males have that homosexuals, blacks, and women do not have? And to show that this has nothing to do with the rights of Americans, the Democrats now want non-citizens to have the same rights that citizens possess. If they succeed in that, it means there will no longer be a true America. Not even Putin or Communist China does that.

The Democrat leadership is conscienceless, despicable liars, using people for their own selfish political gain. That is nothing but vile and pure evil.

https://townhall.com/columnists/marklewis/2026/05/08/what-rights-do-they-want-that-they-dont-already-have-n2675663?utm_source=thdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&utm_content=ncl-EFvdpGMkZH&utm_term=&_nlid=EFvdpGMkZH&_nhids=ncR4xIMpsejmls

polecat news and views

Tuesday, May 12, 2026

The Crash Out Over the VA Redistricting Ruling Commences, and It's Only Going to Get Worse

Nick Shirley Shares More About His 24 Hours in Cuba and... You Just Need to See This

Glenn Beck Spots Something VERY Telling for Sale at The Obama Center's Merch Store

Recommended

Monday, May 11, 2026

Why Dems Ignore Rules

Recommended

Related:

Commies Grow Bolder: Your Stuff, 20 Hours, Total Control

What 'Rights' Do They Want That They Don’t Already Have?

Recommended

Related: