polecat news and views

Saturday, August 30, 2025

Trump Owns the Dem Clowns!

Gavin Newsom were half as clever as he thinks he is, he might actually recognize the joke’s on him. But alas, Newsom is the embodiment of what happens when a governor spends too much time in his own uniparty bubble—where no one dares tell him the truth, least of all his fellow Democrats.

Take Donna Brazile, who recently had to swat away Newsom’s latest stunt—mocking Trump on social media—as if it were anything other than the hollow trolling that it is. Brazile, to her credit, noted we’re living in serious times. Yet Newsom thinks memes and snarky tweets about Trump are going to rally the faithful. Wrong. What he doesn’t see—or refuses to see—is that every little dig only fuels Trump’s fire, drives his momentum, and widens the gap between the Democrats’ empty showmanship and Trump’s results.

And those results are not subtle. The Republican Party in 2025 has registered more than 4 million additional new voters than the Democrats. That’s not a rounding error. That’s a tidal shift. People are walking away from the Democrats’ clown car because they see what governing actually looks like when someone serious is in the Oval Office.

Look at Washington, D.C. A city that was a disaster under Democratic leadership just went 12 straight days without a single murder—while simultaneously taking more than 1,000 criminals off the streets. That’s the kind of thing people notice. Meanwhile, Newsom’s California? In that same timeframe—72 murders. Seventy-two. A dozen funerals per day in some cases. That’s what happens when your “progressive” policies release predators while punishing the law-abiding.

The contrast doesn’t stop there. On the Southern Border, for the last three months straight—not one single illegal entry has gotten through. Not one. Contrast that with Newsom’s heyday of “compassionate” chaos when 10,000 to 20,000 illegal crossings per day poured in, overwhelming towns, schools, and hospitals. The difference couldn’t be starker: Trump restored order, while Newsom presided over an invasion.

And then there’s the golden goose Newsom keeps strangling: California’s economy. The state boasts the fourth largest economy in the world, but it comes with the highest taxes, the worst crime, the most burdensome regulations, and the steepest exodus of jobs and people to other states. When families are literally paying people to haul them out of the Golden State to Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Tennessee, maybe the clownish mocking of Trump isn’t the best use of a governor’s time.

Meanwhile, Trump’s standing with the American people is surging. His approval ratings on global conflicts, on crime fighting, and on the cost of living are at historic highs. While Democrats grasp at stale insults and reheated scandals, Trump is winning the confidence of Americans who care about whether they can afford groceries, whether their kids are safe at school, and whether the world respects America again.

Democrats, devoid of policy, running out of criticisms, and incapable of manufacturing new scandals that anyone takes seriously, have resorted to making fools of themselves. Every tweet, every sneer, every “gotcha” only proves Trump’s point: they’re unserious, unhinged, and unworthy of power.

And the Democrats know it. Their own allies whisper what they can’t admit on camera: Trump has them boxed in. Their clown show has no encore. They are out of tricks, out of substance, and out of time.

Trump owns them. And the more they clown, the more they confirm his case.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2025/08/26/trump-owns-the-dem-clowns-n2662352?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Dealing With All the Winning

Dealing With All the Winning

Kurt Schlichter

This is a special free preview of Kurt's weekly VIP members' only column. See a special message from Kurt below, and join us in the fight by becoming a Townhall VIP member here – use promo code KURT for 60% off, for a limited time only.

Republicans have a problem with success, largely because we grew so unfamiliar with it in recent decades. Our recent run of success only began about 10 years ago when Donald Trump first took the helm, and it’s been up and down since then. But lately it’s been almost completely up. Except for the occasional tangent into self-defeating Epstein onanism, we have experienced pretty much nothing but wins for the last year or so as Trump watched the human eggplant running against him wander off stage, then the drunken trollop who replaced Grandpa Badfinger get broken and humiliated at the ballot box. Since his inauguration, it’s just been win, win, win. He’s neutered the Iranians, neutered inflation, neutered the Deep State, and would have neutered the Democrats if they had any external genitalia to remove.

So far, there’s only one promise Trump hasn’t kept. He promised we would get tired of all the winning. But we are not tired of all the winning.

So, how should we handle all the winning? After all, we’re not used to it. I’m one of those Republicans who came of age in the 1980s, which were just as awesome as the legends tell, but that was the last time we were scoring big on a regular basis. We had Ronald Reagan, a colossus standing astride American politics during our country’s most glorious decade. Lots of sissies, femboys, and other dorks channeling the bow-tied incel brand of George Will-style conservative wag their girlish fingers at us about how Ronald Reagan would never have supported all the things Trump is doing if he were still around. That’s nonsense. Reagan would be all in, and Trump wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the Gipper – something Donald Trump, who knew Ronald Reagan, would freely confirm. Without President Reagan, there would be no President Trump. Trump is doing things Reagan only dreamed of, including completing the transformation of the Reagan Democrats from a key component of the New Deal coalition into the heart and soul of the current Republican Party.

But after Reagan, it was all Bushies, starting with HW fumbling his presidency by betraying us after inviting us to read his lips about no new taxes. Then came W botching what should’ve been some brutal punitive expeditions against Third World semihumans by deciding to stick around and trying to civilize people whose culture and politics consisted of seventh-century barbarism. And then there was one last flaccid push by Jeb!, who managed to blow $1 billion trying to get the band back together for one more failed concert tour – if not for DJT, today the GOP would have second billing to a puppet show.

What are the secrets of handling winning? A key one is understanding that winning is inevitably followed by losing. It’s not going to be all wins forever. The struggle between good and leftists is an eternal one. Our momentum is going to slow, internal rivalries will take their toll, and the natural friction within the movement will weaken us. Great leaders will be followed by mediocre ones. And the enemy gets a vote. The Democrats will adjust. They will change in an effort to overcome their myriad deficiencies. Things are eventually going to change for the worse – but, with luck, that’s not going to be for a while.

Yet, the clock is ticking. We’ve got to do what we have to do now, not later. We have to strike while the iron is hot and take advantage of the momentum we’ve created. Trump 2.0 is doing that. Every day, we’re bombarded by news of a broad offensive attacking many strong points of the left. This strategy goes against a lot of conventional wisdom. Conventional wisdom says that you carefully guard your political capital like Scrooge McDuck and spend it on only the most important tasks. There’s a place for that, but there’s also a place for going all out, putting the pedal to the metal. That’s what Trump’s doing. Every one of his departments has initiatives designed to gut the liberal leviathan. Over here, the EPA is undoing the ridiculous climate hoax regulations. Over there, the Justice Department is investigating Letitia James and Adam Schiff for mortgage fraud. Pete Hegseth is wringing DEI out of the DOD, while Marco Rubio is hanging Democrat money launderers at USAID and elsewhere out to dry.

Donald Trump, exercising discipline we didn’t know he had, is focused and furious in his work. This guy has helped settle six different conflicts since he came into office. That’s insane; still, he won’t get a participation Nobel like Obama. But it also vindicates his strategy of trying to do everything all at once. It’s a strategy that recognizes that time is both our most valuable asset and also what will eventually be our undoing. We’re at just over six months now, and we’ve got 3 1/2 years left. We’ve got to make them count.

Another important thing to do when you’re winning is not to feel you have to find some reason to lose. Like with the aforementioned Epstein stuff, among Republicans, there always seems to be this little nagging voice telling them to undermine their own success. Was the Epstein stuff handled in a manner that you could characterize as optimal? No. But if your standard is perfection, you have established that you are not interested in success because you’re never going to achieve perfection. We’re going to make mistakes. It’s remarkable how few we’ve made so far. It’s remarkable how competent, loyal, and focused the administration’s key personnel have been. I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything like it. They don’t leak. They don’t backbite – publicly. They’re all on the team, rowing forward together. We have to encourage that for as long as we can, because it’s not going to last. As conservatives, we recognize humanity’s fallen nature. People are going to backbite. They’re going to get ambitious, particularly as people start looking for what they’re going to do in the next administration. It’s going to be harder to keep everybody on the same team, but President Trump needs to demand it, and we in the base need to demand it, too.

Yes, as base Republicans, we play a key role, even if we’re not inside the administration, by demanding that the administration and all its functionaries function functionally. We have had a lot of success as a base whenever somebody has floated a dumb trial balloon, like selective amnesty for farm-working and hotel-cleaning illegal aliens. Remember that? Remember how we treated it like Curtis LeMay treated Tokyo?

We need to have a zero-tolerance policy for nonsense. We need to have a zero-tolerance policy for hesitation. We need to have a zero-tolerance policy for doing anything but taking our sword and driving it into their guts up to the hilt.

The way you handle winning is to keep winning as long as you can. Take the win and move on to the next one. No stopping, no resting on our laurels. We want our win fix like the junkies Trump’s cleaned out of D.C. want smack. Accept nothing less.

No, we’re not going to get tired of all the winning. As Hillary Clinton once told an audience of eager morons who lapped up her crap, we don't feel no ways tired. We can sleep when we’re dead or out of power; until then, charge!

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2025/08/27/dealing-with-all-the-winning-n2662308?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Friday, August 29, 2025

A Great Scientific Revolution Saved Millions of Lives. Activists Deny It.

A Great Scientific Revolution Saved Millions of Lives. Activists Deny It.

By Ward Clark

As any of you who have been reading my work for longer than it takes to click a link with a mouse knows, I'm fond of pointing out a principle of technological progress: We solve today's problems with tomorrow's technology. This doesn't just apply to today, either. It's been around since the first time some guy found out that a sharp rock allowed him to skin an antelope a lot faster than by just using his teeth.

Back in the late 1960s, there was a lot of concern about global food supplies. I remember (vaguely; I was very young) news stories about famines in the Third World, in places like India and parts of Africa. But those problems, even back then, were largely addressed by new crops, by new practices, developed in what became known as the Green Revolution. Crop yields went up dramatically, while the amount of land taken up by agriculture didn't change much. It was a remarkable time in agriculture and in biology.

Now, though, decades later, environmental and climate activists are downplaying the impact of the Green Revolution - or denying it altogether. Stuart Smyth is Professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Saskatchewan, and he has some facts to lay on us.

In the past few years, many environmental and academic activists have been undermining the work of Norman Borlaug and the successes of the Green Revolution by publishing false information. The environmental activists behind these headlines claim that the Green Revolution failed. Here is a random sample of examples of these activists lying to the public.

Let's look at the lies. First, we go to India, in the late 1960s.

These activists ignore the fact that new wheat varieties developed by Norman Borlaug saved millions of people from starving to death, especially in India. Dr. Borlaug’s wheat is still to this day revered for “reversing the food shortages that haunted India and Pakistan in the 1960s”. While it was not easy for him to convince the locals of his development program of higher-yielding, disease resistant cereal crops that were well suited for humid climates, rather than their Indigenous crops that were not adopted to meet the local food demands or changing environmental pressures, such as stem rust and drought-like conditions.
Fortunately, evidence easily refutes the misinformation spread by such activists’ claims. Wheat yields rose dramatically in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. By lying to their audience and the public, these groups are ignoring that wheat yields in India more than doubled between the period of 1967 and 1972.

Norman Borlaug was a pioneer in developing new crops, particularly disease and drought-resistant strains of wheat. He was, in many ways, the father of the Green Revolution.

The world's 1950 grain output of 692 million tons came from 1.7 billion acres of cropland, the 1992 output of 1.9 billion tons from 1.73 billion acres -- a 170 percent increase from one percent more land. "Without high-yield agriculture," Borlaug says, "either millions would have starved or increases in food output would have been realized through drastic expansion of acres under cultivation -- losses of pristine land a hundred times greater than all losses to urban and suburban expansion."

His work also bore great fruit in Mexico:

Norman Borlaug was able to develop shorter, higher yielding wheat varieties that were rapidly adopted throughout many food insecure parts of the world. Similarly, wheat production in Mexico dramatically increased between 1972 and 1976. Wheat production increased during these periods from the higher yielding varieties that were developed, but also through improved understanding of the importance of fertilizer applications. Governments were able to import greater volumes of fertilizer, arrange for it to be distributed throughout the country, and allow farmers to increase the amount of essential crop nutrients applied to their fields.
There’s no “new research” as claimed by the above activist headlines. The evidence is clear: the Green Revolution resulted in higher crop yields that contributed to preventing one billion deaths from starvation. Dr. Borlaug made an amazing contribution to improving global food security. In 1970, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work.

Wheat yields in Mexico from 1960 (Note particularly the years 1972-1976) to date show significant increases:

Again, these are facts.

AP Claims Farmers Need Government to Shield Them From Climate Change. They Don't.

The "green" activists and environmental shouters, many of whom have very little contact with the actual environment, are constantly calling for the need for more small-scale, "organic" farming. That's a canard; worse, it's a first-world luxury, only practical for wealthy developed nations. Organic farming that eschews things like modern fertilizers and modified crop plants is limited in land space; the only way to increase yields, if one is ruling out advanced plant breeds, is to increase the amount of land used.

Modern scientific crop breeds reverse that; they increase yields while, at the very least, using the same amount of land - if not actually less. Dr. Smyth has those numbers as well, and they prove the activists are dissembling:

As I see it, activists who are opposed to the commercialization of specific innovative crop varieties, are often in favour of small-scale organic crop production. Now, there is nothing wrong with this, but if the goal is to be high yielding or address specific crop needs, small-scale organic production is only able to produce more food by using more land, as illustrated below by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. In the early 1960s, at the start of the Green Revolution, coupled with increased fertilizer use and more efficient pesticide use, crop yield increases were decoupled from increased land use.

In other words, the Green Revolution was an unqualified success. It came from actual science, carried out by actual scientists, and the crops developed have almost certainly saved millions of lives.

The great thing is that it's still going on today. Yields per acre are still increasing, and the rise of new crops is speed boosting that trend.

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

This is what science, properly done, can do. This is how work done under the scientific method, in this case, work in biology, can greatly improve even global standards of living. This is how it's supposed to work. The activists, climate scolds, and environmentalist loons who are now denying the benefits of the Green Revolution should be countered with facts; fortunately, the facts are on the side of modern agriculture.

We solve today's problems with tomorrow's technology. That's how it's always been. With any luck, if we continue to develop, to innovate, to create, that's how it always will be.

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2025/08/26/a-great-scientific-revolution-saved-billions-of-lives-activists-deny-it-n2193243?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The War on Words: How Manufactured Euphemism Corrupts Our Common Language

The War on Words: How Manufactured Euphemism Corrupts Our Common Language

Jamie K. Wilson

Words are code for the mind. Change the word, and you change the thought; change the thought, and you change the action that follows.

This was the logic behind the “person-first” language that emerged in the nonprofit world. A disabled person became a person with a disability. A homeless man became a person without shelter. At its best, this reminded us that individuals deserve dignity. At its worst, it twisted language into unwieldy shapes. But even in this early form, the seed was planted: words were not just descriptions, they were instruments of perception.

From there, the seed grew into something else entirely. What began as a courtesy metastasized into a strategy. Illegal alien became undocumented immigrant — later even person without papers. Crime was reframed as a clerical mishap, trespass as missing paperwork. The reality did not change, but the story around it did.

Examples abound:

Insane became mentally ill, then mentally challenged, then differently abled, then neurodivergent — until autism and psychosis were jumbled together in one soft word.
Poor became underprivileged, then disadvantaged, then at-risk.
Prisoner became inmate, then justice-involved individual, then returning citizen.
Prostitute became sex worker, and in some corners, even entrepreneur.

This is the euphemism treadmill. When one term wears out — when the public begins to hear the fact beneath the phrase — a new one is minted. The old word is declared harsh; the new word is declared humane. Yet within a few years, the cycle repeats, because the reality has not changed. What wears out is not the word but the illusion.

It is not only the left that does this. The right has its own euphemisms: collateral damage for civilian deaths, enhanced interrogation for torture, tax relief to imply all taxation is a burden. But these are largely the tools of politicians — and politicians are expected to spin.

On the left, the machinery runs far deeper. Academia coins the terms. Bureaucracies write them into law and HR manuals. Media repeat them until they sound normal. Corporate legal departments twist definitions to dodge liability. Activist groups pressure-test phrases and pump them into campaigns. This is why the treadmill feels relentless: it is not just spin but a systematic remapping of language by the institutions that set the tone for daily life. Where the right deploys euphemism as a shield, the left deploys it as an ecosystem.

The social cost is collapse of dialogue itself. What one man calls a crime, another calls “justice involvement.” What one woman calls a killing, another calls “health care.” The disagreement is not over facts but over vocabulary. This is argumentative collapse — debates built on different assumptions, where no amount of logic can bridge the gap. Logic can be disproven like mathematics; beliefs built on euphemism cannot.

The human cost is silence. Teachers, workers, and neighbors police their own speech, never sure which words are safe. Conversations shrink to trivia. Honest questions go unasked. Truth-tellers become pariahs while liars are rewarded for their fluency in code. Even news reporting is hostage: announcers refuse to describe a suspect as “black” for fear of censure, yet have no trouble describing him as “white” when it fits the narrative, as with the Manhattan shooter on July 28, 2025. When words can no longer be trusted to tell us what our eyes can see, reality itself is obscured.

Writers saw this danger long ago. Orwell’s “1984” gave us Newspeak: vocabulary narrowed until rebellion became unthinkable. Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” showed firemen not only burning books but flattening language into slogans and jingles. These stand as the genetic core of the trope: Orwell warned our words might be stolen, Bradbury that they might be drowned in noise. Later works carried the torch — Delany’s “Babel-17,” Vance’s “The Languages of Pao,” Atwood’s “The Handmaid’s Tale,” Miéville’s “Embassytown” — all meditations on how controlling language means controlling thought.

How do we fight back? The answer is not complicated.

Speak plainly. Precision is not cruelty; it is clarity.
Refuse the treadmill. When new terms appear, ask what truth the old ones revealed.
Expose the trick. Call out language-laundering when you see it.
Reclaim the commons. Words belong to everyone; using them truthfully restores the shared inheritance.
Teach the young. Children must know that words mean things. To pass down plain speech is to pass down freedom.

Orwell warned us that words could be stolen. Bradbury warned us that words could be flattened. These were warnings, not instructions. Yet here we are.

The way out is not through committees or commissions. It is through courage — the courage to speak plainly and truthfully. Call things what they are. Refuse the treadmill. Teach your children that clarity is not cruelty, that truth is not hate, that words are tools for the free, not toys for the powerful.

The fight for language is the fight for reality itself. If we lose our words, we lose our world.

https://pjmedia.com/jamie-wilson/2025/08/25/the-war-on-words-how-manufactured-euphemism-corrupts-our-common-language-n4943009

Democrats Promise More Violence, Whether They Win Elections or Not

Democrats Promise More Violence, Whether They Win Elections or Not

Derek Hunter

Osama bin Laden famously said that radical Islamic terrorists would ultimately defeat the west because they love death as we love life. He was talking about the suicide bombers that permeate this religious sect, but he might as well have been talking about the Democratic Party. No, Democrats aren’t strapping explosives to mentally challenged children and sending them off into a public market (at least, not yet), but they do really seem to have a fetish for dead people in a way that is unhealthy. Now their leaders are ramping up their rhetoric and their threats for what seems to be the sole purpose of inspiring more death in the future.

Democrats are not your friends, unless your friends hate you. Sure, we all know someone who the existence and victories of Donald Trump broke – formerly normal people whom you’d thought had grown out of their emotionally crippled state of youth and past their politics being ruled by their feelings. Sadly, they did not. Trump broke them. Not deliberately or purposefully, just by existing.

When those people were so unstable that they cut off relations with family and friends, normal people still had the hope that with a little time things would calm down and return to normal; that the Trump Derangement Syndrome would pass. It has not. It’s only gotten worse.

It’s gotten worse because there is no one – not one single person – on the political left who has the balls to stand up to their own side and tell them to calm down, that the world isn’t coming to an end, the country isn’t collapsing and fascism is not on the march.

Do you really think the people on television believe what they’re saying? Do you think congressional Democrats live in fear of Trump rounding them up and shipping them off to prison? With the exception of a Swalwell here or an AOC there, they aren’t that stupid. But their voters are, which is why they repeat the story.

Scaring the hell out of people is much easier than winning them to your side, especially when your side involves wildly unpopular things like sterilizing children and depriving Americans of air conditioning. “They’re monsters who will take away your (insert whatever some identity group cares about at the moment here) and WE will protect you.”

For the unthinking, that can be convincing. You didn’t think the public school system in heavily Democrat areas was churning out illiterate, entitled kids with self-esteem through the roof and a demand for unearned “respect” for nothing, did you? People who were never taught how to think critically are not very likely to stumble on it in middle age, which is how you get blind loyalty to Democrats and wealthy suburban Karens spending their retirement years marching in the streets, chanting, rather than spending time with family and friends (you think their family and friends want them around?).

After all the lies and the violence those lies incited, now the Chairman (I suspect they call the job “chairperson” now, but screw them) of the Democratic National Committee told their summer meeting, “I'm sick and tired of this Democratic Party bringing a pencil to a knife fight. We cannot be the only party that plays by the rules anymore. We’ve got to stand up and fight. We're not going to have a hand tied behind our back anymore. Let’s grow a damn spine and get in this fight, Democrats.”

The party that inspired so many – virtually all – political assassinations, attempts and murder over the last 60 years is now ramping up the rhetoric because emotion has to take the place of substance. From James Hodgkinson and the Tennessee trans school shooter, to the attempted murders of Donald Trump, these are all Democrats.

The left is a hive of instability and mental illness, and there is no one, up and down the leadership of it, interested even slightly in toning it down. What’s a little more murder in the name of “progress"?

When you tell mentally unstable people that someone is coming after them, the logical response is to go after them first. When you tell people the other side is Hitler, you give the unstable a moral pass to make a move.

Democrats watched as their voters burned down city after city because the emotion behind it was useful to them. Everyone who lost their livelihood, was beaten, or murdered was expendable to the left because they were “fighting for the greater good,” or so they said. You think they’re done?

Win or lose, violence is pretty much all the Democrats have left, as no one over there has the guts to bring the march down this rabbit hole to an end. That’s why we have to not only beat them in every election; we have to destroy them so the whole house of cards collapses on itself. Your friends aren’t likely to regain their sanity or decency, and the Democrat Party is never going to stop on its own. We have to stop it every election, no matter how long it takes.

https://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2025/08/26/democrats-promise-move-violence-whether-they-win-elections-or-not-n2662330?utm_source=thdailyvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The Sad Trombone Warms Up for Gavin and the Democrats As the People Prepare to Have the Last Laugh

The Sad Trombone Warms Up for Gavin and the Democrats As the People Prepare to Have the Last Laugh

By Sister Toldjah

Anytime I hear Democrats complain about Republican "gerrymandering" and "not playing fair," I just have to laugh.

I live in North Carolina, home to one of the most widely mocked and heavily litigated Congressional Districts in United States political history: NC-12.

Originally drawn by Democrats during the latter part of their century-long reign of error, it has since been redrawn by the GOP-controlled General Assembly to be more compact - but here’s a version of what it used to look like:

It has always been represented by a Democrat in Congress.

Despite their protestations to the contrary, blue state Democrats have turned gerrymandering into an art form over the years, trying to redistrict Republican representation out of existence in hard-left bastions like Illinois, New York, Maryland, and California, even in cases where so-called "independent redistricting commissions" get involved. And yet Democrats have had the gall to whine when, in turn, red state Republicans respond in kind by fighting fire with fire.

In fact, some of the same bad-faith actors in the Democrat Party who are accusing Texas Republicans of "cheating" over their mid-decade redistricting attempts eagerly signed off on maps that virtually assured Democrat domination in their respective states.

But regardless of how the current redistricting battles playing out between Texas, California, Missouri, New York, and other states fare in the courts, because we know that's where all of this will eventually be decided, ultimately the people are going to have the last laugh - and Democrats aren't going to like it.

As we reported earlier, in the aftermath of the 2030 Census, Democrats are projected to lose several seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. Along with that, the much-talked-about "blue wall" is likely to come tumbling down, making it harder for Democrats to win presidential elections:

In the next decade, the Electoral College will tilt significantly away from Democrats.
Deeply conservative Texas and Florida could gain a total of five congressional seats, and the red states of Utah and Idaho are each expected to add a seat.
Those gains will come at the expense of major Democratic states like New York and California, according to a New York Times analysis of population projections by Esri, a nonpartisan company whose mapping software and demographic data are widely used by businesses and governments across the world.

The especially sweet thing about all of this is that Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves for it happening. Why? The reasons for the population shifts between blue states and red states boil down to people being fed up with, among other things, rising tax rates, fewer job opportunities, woketivism on steroids, and soft-on-crime Democrats representing them at all levels of government.

Not to mention the Soros-backed district attorneys who preach about the supposed benefits of bail reform and "community service" instead of jail time, while the common folks end up paying the price.

As noted earlier, no matter how this cycle's redistricting lawsuits do in the courts, the chickens are already coming home to roost in Gavin Newsom's California and Kathy Hochul's New York, thanks to the exodus to freer states. And by 2032, if current population trends continue, it will be all over but the crying, bless their hearts, as no amount of redistricting on their part now will be able to save them from what's likely to come later.

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2025/08/25/ultimately-the-people-will-have-the-last-laugh-n2193211?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

polecat news and views

Saturday, August 30, 2025

Trump Owns the Dem Clowns!

Recommended

Dealing With All the Winning

Recommended

Friday, August 29, 2025

A Great Scientific Revolution Saved Millions of Lives. Activists Deny It.

The War on Words: How Manufactured Euphemism Corrupts Our Common Language

Democrats Promise More Violence, Whether They Win Elections or Not

Recommended

The Sad Trombone Warms Up for Gavin and the Democrats As the People Prepare to Have the Last Laugh