The Carroll case rested on a sequence of legal maneuvers with no precedent in American civil litigation. Democratic legislators passed a retroactive temporary law eliminating the statute of limitations for decades-old accusations that could not be dated, located, or defended with alibis. The day the temporary law took effect, Carroll filed her pre-prepared lawsuit, the first in the state to do so. A Democratic mega-donor secretly funded the plaintiff’s legal costs through a nonprofit. The arrangement stayed hidden until one of Trump’s lawyers discovered it. A Clinton-appointed judge then sealed all records so the jury never learned the billionaire backer had publicly committed to Trump’s political destruction. Every participant in the legislative, funding, and judicial steps operated inside the same political network, and each decision produced the same cumulative result. The jury explicitly checked “no” on the verdict form’s specific rape question. The judge ruled rape proven anyway, claiming the jury had used a common rather than statutory definition… an impossibility, since their rejection under the common definition precludes rape by any standard. Trump’s team was barred from arguing innocence before a second jury, which awarded $83.3 million ($65 million punitive) on the rape finding the first jury had rejected. A defendant was sued for defamation over denying an accusation, prevented from asserting that denial as a defense, tried before a judge who concealed the plaintiff’s political funding, and hit with a nine-figure verdict built on facts the jury itself refused to find. No comparable sequence exists in recorded U.S. civil litigation history.

In 2005, Israel gave Palestinians exactly what the world demanded: “Land for Peace.” They unilaterally withdrew from the entire Gaza Strip, but got no peace. The IDF forcibly removed every last Jew — even digging up Jewish graves. Gaza was made completely Jew-free, exactly as Palestinians demanded. Israel handed over thriving communities, farms, and hundreds of millions in infrastructure — including productive greenhouses that could have become an economic engine for a Palestinian state. What did the Palestinians do with this gift? They destroyed it. Mobs looted and burned the greenhouses. They ransacked and demolished synagogues. They celebrated with Hamas flags and gunfire. Then, in January 2006, they voted Hamas — a genocidal terrorist organization whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews — into power. By 2007, Hamas completed a bloody coup, threw Fatah members off rooftops, and seized total control of Gaza. The result? - Tens of thousands of rockets fired at Israeli civilians - More than 500 miles of underground terror tunnels - Billions in international aid stolen for war, not welfare - Gaza transformed into a fortified Islamic terror enclave Land for peace was tried — and violently rejected. Everything Israel gave away in 2005 became the launchpad for the October 7 Massacre. This is the ultimate proof: the Palestinian movement has never wanted a state living next to Israel. Its goal has always been the destruction of the Jewish state — in any part of the Land. Important note: The blockade only came after Hamas seized power in 2007 and turned Gaza into a launchpad for war. And when that happened, Egypt joined it too. Disengagement didn’t bring peace. It brought the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

You watched a movie, and a deeply biased one at that. It’s not a documentary. After this uprising, Britain proposed partition as a solution to the conflict. The Arab leadership rejected it. After partition was rejected, Britain offered a plan that would allow 75,000 Jews to immigrate over five years, give Arabs a veto over further immigration after that, and lead to an independent state within ten years. The Arab leadership rejected that as well. In 1947, the UN put forward an even more generous partition proposal. The Arab side rejected it and launched a genocidal war to prevent the creation of a Jewish state. They lost. What your cartoon version of history ignores is that it was the Arab leadership that repeatedly refused opportunities to settle this conflict. For more than a century, the central obstacle has been the refusal of successive Arab leaders to accept the existence of a Jewish-majority polity in any part of the land. Your nonsense assessment is based on rewarding a hate that has smouldered so strongly that a significant portion of the Palestinian population cares more about killing Jewish children than it does about building a future for its own. And there is a multi-billion global Palestinian victim industry with an interest in perpetuating that. You’re their customer.

Gilles, je vais démonter ta prémisse de départ, parce que tout le reste de ton argument s'effondre avec elle. Tu pars du principe qu'il faut une « sensibilité de gauche » pour ne pas laisser créver les gens de faim. C'est l'inverse total de ce que dit l'histoire économique des 50 dernières années. Les chiffres bruts. 1990 : 2,3 milliards de personnes en pauvreté extrême. 38% de l'humanité. 2025 : 831 millions. Environ 10%. 1,5 milliard d'êtres humains sortis de la misère absolue en 35 ans. La plus grande réduction de souffrance humaine de toute l'histoire de l'espèce. Qui a fait ça ? Pas l'aide internationale. Pas les ONG. Pas les programmes de redistribution. Pas la « sensibilité de gauche ». Le marché. L'ouverture commerciale. La Chine de Deng en 1978 qui abandonne le maoisme. L'Inde en 1991 qui libéralise. Le Vietnam, l'Indonésie, le Bangladesh qui s'ouvrent au capitalisme. Les seuls endroits où l'extrême pauvreté a EXPLOSÉ sur la même période ? Le Vénézuela socialiste : de 27% de pauvres en 2008 à plus de 80% en 2018, avec une inflation de 130 000% et un Vénézuélien moyen qui a perdu 11 kilos par dénutrition. La Corée du Nord. Cuba. Le Zimbabwe de Mugabe. La gauche ne nourrit pas les pauvres. Elle les fabrique. Le capitalisme produit tellement de richesse que même ses « perdants » américains vivent mieux que la classe moyenne soviétique. Un pauvre US a un frigo, une voiture, un téléphone, l'air conditionné, internet. Un pauvre cubain attend du riz. Ton argument selon lequel « le social aux USA est un désastre » repète une légende française. La réalité : le PIB par habitant américain est de 80 000$. Français : 45 000$. Un Mississippien — l'État US le plus pauvre — a un revenu médian supérieur au Français moyen. La vérité que la gauche française refuse de regarder : dans un système libéral, il y a plus de richesse créée, plus largement distribuée, et beaucoup moins de pauvres. Partout. Sans exception. Sur toutes les périodes mesurées. ÊTRE de gauche en 2026 face à ces données, ce n'est pas avoir de la « sensibilité ». C'est ignorer 35 ans de preuves accablantes. C'est préférer la posture morale au résultat. La compassion sans résultats, ça s'appelle de la vanité.

This real-time 1948 article from The Economist completely destroys the modern “Nakba” narrative that was invented decades later as political propaganda. Straight from British eyewitnesses in Haifa, October 2, 1948: “Jewish authorities urged all Arabs to remain in Haifa and guaranteed them protection and security ... However, of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa, not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. The most potent factor was the announcements made over the air by the Arab Higher Executive, urging the Arabs to quit ... those who remained and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.” They didn’t flee because of “Zionist ethnic cleansing.” They fled because Arab leaders ordered them to get out of the way so their armies could “drive the Jews into the sea.” Then they lost the war they started — and spent the next 77 years rewriting history to blame the Jews. The “Nakba” you were taught? Pure revisionist fiction.

Gaza’s exceptionalism? There is a strange and recurring theme that treats Palestinians in Gaza as exempt from the basic realities of modern war. It suggests Gazans should remain exactly where they are, face no disruption, and expect reconstruction to simply restore the pre-October 7 reality, as if the devastation, the tens of thousands killed, and the political collapse should carry no structural consequences. This view ignores how every major conflict from Iraq and Syria to Yemen, Sudan, Libya, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Ukraine involved mass displacement and population relocation for their safety and security, shifts in governance, the removal of armed groups, and major political restructuring. Gaza is the only case where displacement has been entirely internal, leaving civilians with almost no safe alternatives and facing unbearable hardships and challenges, caught in between Israeli bombardment and Hamas’s control. The exceptionalism narrative insists that everything in Gaza must be smooth and consequence‑free: aid should flow flawlessly; civilians should never be asked to temporarily relocate; all needs must be met while everyone stays put; reconstruction should be guaranteed without any commitment to a new political or social contract; and Gaza should receive unlimited aid while its leaders retain the freedom to launch wars, provoke neighbors, and reject peace under the banner of “resistance.” A second pillar of this exceptionalism point of view is the belief that Hamas, the actor that triggered this disaster, is entitled to a say in the next steps and deserves to remain politically intact and recycled into yet another reconstruction phase, as has happened for two decades. Whether out of romanticization of “resistance” or avoidance of hard choices, this view demands rebuilding Gaza while its captors stay in place. But the international community and donor states will not fund a future where Gaza is expected to thrive while still held by jihadist adventurism and nihilistic governance. There is no perfect humanitarian delivery system, no perfect reconstruction with everyone staying put, and no scenario where Hamas is confronted while the population remains entirely stationary. Two decades of jihadism marketed as “resistance” have created consequences that can no longer be deferred. If Gaza is to be rebuilt and reborn, difficult decisions are unavoidable. The alternative is the status quo: a slow drip of aid that leaves two million people trapped in rubble, sewage, and despair. Creating genuinely safe zones outside of the “Yellow Line,” secured by an International Stabilization Force, is essential to moving civilians out of Hamas’s grip, shielding them from renewed Israeli attacks, and enabling the eventual rebuilding of Gaza.

Classic.

If you are a Millennial or later, you may be unaware of the near total domination Democrats had over American politics in the 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s. Yes, the Dems and the GOP swapped Presidencies pretty routinely, but Congress tended to be overwhelmingly Democrat. When Newt Gingrich and his GOP team won a majority in the House in 1994, it was shocking and felt unbelievable. Now, in 2026, we are truly coming to understand that for decades Democrat electoral victories were built on: 1. Artificial, racist voting district constructs, ostensibly under the Voting Rights Act. 2. Complete control of votes and voting in most large cities. 3. Taxpayer dollars funneled to Leftist NGOs to promote Democrat policies. 4. A mass media with complete obedience to Democrats. 5. Illegal aliens, both for purposes of census district apportionments and illegal voting. 6. Highly questionable voting practices such as mail-in ballots, lack of voter ID, ballot dropboxes and ballot "harvesting." 7. "Errors" in census data that always pointed one-way. 8. The success of calling anyone who challenged their voting policies "racist." 9. Federal government employees "resisting" GOP policies while showing complete fealty to Democrat policies. Today, however, these electoral crutches are being kicked out one by one, and Democrats are becoming increasingly insane and violent as a result. Reality is being laid bare, and we are all coming to understand just how artificial Democrat power actually has been. In ten years they might be a powerless rump party, which suggests a third party supplanting the Democrats might soon be a reality. It's shocking, isn't it?

Here’s the deal: Abigail Spanberger, Don Scott, Louise Lucas and all their friends knowingly violated the Virginia Constitution. They purposefully violated clear constitutional procedures to deceive voters, capping off their master deception with ballot language meant to confuse everyone. They strongly argued for the VA Supreme Court to “wait” until after the referendum so their flood of money from national democrats could fund their brazen dishonesty and trick voters to “restore fairness”, and then claim “the will of the people” when the VA Supreme Court would undoubtedly strike down their unconstitutional attempt to disenfranchise millions of Virginians. It’s a disgusting disregard for Virginians, the Constitution and a flagrant violation of their oath of office.

So you wanted to make sure the white democrat kept his seat so the black woman would get it? That’s racist. x.com/conservativetht/status…

Watching @ZohranKMamdani's oafish, unprovoked attack on Ken Griffin blow up in his face in real time tells us so much about how contemporary leftism has been reconfigured by its elite practitioners. Firstly, Mamdani is not a "have-not." He is a Bowdoin graduate, the son of a Columbia professor and an internationally celebrated filmmaker, whose path to a New York City mayoralty ran through exactly the credentialed-creative pipeline that produces most of his voters. His base is not the working class. It is the downwardly mobile but college-educated, who were promised a particular kind of life by their degrees and are furious it didn't arrive, and who have decided the people standing between them and that life are not the radicalized professors who sold them seductive fictions or the ideologically captured universities that took their money, but a hedge fund manager in Miami. This is what I'd call Privilege Populism. The aesthetics of class struggle, performed by people whose parents or grandparents technically already won the class struggle, but with the appropriated symbolism recast in the direction of people who won it slightly more. It is war between the "haves" versus "have-mores," as some others have put it. The Mamdani's inciting video, gleeful in its innumeracy about about whether a $500 million pied-à-terre tax can actually fund anything it claims to, defiant in its ignorance about the dynamic effects of such taxation on human behavior and wealth outmigration, is the genre's mature form. Griffin's response is the part worth watching. He didn't argue or issue a statement offering a philosophical defense of capitalism. He simply pointed to his Miami construction project and said: this is the way. Then he said the part that should make every blue-state mayor uncomfortable: that what's happening in New York is "triggering the trauma I went through in Chicago." I watched that trauma play out for twenty years. Progressive politicians perform to excite the grievances and resentments of credentialed creatives, the productive class that subsidizes the city quietly relocates, the tax base hollows out, and the people who stay behind look at the resulting societal decline around them and misinterpret it as proof that they must vote even further to the left than before in order to improve things. In a warped but unignorable way, liberal mismanagement of states like Illinois and New York helped nurse the conservative governance triumphs of Florida and Texas. The Privilege Populists never figure this out, because the point is never truly to improve the lives of the "have-nots." It's to *perform* therapeutic acts of Resistance for them, on camera, against "villains" who can afford to leave and do.

I found some wealth you can reallocate. Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) • Superintendent Michelle Reid: Base salary of $424,146 (as of late 2024 contract extension through 2028), with potential increases via district-wide adjustments (could approach ~$491,000 by end of contract). Earlier reports showed ~$445,353 in one recent year; includes perks like a $12,000 car allowance.  • Top District Administrators (2025–2026 academic year, from FOIA data): 44 earn over $200,000. Examples include: • Chief of Staff: ~$306,000 • Chief Financial Officer / Chief of Schools: ~$289,000–$290,000 • Chief Human Resources Officer: ~$278,000 • Chief Equity Officer / others (e.g., Chief Academic Officer): ~$273,000 • Assistant Superintendents (various): $228,000–$238,000 • Executive Directors / some principals: $204,000–$227,000 • Total for ~1,572 district administrators: Over $187 million. 

𝐖𝐇𝐘 '𝐄𝐌𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐘' 𝐊𝐄𝐄𝐏𝐒 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐃𝐔𝐂𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐓𝐘𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐘. A new working paper out of UCLA by political psychologist Samuel Pratt has just measured something American conservatives have been claiming for ten years and pretending was anecdotal. It is not anecdotal. It is now data. Pratt and his team built what they call the 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐂𝐚𝐧 𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐒𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞 — a survey instrument asking respondents how strongly they agree with statements like "𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘐 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥." Three findings. 𝐎𝐧𝐞: the belief is stable over time. People who say it this week say it next week. 𝐓𝐰𝐨: the demographic profile of high-scorers is precise. They are 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐠, 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞, 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐭𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥. They self-rate as higher in intellectual humility, empathy, moral grandstanding, and — the key variable — 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞: they report lower emotional stability, higher anxiety, higher depression, and a stronger tendency to see themselves as 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐬 in everyday conflicts. In one sentence, the psychometric profile of the modern American "empathy advocate" is: 𝐚𝐧𝐱𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬, 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝, 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦-𝐜𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐝, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐫𝐨-𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐮𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 Watch California Congresswoman Katie Porter at last week's gubernatorial debate, in real time, demonstrating how the empathy mechanism produces atrocious policy. "𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 [...] 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨." Empathetic. Reassuring. Compassionate. Also flatly false. Per CBS News' 2020 Los Angeles survey, only 𝟏𝟗% of homeless individuals had done any work in the calendar quarter they became homeless. A 2017 San Francisco survey found 𝟏𝟑% working part-time or full-time. The reason is no mystery — a substantial majority of street-homeless Americans are managing untreated severe mental illness, active substance abuse, or both. The "empathetic" policy that emerges from Porter's framing is to leave them on the street. The actually humane policy involves involuntary commitment, mandated treatment, and structured housing — every one of which the empathy-coded liberal reflexively rejects as cruel. Pratt's data and the on-the-ground reality converge on the same uncomfortable conclusion: 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬, because empathy at scale stops asking 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 and starts asking 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐌𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦 How does a fringe view — communist Twitch streamers, candidates openly excusing full-scale m∗rder, congressmen calling themselves democratic socialists — capture an entire major American political party? Nassim Taleb has the cleanest explanation. He calls it 𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. A family of four. One daughter — 𝟐𝟓% of the household — only eats organic. Mom faces a nightly choice: cook two meals or cook one all-organic meal. The all-organic meal is easier. The household renormalizes to the daughter's preference. The family then attends a barbecue with three other families. The host has the same choice: two menus, or one all-organic. The all-organic menu is easier. 𝟐𝟓% renormalizes 𝟏𝟎𝟎% of dinner. Now imagine the daughter's "preference" is not organic food. It is the belief that bank robbery is righteous, that Israel is a colonial regime which must be dismantled, that your health insurance executive should be eliminated by force, and that anyone who objects is a fascist. The mechanism is identical. The intransigent minority creates an asymmetric cost on resistance. The majority renormalizes for convenience. French physicist 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐆𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐦 has modeled the threshold formally. In his work on opinion dynamics, an extreme view captures a population at roughly 𝟐𝟎% activated support — provided the activists do three things consistently. They activate latent prejudices already present in the population. They impose a binary choice: "𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮." And they refuse, ever, to compromise on their core position. Pseudo-moderates then join — not because they have been persuaded by the full activist position, but because the binary has been imposed and the alternative ("siding with the oppressor") has been made socially intolerable. 𝐇𝐚𝐬𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 This is the most important paragraph in this post. Read it twice. Hasan Piker — the Twitch streamer who endorses bank robberies, defends H-m-s, and lives in a $3 million Brentwood mansion — is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚. He represents maybe 5-7% of the country. He does not move the needle by himself. The threat is the 𝐩𝐬𝐞𝐮𝐝𝐨-𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 — the 𝘕𝘦𝘸 𝘠𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘴 reporter who profiles him sympathetically, the Democratic congressman who appears on his stream, the Hollywood actor who shares his clips, the Brooklyn schoolteacher who attends his rallies, the empathetic college freshman who decides he is "𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵." That coalition — Galam's 𝟐𝟎% — is what flips the country. Hasan is just the visible 5%. This is also why Pratt's UCLA paper matters. The trait that creates the pseudo-moderate flank is the same trait the activists exploit: 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲, 𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐦 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬. That is the recruitable population. That is the lever Hasan and his industry operate. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐅𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞 Empathy is not a virtue. It is a 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲. Like physical sensitivity to heat, it can produce wisdom or it can produce hysteria, depending entirely on what is paired with it. What converts empathy into wisdom is 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 — the willingness to evaluate consequences, to insist on results, to ask whether the policy that "feels compassionate" actually produces outcomes you would call humane in a year, a decade, or a lifetime. What converts empathy into tyranny is the 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 of judgment — pure feeling, with no constraint, in service of a binary moral choice imposed by an activated 20%. That is the Democratic Party of 2026. The Pratt scale measures it. The Galam threshold predicts it. Katie Porter demonstrates it. Hasan Piker exploits it. 𝐅𝐢𝐱 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰.

Notice the response from the left to the scotus ruling that you can't have race based congressional districts. It wasn't acceptance. It wasn't an effort to overturn the case on merits. It wasnt a call for political action to amend the consitution. It wasn't call to work within the legal system and slowly win elections so they can replace Alito, Roberts and Thomas when they retire. Nope, the left's response was to say the entire judicial system is illegitimate and must be destroyed and replaced(pack the court) with something that would rubberstamp their unconstitutional wishlist of items. They immediately went to ways to cheat and circumvent the system, not win within the system based on their ideals and following the rules set forth by 250 years of history.

There's an old saying that says you can't cut corners on the Constitution. Our Virginia Supreme Court is about to find out just how many corners were cut on the recent gerrymandering amendment. When the Democratic-controlled General Assembly in October 2025 decided to hijack a special session, rewrite its own procedural rules on the fly, and ram through a constitutional amendment mid-election, this was not governance but a naked power grab. When Virginians were asked to vote on a deliberately manipulated ballot question in April 2026, the power grab was made worse. The Virginia Supreme Court has the authority and a solemn obligation to say as such. The judiciary serves as a check to that power and as the last line of defense when the other branches forget their limits. Virginians have arrived at that moment. What the Virginia Constitution requires is explicit. Proposed constitutional amendments must pass through two separate sessions of the General Assembly, with a general election of the House of Delegates occurring between those two votes. This is no mere bureaucratic formality, but an intentional, deliberate and structural safeguard designed so that major changes to our governing document are considered by legislators answerable to voters who know precisely what is at stake. As a circuit court judge already found, because the next qualifying House of Delegates election cannot occur until 2027, the process is void from the start. This is no technicality, but a bedrock requirement where amendments to our constitution should be fair, deliberate, transparent and accountable to the people. Yet the manipulation doesn't end there. Once a proposed constitutional amendment passes the General Assembly the first time, the Virginia Constitution requires the Clerk of the House to transmit the text to every circuit court clerk across the commonwealth to post the amendment publicly for at least 90 days before the next election. Instead, Virginia Democrats ignored this requirement and admitted as such during the 2026 General Assembly by clumsily attempting a retroactive correction, something that has never occurred before in the 400-year history of the Assembly. Then there is the ballot language. Virginians were asked whether they wanted to "restore fairness" to elections. That is campaign rhetoric disguised as a ballot question, which tells a voter that opposing the amendment means opposing fairness. Does that strike anyone as neutral or fair? The contention from Virginia Democrats that the voters have spoken is as manipulative as the ballot language itself. Certain facts remain facts. The Virginia Constitution requires voters to be given an honest and accurate description of what they are being asked to decide. That never happened. The process was unconstitutional, the language was unconstitutional, and from start to finish, Democrats manipulated both the public and the process because they knew they could never win on the merits. Respect for the voting will of Virginians means more than manipulating the Constitution to produce a desired result. The justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia must rise to the moment and be the check of sanity and balance in the face of political manipulations. Striking down this manipulated amendment will reinforce to every Virginian that our rules mean something, that the Constitution is not an obstacle, but a commonly shared playbook that binds all of us, regardless of party, to one set of rules. That good government is respected by law and through good process. That in Virginia, our laws are not suggestions to be sidestepped when inconvenient, but the fundamental criterion upon which all we claim to hold dear stands. 1/2

Nan, @VanJones68 it’s not “both sides” advocating violence.

Shots fired With shots fired at the bipartisan press dinner, maybe it’s time for the media and the politicians to stop platforming extreme influencers (like Hassan Piker or Candice Owens) preaching as Piker did the other day at the NYTimes “social murder” and trying to depict the most freedom-loving country on earth as an evil force to be taken down by violence and looting. Enough is enough.

We're not saying that Charlottesville itself is a "hoax." We are saying the SPLC allegedly *HELPED* to engineer the conditions for it happening, and then materially aided-and-abetted a Unite the Right organizer and thereby promoted a clash between protesters and counter-protesters. Then the SPLC fundraised off it, successfully, and the Democrats weaponized it to push a bogus narrative in the 2020 election. So the SPLC benefited financially and the Democrats benefited politically. That is why the Biden administration shut down an investigation into the SPLC after banks flagged its suspect activities. I don't know why you leftists continue to pretend that we're all stupid. It's a tired act. When you flail with these vapid counter-arguments, it just makes you look like a huckster, in addition to a race grifter.

Your museum is a tribute to the ugliness of your soul.

…Virginia’s bipartisan commission (endorsed and created by a super majority of voters just 6 years ago) did a solid job of drawing fair maps. It’s the platonic ideal of such a commission. California also adopted a commission after voters solidly ratified it. That “independent” commission — which presumably would be considered compliant with an anti-gerrymandering national law — produced a map that resulted in a 43-9 D-to-R House delegation in the 2024 election, which was generally a favorable national election for Rs. That was an “independent” map that gave the ~40% of CA voters who supported Republican House candidates statewide…17% of the state’s House seats. Even after TX’s partisan gerrymander, it was *STILL more representative* than CA’s “independent commission” map! (Even leftist ProPublica has reported on Dems’ end-run around the rules to stack the commission and dominate the process. And for what it’s worth, TX’s recent partisan gerrymander is substantially more proportional/representative than the CA and VA subsequent partisan gerrymanders). In other words, if we could guarantee Virginia-style commission, anti-gerrymandering outcomes with very sensible, fair maps across the country, I’d be open to this. But given the California example (NY voters also implemented an independent commission, which Democrats promptly set about ignoring and undermining and usurping over the last several years…including before TX did its thing), it’s hard to trust that genuine fairness would actually prevail. That’s the problem with “just ban gerrymandering” sloganeering. California and Virginia both did just that, following lopsided public referenda in favor of doing so. CA rigged its commission to keep Dems’ desired partisan goals intact. VA did it the right way. Then BOTH reversed their own bans and let the politicians run roughshod again after deciding they “had to.”