Below is my column in The Hill on a pesky problem facing California Democrats: their recent gerrymandering effort may have a racial discrimination problem. According to Ninth Circuit judge Kenneth Lee, the problem is District 13 and the public comments of the primary mapmaker, who declared his intention to create a Latino-dominated district.
Here is the column:
Democrats are bullish about retaking the House of Representatives and making Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) the next Speaker after the midterm elections. Part of that optimism is the cushion of five seats created through further gerrymandering of California’s U.S. House districts.
According to one respected Ninth Circuit judge, however, California may have a slight problem: Its new congressional map may be based on racial discrimination.
Judge Kenneth Lee this week dissented from a decision upholding the districts, and his detailed dissent could lay the foundation for a serious challenge that goes all the way to the Supreme Court. At issue is Congressional District 13, in the Central Valley, which Lee reveals was the result of openly racial criteria by the principal architect of the new districts.
Lee begins his dissent by quoting Chief Justice John Roberts for a 2006 decision, stating, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” When it comes to gerrymandering, it is all a sordid business of course — but this sordid business may be unconstitutional.
The court has accepted that gerrymandering is part of politics. Majority parties, like Democrats in California and Republicans in Texas, have openly redesigned districts, sometimes into absurd shapes, to achieve political ends.
One of the vehicles long used to help boost Democratic seats is the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits districts that discriminate against racial minorities. But this law has long been challenged as itself a statutory mandate for racial discrimination.
We are currently awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais on whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional in barring any district that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
The result of the law has been decades of protracted litigation over the design of districts to effectively guarantee minority — overwhelmingly Democratic — representation in Congress. That is viewed by many as flying in the face of the guarantee of the 14th Amendment barring the use of race to discriminate between citizens. As Chief Justice Roberts famously wrote in 2007, “the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Once again, partisan gerrymandering is constitutional. Indeed, last December, the Supreme Court allowed Texas to keep its redrawn maps. In Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens, the Supreme Court observed that “Texas adopted the first new map, then California responded with its own map for the stated purpose of counteracting what Texas had done.” In his concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito (joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch), called it “indisputable” that “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”
Judge Lee (a Trump appointee) is now saying that it was not that “pure and simple” with regard to at least California’s District 13. He focused on the work of Paul Mitchell, whom he described as “a California redistricting expert paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, House Majority PAC, and the DCCC to draw a redistricting map for California.”
“Race-based interest groups,” Lee noted, “wanted certain racial outcomes out of the process. He happily delivered.” Mitchell is quoted as openly embracing race as the critical element in his design, including publicly declaring that the “number one thing that I started thinking about” was creating a “Latino majority/minority district” in Los Angeles.
Judge Lee notes that the stated intent to create a Latino-controlled district ignores that this is already one of the most powerful and well-represented racial groups in California: “Latinos do not just make up the largest racial/ethnic group in the state … [but also hold] significant sway among California’s Democratic elected officials and leaders.”
Nevertheless, the plan was upheld by U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton (an Obama appointee) and U.S. District Judge Wesley Hsu (a Biden appointee). In fairness to the panel, there were respected key witnesses, including redistricting experts Dr. Bernard Grofman and Dr. Jonathan Rodden of the Hoover Institution, who rejected race as the key criterion. They helped create a record to support redistricting driven by political motives. The majority also stressed that there is a presumption of good faith in such plans.
This is where it gets particularly interesting. Lee notes that, while there is a presumption, it is not absolute. It became unsupportable, he argued, when Mitchell refused to answer questions about his motivations and assurances. “Mitchell went to great lengths to avoid testifying under oath about how he drew the California map — even though he publicly talked about it to the press and interest groups before this lawsuit.”
In such a circumstance, Lee insists, the court should “take Mitchell’s statements at face value and conclude they reflect his true motivations behind the Proposition 50 map. We have nothing else to go on.”
That sets up an interesting scenario. If the Supreme Court rules against the use of race in districting under the Voting Rights Act, the opinion could have blowback on gerrymandering cases that rely on the same criterion. The Roberts court has drawn a bright line against the use of race to discriminate in various areas, including college admissions.
Moreover, the court (and particularly its three liberal justices) has stressed that one cannot ignore legislative comments on such intent. Just this week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back on the claims of neutral intent of Idaho legislators in requiring student athletes to play on teams associated with their biological sex. Although the state argued that the record did not show anti-transgender intent, Sotomayor insisted that the record had to be considered and “there’s certainly a lot of comments” that could be weighed on the question.
While the panel wrote an equally detailed case in favor of the districting as politically (not racially) motivated, there remains the glaring incongruity of sheltering the key figure and his public statements that embrace a race-based motivation for District 13. That could prompt some to send the plan back with the rapidly approaching midterm elections at stake.
The question is whether a court can simply ignore the stated intentions of the map-maker in determining the purpose of the map. At some point, Judge Lee suggests, an assumption of good faith becomes a willful blindness to racial discrimination.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” It will be released on Feb. 3 for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Have fun with this. In PA, where I live, there is nothing in our state Constitution that tells us what to do if a legislature does not pass a redistricting map in time for an election.
2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) (Older Contingency Provision from 1941):
This provides fallback options (including at-large elections in some scenarios) if a state fails to redistrict after reapportionment: Until a State is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof after any apportionment, the Representatives to which such State is entitled under such apportionment shall be elected in the following manner:
(1) If there is no change in the number of Representatives, they shall be elected from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State, and if any of them are elected from the State at large they shall continue to be so elected;
(2) if there is an increase in the number of Representatives, such additional Representative or Representatives shall be elected from the State at large and the other Representatives from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State;
(3) if there is a decrease in the number of Representatives, all of such Representatives shall be elected at large, unless the decreased number equals the number of districts at the time prescribed by the law of such State in which Representatives were elected, in which case they shall be elected from such districts; or
(4) at large.
Why is America opposed to Iran and the Supreme Leader, Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, who has declared martial law and is running a dictatorship and killing the people?
He’s doing exactly what “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did.
I don’t get it.
And exactly what Trump is doing
Outright lies. Lincoln did not do that, and Trump is not doing it.
Secession was not prohibited by the Constitution and was fully constitutional per the 10th Amendment.
Lincoln’s justification for the undeclared war was that he didn’t like the U.S. laws that legalized slavery when all he had to do was pass laws with Congress that abolished slavery.
Lincoln declared martial law with no legal basis and assumed power as a dictator who unconstitutionally suspended habeas corpus, etc.
Over 7,000 soldiers died at the Battle of Gettysburg alone and 1 million ultimately as a result of Lincoln’s war against a sovereign foreign nation.
Lies indeed.
The South built an army and fired the first shot.
It’s National Popcorn Day!
Hurray!
A county line IS neutral and cannot be argued about between “experts.”
No, it isn’t, and it’s also irrelevant. Counties are not constituents of a state, they are creations of the state. They are merely subdivisions into which a state chooses to divide itself, and which it can redraw or abolish at any time. And they play no role whatsoever in congressional districting.
Counties are normally created by the local residents to manage the taxable area and manage local regulations.
They are never created by the state.
Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
The thing speaks for itself – Res ipsa loquitur
Peter Brimelow on the Invasion of America, Who’s Behind It, and How Long Until Total Collapse
Thirty years ago William F. Buckley banished Peter Brimelow from Con Inc. for saying that immigration was destroying the country. Turns out Brimelow was right.
The Tucker Carlson Show • January 19th 2026 • 73 mins
https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-peter-brimelow
Elon Musk begs to differ.
” New York is the land that Law forgot ” because normal legal norms, simply do not apply there. -JT ( per Peter Brimelow @ 01:09:16′ )
“Miracles come quite often in Politics” -PB
Thanks
The thing speaks for itself, yes AI does.
California was invaded and conquered by illegal aliens from s—hole countries long ago, all of whom have advanced to obtain the full benefit package of “free stuff” and “free status” funded by national taxpayers.
It will take multiple divisions with the full complement of artillery, missile, and air support to retake this once-great American state.
Sounds like you have a grip on reality, lol.
Thank you. I appreciate that. My mother’s family arrived in Long Beach from Illinois in 1926, and her ancestors arrived in 1607. To them it was great in the west, and there were no freeways. America, the once-beautiful. Not beautiful anymore in calmexafriasiarabia. All sane and patriotic Americans have moved out.
California was adopted from the Spanish. The invasion was from British based peoples.
California Democrats, already successful in eliminating Republican influence in state matters, now aim to do the same at the federal level. The folksy myth that a state senator/assemblyman represents the interests of, or is answerable to, his/her district’s constituents has been debunked. In California, the only interests being served are those of the Democratic Party, which, because it has successfully built and nurtured a parasitic voting block, will almost certainly maintain its hold — until bankruptcy.
For this reason, I suggest something like this: for federal offices voters (currently 46% D, 24% R, 30 % Various Others) be allowed to vote for candidates running statewide, sending to the House politicians representing their particular interests, with the understanding that (using the current breakdown) no less than 46%, and no more than 76% of the seats be awarded to the top vote-getters in the majority party. This will pay the majority party its due (prompting each party to work harder recruiting members), give Independents a fighting chance (at attracting both R & D voters), and allow minority party (i.e, Republicans) voters a chance to have their interests represented (and their party energized).
The loss of meaningful local representation would be minimal, because there is not much to lose. I’ve never had local representation, at the state or federal level. A more significant loss would be for the truly dismal wannabes, the half-wit, local puppets California regularly sends to Congress. But the big loss would be Democrat’s cynical hegemony, which, given its track record in California, can’t be quashed soon enough.
Conflation: fusing two or more things or ideas into one: Legal and illegal into an unaccepted equality of law.
Confusion: enfeebled matization, a disturbed mental state.
‘The limits of thematization’ Charles H.P. Zuckerman | J.J. Enfield
Abstract:
“A fundamental capacity of language is its reflexivity. But not every aspect of language is equally acces sible to being reflected upon. Michael Silverstein’s 1981 paper, the “Limits of Awareness,” set the terms of this discussion in linguistic anthropology with his study of speakers’ “awareness” of pragmatic forms and their corresponding capacity to talk about them. His notion of differential “awareness” of aspects of language has since been foundational to linguistic- anthropological understandings of language ideolo gies. Here we consider Silverstein’s argument with reference to our research in Laos, exploring the limits of metalinguistic discourse. We argue that the appar ent constraints on our capacity to talk about aspects of language do not evidence limits of awareness of elements of language, but rather constraints on our ability to thematize those elements, that is, to bring them into joint attention. The central issue is the matization, and the relation of interest is a relation of joint attention between speakers. Metalanguage is thus constrained not (only) by psychological lim its but by the social and semiotic limits on what peo ple can bring into mutual focus within interactions. To present our framing of the issue and show what it helps us see, we distinguish two kinds of thema tization and describe their subtypes, affordances, and constraints. We then demonstrate how social conventions— broadly understood— can circumvent these constraints, allowing people to thematize oth erwise difficult to thematize forms.”
”
The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission”
~ Ted Kennedy on the 1965 Immigration act
It was all lies
Like Teddy ever told the truth.
Wait I thought that women could hold her breath.
The American Founders ensured that racism could not occur in the United States by allowing admission to become a citizen as prescribed in their immigration law.
To wit,
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Civil War was the brutal insurrection, overthrow, and conquest by kinetic force of freedom and the America of its Founders by anti-American fellow travelers of Karl Marx.
To wit,
“The workingmen of Europe…consider…that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
– Karl Marx Letter To Abraham Lincoln, 1865 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
The Naturalization Acts didn’t “ensure” the absence of racism. They governed citizenship, not equal protection, and the Constitution itself tolerated slavery.
The question here is simple and modern: can a government committed to equal protection intentionally sort citizens by race? If yes, say so. If no, the debate ends.
What is the status and disposition of people who could not be admitted to become citizens and whose status changed, by illicit and unconstitutional brute force, from legal “property” to inadmissible person, aka illegal alien, if not compassionate repatriation or deportation?
The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they had the capacity and acumen sufficient to the task.
1.4% of Americans owned slaves in 1860, which is inconsistent with “fundamentally transforming” the entirety of the United States of America and its Constitution and Bill of Rights to align better with the Communist Manifesto.
What say you, comrade?
What say?! You are living totally in the past to make irrelevant arguments to revive and agitate racial animosities that were long past, paid for, and laid to rest both in blood, legislations, and TIME.
The Roe v. Wade corruption of the Supreme Court of 1973 was struck down 50 years retroactively by Dobbs.
The corruption of Lincoln, which consists of his unconstitutional denial of secession and all subsequent and similarly unconstitutional acts of Lincoln and his successors, must be similarly struck down 150 years retroactively, putting America squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights of America’s Founders.
Dobbs did not apply retroactively so does not help in your dream scenario.
Thank you; I stand corrected as a technical matter.
Nevertheless, Roe was void ab initio and wholly abandoned stare decisis.
The corruption of Lincoln, which consists of his unconstitutional denial of secession and all subsequent and similarly unconstitutional acts of Lincoln and his successors
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) Affirming the perpetual nature of American federalism, and that the USA is an indestructible union from which no state can unilaterally secede.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
There’s a reason the vicious racist Confederate Democrats were afraid to try their obscene theories before the Supreme Court. They went straight to starting their murderous Civil Insurrection War. It was only after they lost that they went before SCOTUS like beggers, cap in hand, finally asking SCOTUS to rule that their Confederate theory was actually correct.
Today’s Democrat Kluxxers aren’t any more correct today simply because they’ve added communism beside racism in their weapons.
The only people who got paid were the slave owners compensated for the loss of their property. The slaves got nothing but not being in forced labor camps at the whim of the people who promised torture in exchange for demands for freedom.
As to long past? The US celebrates Columbus Day, and that for an event in 1492 that didn’t even land on the American continents.
What are the names of the countries you “compassionately repatriate” slaves to who were born on American soil while removing them from the America they were born in? And in the cases where their owners were not similarly born on American soil, do those naturalized slave owners “compassionately repatriate” their slave property back to the country’s they immigrated from in their place?
What is the status and disposition of people who could not be admitted to become citizens and whose status changed, by illicit and unconstitutional brute force, from legal “property” to inadmissible person, aka illegal alien, if not compassionate repatriation or deportation?
What say you, Tovarisch/X/Anonymous/George/Svelez?
Sorry, Professor Turley will not publish my reply.
Measures to resettle blacks in Africa were soon undertaken. Society member Charles Fenton Mercer played an important role in getting Congress to pass the Anti-Slave Trading Act of March 1819, which appropriated $100,000 to transport blacks to Africa. In enforcing the Act, Mercer suggested to President James Monroe that if blacks were simply returned to the coast of Africa and released, they would probably be re-enslaved, and possibly some returned to the United States. Accordingly, and in cooperation with the Society, Monroe sent agents to acquire territory on Africa’s West coast — a step that led to the founding of the country now known as Liberia. Its capital city was named Monrovia in honor of the American President.[9]
Olly – there is a giant gulf between what a Nation can and can not do regarding its own citizens, and what it can and can not do with respect to immigration.
A US citizen who commits a crime can lose their freedom, they can not lose their citizenship.
Conversely the US is not obligated to accept people who are criminals.
Forms of discrimination which are absoltuely forbidden to government with regard to citizens are perfectly fine regarding immigration.
We can not ban, censor, deport, jail … a citizen for their political views. Btu we are not obligated to give visa’s to communists, jihadi’s ….
I agree there is a fundamental constitutional distinction between the government’s power over immigration and its obligations to its own citizens. Immigration decisions are inherently discretionary in ways citizen treatment is not.
But that distinction cuts against your argument here, not in favor of it. Redistricting concerns the state’s treatment of citizens, not aliens seeking entry. Equal protection applies at its strongest precisely because the people being classified already belong to the political community.
The question isn’t whether discrimination is sometimes permissible in immigration. It’s whether a government committed to equal protection may intentionally sort its own citizens by race when exercising core political power. If that’s permissible, it should be defended on that ground directly. If it isn’t, the debate ends.
Importing immigration doctrine into citizen governance only reinforces how far we’ve drifted from first principles.
Great observation.
. No, gerrymandering by race is disallowed. Gerrymandering by political party is allowed. Hasn’t SCOTUS already said that?
What happens when race/ethnicity and political party are melded? What’s the stat ? Aren’t 86% of blacks registered Democrat?
I waded in here, Olly.
That’s the doctrinal line, yes. But it only works if race isn’t being used as a proxy for party. Once racial intent is admitted, courts can’t just relabel it “political” and move on. Otherwise the ban on racial gerrymandering evaporates.
. Yes, SCOTUS said that, too, Olly. It’s geography perhaps.
OT- The sports, Title IX trans issue can be settled by pulling out all federal funding of sports. Colleges can go begging for donors if they want sports stadiums and programs like everyone else and smooze at Epstein’s place for money.
The NFL gets a free training arena. They can pay colleges for sports and scouts. That’ll settle. It. No taxpayer should be paying for any of this and it’s another example of big pockets government.
The Republicans have used party as a stand-in for race since Reagan as a cudgel to hurt Black Americans.
. Looking at California’s map the districts appear to be compact and contiguous. Is it that democrats congregate geographically and Republicans are more scattered? States approx are 4 republican reps for 40% of the population and 57 demo reps for 60% of the population? My memory is approx.
The problem is then geography? Aren’t there districts for federal and state elections?
The interests of all people should be the same considering the limits of federal government. Feds shouldn’t be in the sports business or medicaid or education or social welfare of any kind. It should run a standing military, a postal service, interstate roads based the army corps as defense.
The dems insulated their coup with a layer of federal judges.
The Feds should stop putting money into agricultural price supports. The Feds should also cease food safety programs, car safety programs, highway safety programs.
The Heritage Society has a lock on federal judges, packing the pipeline to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Racial discrimination was A-OK when it was to the advantage of White Christian Nationalists; now that the cruelties of the past are being addressed, suddenly it’s not OK to discriminate based on race. It is seen as so unfair to not have that advantage; to allow groups that have not had representation to gain representation.
I’ve noticed that the length of these debates seems directly proportional to how absent first principles are. When the principle is clear, the argument is short. When it isn’t, complexity rushes in to fill the gap.
A constitutional system committed to equal protection cannot permit the state to intentionally classify citizens by race. If that statement is controversial, we’ve already answered why these debates never end.
You’ve hit the nail on the head, Olly. The less people know (absent first principles), the more confident and long-winded they become. Much-speaking, more often than not, hides everything from obfuscation to confusion.
Agreed. That’s the pattern. When first principles are missing, confidence increases while coherence declines. Words multiply because nothing is doing the work that a principle would normally do.
When people do not have any grounding in principles – all debate with them – presuming they are willing to debate becomes long and tedious, as they have no anchors of their own to determine the validity or correctness of anything they say.
It is quite common for X as an example to be unable to write 3 words without making two fundimental errors.
I agree. Without first principles, there’s no way to distinguish error from insight. That’s why these debates grow longer instead of clearer.
Oops. That wad from me.
Oh, why not “‘wad”. 🙃
fundimental -> fundamental
Which holds dominion, the Constitution of the United States or the so-called first principles of academics.
First principles have no place in a discussion of a nation’s fundamental and statutory law.
. That’s settled. Government cannot sort people by race. They can sort by political party. If all blacks are Democrat then districts can be sorted by political party no matter the saturation of race. Is that true, Olly?
. Gaming a system is dishonest, Olly? Gerrymandering will lead to segregation. Perhaps segregation is good.
Yes, Gerrymandering by race is disallowed. Gerrymandering by political party is allowed?
Yes, gerrymandering by political party is perfectly legal.
That is what California is going to do because that is what Texas has done. Done right and a 60-40 split in party affiliation can go to 95-5 split in representatives, wiping nearly 40% of of the populace from making a meaningful vote.
Absolutely true. The government should allow individuals and corporations to discriminate as they will. We need to get “NO BLACKS ALLOWED” signs again for public pools and grocery stores and restaurants – the Olly way of life. That was when America was Great and a return to visible discrimination would return that Greatness Again.
OT – It’s National Popcorn Day! Hurray!
Today is also MLK day. In the face of rage, racism, bigotry used to demean, debase, humiliate and punish those who are categorized as being such, it helps to remember this great soul’s words and wisdom. Our actions are truly more important than our words. We should all be above racism used to “stretch” moral values.
“If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.” — Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968)
We WERE above the prevalence of racism, and well on our way to improving even further—that is, until the extreme-left (democrats) revived it for the purposes of agitating and dividing, for the outcomes of political power, one-party control.
It is all the more a cheap facade when MLK is painted as purer than Jesus himself, as you have done here. Tone it down on the virtue-signaling. Moral values are better learned and STRETCHED by loving and forgiving those you hate the most….
So says the beneficiary of unconstitutional abortion (i.e. homicide), public assistance, and affirmative action.
??? . Nothing you say makes any sense.
The issue is the revived racism, historically appropriated, for maximum damage to the UNITED States, so central to democrat control.
Turley: The question is whether a court can simply ignore the stated intentions of the map-maker in determining the purpose of the map. At some point, Judge Lee suggests, an assumption of good faith becomes a willful blindness to racial discrimination.
The gerrymandering issue goes to the Marxist tool of cultural racism, affixing their false morality (social and economic) using street-sweepers to maintain political supremacy.
The map maker is a fool. He doesn’t know the value of silence.
A cheaper facade is denying that Trump is a pervert.
“At issue is Congressional District 13, in the Central Valley, which Lee reveals was the result of openly racial criteria by the principal architect of the new districts…..Lee begins his dissent by quoting Chief Justice John Roberts for a 2006 decision, stating, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”
Are you capable of reading an article and discussing the issue at hand, without the fevered TDS?
Again, using sympathy for street-sweepers (poor Mexicans and blacks) to maintain political supremacy, maintaining it on the backs of those less educated and trained to rely on the political-supremacist’s hand that feeds them is the real perversion. Democrats feed the poor like zoo animals.
If it is the duty of a nation’s men to fight its wars, is it the duty of a nation’s women to bear children in numbers sufficient to protect and grow that nation?
If womens duty is to bear children, every man must prove he’s actually a man by proving he spent the same amount of time serving in the Marines as it take a child to grow to the age they enter public school. Six years of service AFTER boot camp before they get a license giving them permission to procreate.
Men who refuse to provide that military service have a duty to undergo a free government vasectomy – obviously they intend to shirk their duty to fight our wars.
So if that’s the rule… there’s going to be a huge shortage of “real men” to match up with child bearing women supporting that definition of duty.
Be lots of Couch Commando Keyboard Warriors with clipped little nads running around still single on blogs like this.
You don’t have TDS because you see it as perfectly fine that Trump is a pervert.
You love perverts when you have a record of repeatedly voting for Vice President Daddy-Daughter Inappropriate White House Incest Showers long before Trump ever announced he would run for office.
Republicans starve the poor as they did slaves.
Okay, we’re done here. Who’s turn is it tonight to wear the Porky Pig mask, bungie cords and all the vasaline all over their legs? I didn’t shave mine this morning.
Bec, agree 1st part. I don’t forgive scorpions. I’m not a fool. I follow the law instead.
Dianna, who is this “we” you refer to? There are still towns that do not allow Black Americans to stay after sundown; they just no longer put up signs at the city limits. There are still white people who would not tolerate a Black nurse or surgeon. Charlie Kirk said he didn’t trust Black men as pilots.
Why has speech that is free been censored here on the Turley blog of Mr. Free Speech himself?
Why has speech that is free been censored here on the Turley blog of Mr. Free Speech himself?
I assume you’ve fallen to your Kamala Harris like callused knees to praise your president, Trump, for making the fuel you use in your work here so inexpensive?
Gaslighting
Gaslighting is the intended psychological manipulation by a low-IQ perpetrator targeting those they hope to victimize through intentionally misleading that person or group. This involves the perpetrator trivializing, lying, denying events, and other methods used in the hope their intended victims doubt their perceptions of reality, memories, and feel overly emotional or irrational.
The main five methods of gaslighting that may be used alone or in conjunction with others are: trivializing, countering, lying, blame shifting, and withholding.
^ChatGPT popular psychological propaganda.
Why do white supremacists always resort to blaming the people who experienced racism for racism?
Why do the Democrats’ Kluxxers who added communism to the racism in their political propaganda quiver claim their criminal Illegal Aliens now being arrested and deported is just white supremacist racism?
“A committee of scholars appointed by Boston University concluded today that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized passages in his dissertation for a doctoral degree at the university 36 years ago.
“There is no question,” the committee said in a report to the university’s provost, “but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation.”
…
But the committee did recommend that a letter stating its finding be placed with the official copy of Dr. King’s dissertation in the university’s library.
The four-member committee was appointed by the university a year ago to determine whether plagiarism charges against Dr. King that had recently surfaced were in fact true. Today the university’s provost, Jon Westling, accepted the committee’s recommendations and said its members had “conducted the investigation with scholarly thoroughness, scrupulous attention to detail and a determination not to be influenced by non-scholarly consideration.”
The dissertation at issue is “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman.” Dr. King wrote it in 1955 as part of his requirements for a doctor of philosophy degree, which he subsequently received from the university’s Division of Religious and Theological Studies.”
– New York Times, October 11, 1991
_________________________________________
Martin Luther King was not a legitimate PhD and did not legitimately earn and obtain a doctoral degree as proven by a committee appointed by Boston University which “conducted the investigation with scholarly thoroughness, scrupulous attention to detail and a determination not to be influenced by non-scholarly consideration.”
And the Walls Came Tumbling Down
In late 1989, HarperCollins published Abernathy’s autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down.[6] It was his final published accounting of his close partnership with King and their work in the civil rights movement.[65] In it he revealed King’s marital infidelity, stating that King had sexual relations with two women on the night of April 3, 1968 (after his “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop” speech earlier that day).[65] The book’s revelations became the source of much controversy, as did Abernathy.[65][2] Jesse Jackson and other civil rights activists made a statement in October 1989—after the book’s release—that the book was “slander” and that “brain surgery” must have altered Abernathy’s perception.[65][2]
Trump lied to all of his wives and paid for sex with a porn star and then paid for the story about having sex with a porn star to be suppressed.
OT
Knock out recipe:
Popcorn
Fritos corn chips
Melted white chocolate drizzled and tossed. ☺
I simply hope that the “swing” Justices (into which group I place CJ Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Coney-Barrett) are reading the good Professor’s articles.
The mental gymnastics that gives you “it is Racism only if it dis-empowers a minority”
*As long as the minority is not white
Fixed it for you.
The worst gerrymandering was Chuy Garcia’s Fourth Illinois Congressional District, which looked like a pair of earmuffs from 2013 to 2023, scooping ip as many Hispanics as possible. Now it looks like a horseshoe welded to an anvil.
Or empowering a minority, as we saw with Saddam Hussein. During his presidency, positions of power in the country were mostly filled with Sunni Arabs, a minority that made up only about a fifth of the Iraqi population.
Gerrymandering in California is not going to happen. Minnesota is now the new Fort Sumter, SC and Tim Walz is their Jefferson Davis. US Civil War #2 is here, and all other news is tertiary
The US Civil War was the nation’s bloodiest and most divisive war, and it began at Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, on April 12, 1861. After South Carolina seceded from the Union, much like Minnesota is seceding from the US by claiming the US Feds leave Minnesota, the Confederacy demanded that the United States evacuate its fort in Charleston Harbor. Tim Walz is demanding the US Feds evacuate Minneapolis’s Federal buildings, the Whipple Bldg and surrounding regions. Lincoln refused, provoking a Confederate attack. Trump is refusing Walz’s demand, provoking Democrats sponsored an anti-ICE insurrectionists attacking Fed troops. The outbreak of war in 1861 forced wavering states to choose between the Confederacy and the Union, and four more—Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee—now seceded. In 2026, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, California, New York and Virginia are sure to follow. Virginia’s new Governor Spanberger, a commie’s commie, has already rescinded the previous Governor’s order (Glenn Youngkin) of police cooperating with the US Feds.
Jefferson Davis had extensive military experience before he assumed the presidency of the new Confederate States of America. A graduate of West Point, he had fought Indians for several years along the frontier and later served with distinction in the Mexican War. He had experience in Congress as both a representative and senator, and had been secretary of war under President Franklin Pierce. Tim Walz claims to have military experience, if one considers the national guard as military experience, and lied extensively about his “military” service. Walz was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 2007 to 2019. He was a failed Democratic nominee for vice president in the 2024 along with Democrat U.S. presidential nominee Camel-uh Harris, Hindu Indian miraculously turned black.
Jefferson Davis expressed his hope that separation from the Union would come peacefully. But he warned, “If this be denied to us . . . it will but remain for us, with firm resolve, to appeal to arms.” Tim Walz is following in the foot steps of Jefferson Davis, along with his butt plug friends Mayor Frey of Minneapolis and failed CNN mistress Don Lemon.
forget Newsom. He will be hiding under his wife’s bed when Minnesota Democrats kill their first US Federal Officer.
https://www.americanhistory.si.edu/explore/exhibitions/price-of-freedom/online/civil-war/civil-war-begins
Before using the Fort Sumter as an example, it is helpful to understand why Charleston defended its harbor based on the intent of the Buchanan etal. In the current case, Walz, Frey, and the DNC leadership have ascertained they are not subject to Federal Acts of Laws – even if their violation of those acts is being paid for by everybody but themselves (look where the money is coming from and who is profiting).
In that instance, December 9, 1860, the commander of another critical harbor blockading Fort Moultrie, Major Robert Anderson (later the commander of Fort Sumter) wrote, “Fort Sumter is a tempting prize, the value of which is well known to the Charlestonians, and once in their possession, with its ammunition and armament and walls uninjured and garrisoned properly, it would set our Navy at defiance, compel me to abandon this work[Moultrie], and give them the perfect command of this harbor.”
His “our Navy defiance” was, of course, illustrated by the January 5, 1861, when the war ship, Star of the West, departs from New York with some 200 reinforcements and provisions for the Sumter garrison to blockade the largest commercial port of the soon to be “Confederacy”. In this case, it was to (illegally) enslave the commerce of the south. In the Minneapolis case, it is to protect the “open border” of illegal immigration funding $9BB to Somali Terrorist Organizations (US Tax dollars) in defiance of the Immigration and Nationality Acts – enacted by US Congressional Actions and signed by US Presidents [in other words, the law]. To give an idea of relative value, the US Coast Guard budget for fiscal year 2026 is approximately $14.4BB. The two are quite different, though the actions of the Governor, Mayor, and The Democratic Party seem quite similar over the years – the causes are completely different.
All Lincoln ever had to do was pass a bill to abolish reprehensible slavery through Congress in this nation of elected representative self-governance.
President Lincoln could not do that on his own while ignoring the requirement that it is the Legislative branch that has the power to that. The President’s part in such a bill would be to either pass or veto the bill. This type of legislative action is better explained by using their great-grandfather’s copy of the Confederate Democrat Constitution.
All Lincoln ever had to do was pass a bill to abolish reprehensible slavery through Congress in this nation of elected representative self-governance.
One important fact. Secession is not prohibited by the constitution and is fully constitutional, and secession is constitutional per the 10th Amendment.
Lincoln illicitly and unconstitutionally denied the power of secession and the right to secede.
Just as Roe v. Wade was retroactively rescinded and revoked after 50 years by Dobbs, every act of Lincoln and his successors, subsequent to Lincoln’s illicit and unconstitutional denial of secession, remains unconstitutional and must be rescinded and revoked, beginning with the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Karl Marx, which were ratified with a gun to America’s head.
America must be returned to the freedom of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights.
“Secession is prohibited because secession is not prohibited.”
This is the irrational rationale of those anti-Americans who oppose the Constitution.
There’s a reason our modern Democrat Confederate Kluxxers ignore the existence and purpose of SCOTUS in the Constitution – exactly a carbon copy of their mentors in the slave Confederate Democrat states did to choose instead to start their Confederate Democrat Civil War Of Insurrection.
Occam’s Razor says the reason they didn’t make their case and appeal to SCOTUS is they knew it would fail and any war they started that would be seen even more illegitimate.
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people.
Dictatorship does.
One important fact. Secession is not prohibited by the constitution and is fully constitutional, and secession is constitutional per the 10th Amendment. Lincoln illicitly and unconstitutionally denied the power of secession and the right to secede.
Should have tried that Confederate Rebel theory before SCOTUS in the years BEFORE beginning your war. Instead of pretending SCOTUS wasn’t in the Confederate’s copies of the Constitution before the war, and only afterwards recognizing SCOTUS in hopes they’d legitimize your Confederate Slavery Insurrection
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868): Affirming the perpetual nature of American federalism, and that the USA is an indestructible union from which no state can unilaterally secede.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/
The Union of the States was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and
character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to “be
perpetual.”
And, when these Articles of Confederation were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country,
the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union:. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an
indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.
When those states became one of the United States, they entered into an indissoluble relationship. The union
between individual states and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union
between the original States.
There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of all the States
to amend the Constitution.
You wrote “Tim Walz claims to have military experience, if one considers the national guard as military experience,” I would hope that you got over excited when writing this as the National Guard are Military, trained and retained for service at the call to duty. They have served and died while serving and should be honored as any other military service member is. The donkey does have a tail, and its Walz for his abandonment of call to duty.
While Trump and MAGA are destroying NATO Turley keeps running interference.
NATO wreck it’s self years ago. They fight tooth & nail to meet their funding comment.
While we fund their protection.
Trump IS NATO. the rest of ‘nato’ are useless.
Thank you – that was a much better response than mine.
The US currently has 11 Nuclear powered Aircraft carriers.
In mothballs we have perhaps 30 non nuclear and 1 nuclear super carrier.
the non-nuclear USS America which we deliberately Sunk in the Caribean as target ship
is superior to any carrier that the Chinese, Indian, Russians, French or English have.
One Ford Class carried can put more aircraft in the air faster with more fire power and more range than all other NATO Carriers combined.
Trump IS NATO. the rest of ‘nato’ are useless.
I don’t remember anybody who deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq at any time, saying that the NATO nations fighting beside us in our war over those two decades were “useless”.
Seems to be more of a sentiment of the ones who were the Staying Here At Home warriors today. Especially now that our wars over there have ended as has their fighting beside us in those two of our wars.
We’re undeniably the most powerful nation in NATO. Just as it’s understandable that, looking around Europe at the end of WWII, we wanted to ensure any future wars were once again fought on European soil, among the Europeans homes and families – not over here back at home in America.
That alone is a good reason to continue NATO.
Trump is not destroying NATO.
But lets say he was – is Europe capable of defending itself without the US ?
If not, why not ?
If we meet the demands to get out of NATO, if that future war is somehow or other started in America, we don’t mind fighting alone among our own civilians in our own streets because we no longer have NATO nations fighting beside us in another one of our wars?
Or if those NATO nations can’t defend themselves without us, if that war ends up with battles being fought among American citizens in American towns and cities rather than Europe’s… as that a second or third order consequence we have a plan for and a butcher’s bill we’re willing to accept.
Emotional populism in politics is the mortal enemy of rational thought.
JS, I think the Russians have showed that they are quit inept when it comes to non nuclear conventional war. If they can’t handle Ukraine, how can they take on NATO even without the US being involved.
While Trump and MAGA are destroying NATO Turley keeps running interference.
While Trump destroys the Marxist Democrats and their Alphabet Sex Marxist Useless Idiots, the voters for Biden and Walz continue to try legitimizing their ongoing street insurrection against the removal of their criminal Illegal Aliens.
Your move, gaslighting Tovarisch….
Congress should establish a bi-partisan commission to establish detailed and neutral criteria, esp. based on existing geographical lines, for drawing up congressional districts. The federal government has an obvious interest in dosing so, since the composition of the most important branch of the federal government is determined by the results of the state districting. Then the federal courts should follow their recommendations in evaluating the constitutionality of the new districts. This is the only way out of the problem of the continuing effort to game the system.
Careful, :edwardmahl. What you may be asking for is “bi-partisan commission” appointed by the ruling party (with simple majority) to be executed by the Autopen and ruled by the OSF (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations) funded and purchased Judges. There is a reason these powers were left locally in the creation of the US Constitution. While it may be within the power of NYC and VA voters to choose sole power oligarchy to create enslavement of their own freedom, at least those blights are limited.
@Paul
Precisely. Let them. Just don’t put them in a position of power again to revoke those separations, because they will, and happily. The modern left is no longer sane.
“establish detailed and neutral criteria”
There is no such thing. This is one of the reasons we do not want our courts involved.
It is trivial to come up with 10 different was to create congressional districts following “neutral” rules that sound perfectly reasonable,
and that some army of experts can tell us why this is the correct way to do things, Only to have a rival set of experts with a different set of neutral rules and a completely different result and another army of experts.
In some things it is best NOT to pretend they are not political. And just to aloow things to be done overtly without false claims of neutrality and then let voters judge.