Tag: politics

Texas Democrats Are Raging Over GOP Gerrymandering—But They Did It First

Democrats in Texas are currently accusing Republicans of using redistricting to gain a partisan advantage. This accusation, however, is both disingenuous and historically inaccurate.

When Democrats controlled the state in the 1990s, they engaged in the same tactics—so aggressively that the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled their districts racially gerrymandered and unconstitutional.

In 1990, Democrat Ann Richards was elected governor of Texas, and the Democratic Party controlled the state legislature. This control allowed them to redraw congressional districts to maintain their political dominance. 

State Senator Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Democrat, chaired the redistricting subcommittee and took charge of drafting the new maps. Her explicit goal was to create new minority-majority districts to favor the Democratic Party.

Johnson’s plan resulted in a majority-Hispanic district in Houston and a majority-Black district in Dallas—both aimed at consolidating long-term Democratic control. 

This political maneuvering did not go unnoticed. The newly drawn districts, which included those represented by Democrats Martin Frost and John Wiley Bryant, became more homogeneous and less politically diverse.

Despite protests, the Texas Legislature passed Johnson’s plan in 1991. Critics, primarily Republicans, argued that the maps used flawed census data, potentially undercounting minority populations.

Yet, the U.S. Department of Justice granted preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, and the new districts were used in the 1992 elections.

In 1994, Republicans filed a lawsuit, claiming that several new districts—particularly Districts 18, 29, and 30—were racially gerrymandered in violation of the Constitution. 

Keep reading

TX Judge Slaps Beto O’Rourke With Fundraising Ban Over Fleeing Democrats

A Texas judge has issued a temporary restraining order against former congressman Beto O’Rourke and his nonprofit organization, Powered by People, following allegations from state Attorney General Ken Paxton that they engaged in illegal fundraising to aid Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in an effort to block Republican redistricting legislation.

Tarrant County District Judge Megan Fahey, a Republican appointed in 2019 by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, issued the ruling Friday evening.

The order prohibits O’Rourke and his group from raising funds or providing financial support to the Democrats who left Texas to avoid a legislative vote on GOP-backed redistricting maps.

In her decision, Fahey wrote that “Defendants have and will continue to engage in unlawful fundraising practices and utilization of political funds in a manner that either directly violates or causes Texas Democratic Legislators to violate [the law].

Consumers have and continue to suffer irreparable harm through these unlawful acts because they are making political contributions that are being used to fund personal expenses and violate state law.”

Keep reading

New York rep wants more ‘migrants’ in Brooklyn ‘just for redistricting purposes’

Rep. Yvette D. Clarke, serving New York’s 9th District in Brooklyn, NY, has said that she would like to see more immigrants into her area “just for redistricting purposes.” Redistricting is an emerging political fight ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

“I’m from Brooklyn, New York,” Clarke said on a Zoom call. “We have a diaspora that can absorb a significant number of these migrants, and that, you know, when I hear colleagues talk about, you know, the doors of the inn being closed, no room. In the end, I’m saying, you know, I need more people in my district, but just for redistricting purposes, and those members could clearly fit here.”

New York joins Texas and California in undertaking redistricting efforts. President Donald Trump has called on Texas to redo its districts to remake some of their districts as GOP majority, saying this could be a gain of 5 seats. The Texas legislature began a special session on Monday to undertake that project.

California Governor Gavin Newsom countered that proposal by saying that he would redo California’s districts. California, however, has an independent commission in the state to create districts, per the state’s constitution.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has also said that “all options” are on the table to win back the House in 2026, including redistricting. “All options are on the table when it comes to winning back control of the House,” he said.

Former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke said that with regard to redistricting across the country. “We have to be absolutely ruthless about getting back in power,” he said. “So yes, in California, in Illinois, in New York, wherever we have the trifecta of power, we have to use that to its absolute extent. And then the last thing: this may end up biting Republicans in the ass. You have the possibility that they will disperse Republican voters to make up these three or four or five new congressional districts and put those districts in play.”

The population of District 9 in New York is about 771,000, which is greater than the population of two states and the District of Columbia. Brooklyn at large has a population of 2.6 million people, which is larger than the populations of 16 states. By recent estimates, there are nearly 600,000 illegal immigrants in New York City, with the boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens holding the bulk of that population.

Keep reading

Mamdani’s Plan for Schools Draws Angry Backlash from New York Parents

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani continues to make waves with his radical agenda. This time he’s targeting charter schools, producing some strong reactions from parents and residents.

In an exclusive report by The New York Post, the newspaper wrote that Mamdani “plans to declare war on charter schools if he’s elected mayor,” according to a survey he answered June before the Democratic primary.

The state assemblyman said he would “fight efforts to open more charters, which largely educate minority, working-class students, and even opposed the schools sharing space in city-owned buildings,” the article read.

“I oppose efforts by the state to mandate an expansion of charter school operations in New York City,” he said in a Staten Island Advance questionnaire.

Mother Arlene Rosado, who has a son in 10th grade at the “Nuasin Next Generation” K-12 charter school in the Bronx, said Mamdani doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

“I don’t understand why Mamdani would be hostile to charter schools,” she said. “I think he’s very misinformed.”

Rosado reportedly moved her son there because he was being bullied in public school. His situation has since improved after he was given the option to leave.

“Charter schools are helping kids in the community,” Rosado added. “You should always have a choice. Taking that choice away is not cool.”

The socialist candidate claimed charter schools divert public resources and mainly serve the wealthy, while harming lower-income families, The Hill reported last month.

Mamdani also promised to conduct audits of charter schools that are within the city’s Department of Education buildings, claiming they get too much public money.

“I also oppose the co-locating of charter schools inside DOE school buildings, but for those already co-located my administration would undertake a comprehensive review of charter school funding to address the unevenness of our system,” his survey answer read.

He added, “Matching funds, overcharged rent, and Foundation Aid funding would be part of this audit as my administration determined how to manage the reality of co-located schools and legal entitlements.”

Keep reading

Newsom Says California Will Hold Special Redistricting Election to Counter Texas’s Plan

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Friday that the state will move forward with a ballot measure in November to redraw its congressional map in response to a Republican-backed redistricting plan in Texas.

Speaking alongside state Democratic leaders, Newsom said they would call for a special election in the first week of November to vote on redrawing the congressional map, a move that could potentially add five more U.S. House seats to the Democratic tally.

“We are talking about emergency measures to respond to what’s happening in Texas, and we will nullify what happens in Texas,” the Democratic governor told reporters.

“We will pick up five seats with the consent of the people, and that’s the difference between the approach we’re taking and the approach they’re taking. We’re doing it [on a] temporary basis,” he added.

Newsom also reaffirmed that the state will remain committed to its independent redistricting process. The Democrats said they expected to have a newly agreed-upon map, based on previous plans reviewed by the state’s independent redistricting commission, ready for public scrutiny next week, three months before it would go to voters.

Former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who attended the conference, backed Newsom’s decision and praised Texas Democratic lawmakers for their efforts to block the GOP’s redistricting plan.

Keep reading

Trump Order Targets Political Debanking but Spares Visa, Mastercard, Payment Processor Monopolies

The White House has decided that banks shouldn’t play political bouncer, at least the banks that answer to federal regulators.

In a flourish of pen and podium, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that supposedly halts “politically motivated debanking.” That’s the practice where someone loses their bank account, not because they bounced checks or defaulted, but because someone behind a desk didn’t like their politics, religion, or choice of lawful business.

The order’s language is strong. Trump, who has a personal score to settle in this arena, told CNBC’s Squawk Box, “The banks discriminated against me very badly. They totally discriminate against – I think me, maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives.”

While the press release version sounds like a broad defense of free financial access, the actual order is more of a neighborhood watch than a citywide ban. It applies only to banks, savings associations, credit unions, and other outfits directly supervised by federal banking regulators or the SBA.

That means Visa and Mastercard, the twin tollbooth operators of the global payments highway, are untouched. Same with PayPal, Stripe, and other tech-driven platforms that have spent years quietly freezing out lawful but unpopular actors with all the due process that in the real world wouldn’t even get you a parking ticket.

These companies have been the muscle in modern financial blacklisting, but they will not get so much as a warning letter under this policy.

For the institutions it does cover, the order tells regulators to rip out any guidance that allows “reputation risk” to be used as an excuse for cutting customers loose over political or religious reasons. SBA-partner banks are instructed to reinstate clients who were politically deplatformed. Federal watchdogs are told to fine, sanction, or otherwise make life difficult for any bank caught doing it again. Cases that appear to involve religion must be sent to the Attorney General for potential civil action.

It’s a tidy list of marching orders that leaves one wondering why the most aggressive financial censors, the ones that dominate online commerce, get to keep their scissors. The order takes a few swings at the branches while leaving the trunk standing.

If the point was to stop political discrimination in finance, it’s an odd choice to leave out the players who can cut you off from selling so much as a baseball card online.

President Trump has long argued that regulators wield excessive control over banks. In June, he told reporters, “The regulators control the banks” and that when an administration pushes regulators to target certain institutions, “they really control it.”

The move takes aim at a framework built during the Obama years, when the Justice Department advised regulators to treat “negative public opinion” as a legitimate risk factor. That phrase became a free pass for banks to exit relationships with any client who might attract headlines or activist campaigns. It was sold as prudence. It quickly turned into a permission slip for politically driven account closures.

The personal angle is never far from the story. First Lady Melania Trump wrote in her memoir that her own account was abruptly closed after years with the same bank. She added that Barron Trump was refused an account entirely after January 6, 2021. It was not just political activists or small-business owners on the wrong side of the ideological fence getting hit.

But while the order is a strong start, its scope makes sense only if you believe banks are the ultimate choke point. They are not. There are thousands of banks and credit unions in the United States, and if one decides to cut you off, you can usually find another willing to take your business. Even for niche or controversial industries, a determined customer can work the phones long enough to land an account somewhere. The process may be frustrating, but it is rarely terminal.

Payment processors are a different animal entirely. Visa and Mastercard are more than dominant; they are the rails on which nearly all card-based transactions run. Lose access to them, and it does not matter how many banks are technically willing to serve you; none can process your payments without going through those networks.

By leaving them outside the reach of the order, the administration has left the real monopolies in place, fully empowered to decide who gets to participate in the economy.

Keep reading

Zohran Mamdani Opposes Charter Schools in NYC, Even Though He Went to a Private School

New York City Democrat candidate for mayor, and noted communist, Zohran Mamdani has gone on record saying that he opposes charter schools in the city.

When Mamdani came to the United States as a child, he attended the Bank Street School for Children, a private school that charges $37,554 – $68,793 in tuition, according to Wikipedia.

There are two important issues in play here.

First, charter schools are important because they offer an alternative to traditional public schools, which frequently benefits minority children. Second, charter schools are typically opposed by teacher unions who correctly see these schools as a form of competition for public schools. As a Democrat candidate, Mamdani is undoubtedly depending on the support of teacher unions in the mayoral election.

The New York Post reports:

Zohran Mamdani’s vow to declare war on charter schools if elected NYC mayor sparks outrage from parents, advocates: ‘Very misinformed’

Socialist Zohran Mamdani plans to declare war on charter schools if he’s elected mayor, according to a survey he answered — sparking outrage from advocates and parents who called the front-runner’s views “very misguided.”

The 33-year-old Queens assemblyman said he would fight efforts to open more charters, which largely educate minority, working-class students, and even opposed the schools sharing space in city-owned buildings.

“I oppose efforts by the state to mandate an expansion of charter school operations in New York City,” he said in a Staten Island Advance questionnaire before the June 24 Democratic primary.

Mamdani’s hostility to charter schools — which are privately run and publicly funded — puts him in sync with the United Federation of Teachers union, which endorsed him in the November general election following his primary victory over ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo and others.

So typical for the left. School choices for me but not for thee.

Keep reading

How To Make America Great Again

Donald Trump and his supporters were certain that by restoring him to the presidency, they could make America great again. They are going to be as sorely disappointed at the end of Trump’s term in office as they were after his first term in office. Trump will not make America great again.

The problem, however, is not Donald Trump. The fact is that no one can make America great again — at least not if America maintains the same political and economic systems that have characterized our nation for almost 100 years. It is those systems that constitute an insurmountable obstacle to making America great again, no matter who is elected president.

Unfortunately, however, conservative Americans are not ready to accept that. They are convinced that by electing Trump and then vesting him with unchecked, omnipotent power, he will be the “man on the white horse” who will make America great again.

It won’t happen. At the end of this road to national “greatness” lies an increasingly weakened, dysfunctional society — one in which liberty and privacy have been destroyed — one in which the American people will be existing as subservient, dependent, and fearful serfs whose purpose in life is simply to serve the state and the greater good of society.

There is one — and only one — way for America to be great again. That way is to restore the sound, founding principles of liberty of our nation and then build on them.

Obviously, this entails deep soul-searching of how we started as a nation and how we ended up where we are today. It also requires Americans to think at a higher level — one that involves principles and ideals. Let’s examine what needs to be done to restore greatness to our land.

The national-security state

America’s founding political system was a limited-government republic, one that was characterized by three separate and independent branches, with a very small military force falling under the control of the executive branch. The Constitution, which called the federal government into existence, prohibited the government from killing people without “due process of law,” a term that encompasses notice of charges and a hearing or trial where the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused has committed some crime. The Bill of Rights guaranteed that the accused had the right to trial by a jury composed at random from regular citizens in the community. The Bill of Rights also prohibited the imposition of cruel and unusual punishments.

All that changed in the late 1940s, when the federal government was converted into what is called a national-security state. It effectively involved a fourth branch of government consisting of the Pentagon, a vast and powerful military establishment, an empire of domestic and foreign military bases, the CIA, the NSA, and, to a certain extent, the FBI.

Although this conversion took place without a constitutional amendment, it constituted the most radical change in America’s political system in the history of the country. Over time, the national-security branch became the most powerful branch — the branch to which the other three branches defer, especially in foreign affairs.

Moreover, the constitutional limitations on the power of the federal government disintegrated with the conversion to a national-security state. The Pentagon and the CIA now wielded the power to engage in state-sponsored assassinations, thereby nullifying the constitutional prohibition against killing people without due process of law. They also wielded the power to inflict cruel and unusual punishments on people, including torture. They also now had the power to keep people incarcerated for as long as they wanted, ignoring the constitutional prohibition against indefinite incarceration without trial. They also wielded the power to engage in mass secret surveillance, especially through the NSA. Moreover, once U.S. officials launched their “war on terrorism” after the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon and the CIA wielded the power to nullify the right of trial by jury and employ trial by military tribunal instead.

It is worth mentioning that all of these omnipotent, dark-side powers apply not just to foreigners but also to American citizens. The fact is that Americans now live under a national-security state system in which their very own government wields the power to assassinate, torture, surveil, and indefinitely detain them. What makes the whole thing so perverse is that Americans have been indoctrinated into believing that all this tyranny is “freedom.”

It’s also worth mentioning that the conversion to a national-security state was accompanied by a foreign policy of foreign wars and interventions, as well as an empire of foreign military bases, which have been used to inflict massive death and destruction on people in foreign lands.

There is one solution to all this: Dismantle the national-security state and restore America’s founding system of a limited-government republic, with just a relatively small, basic military force — one that lacks the capability to engage in foreign wars, interventions, coups, and wars of aggression.

Keep reading

Texas AG Ken Paxton Launches Criminal Investigation Into Beto O’Rourke’s PAC For Unlawfully Funding Runaway Democrats

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton launched an investigation into Beto O’Rourke’s PAC for unlawfully funding runaway Democrats.

It was reported this week that Beto’s PAC funded the private plane that transported the Texas Democrat lawmakers to Illinois so they could block GOP redistricting efforts.

The Free Beacon reported:

Now We Know: Beto O’Rourke’s PAC Funded Texas Dems’ Private Jet to Illinois

State lawmakers in Texas make just $7,200 a year. A group of Democratic legislators spent roughly four times that amount to take a private jet to Illinois in an attempt to block their Republican counterparts from passing a new congressional map. But they didn’t have to worry about the price tag—because Beto O’Rourke’s PAC picked it up.

That’s according to a report in the Texas Tribune, which cited two people involved in the effort to raise funds for Texas Democrats’ walkout. O’Rourke’s PAC, Powered by People, is “armed with a $3.5 million war chest” and has covered most of the costs associated with the walkout so far, including “air transport, lodging, and logistical support,” the outlet reported. Every dollar the group receives going forward will go toward supporting the walkout.

On Wednesday, Ken Paxton announced he launched a criminal investigation into Beto’s PAC.

“Any Democrat coward breaking the law by taking a Beto Bribe will be held accountable,” Paxton said.

Keep reading

Gavin Newsom’s Gerrymandering Post Backfires in Spectacular Fashion

Texas Governor Greg Abbott has moved forward with legal efforts to hold Democratic lawmakers accountable after they fled the state in protest of Republican-led redistricting efforts.

The Texas Supreme Court has now ordered Democratic State Representative Gene Wu, a central figure in the walkout, to formally respond to the governor’s legal action.

The controversy stems from a renewed push by the Texas legislature to pass new redistricting maps.

In response, several Democratic legislators left the state to prevent the Republican-controlled House from reaching the quorum necessary to conduct legislative business.

The move effectively stalled legislative action in Austin and has now resulted in potential legal consequences.

Governor Abbott’s legal filing seeks to challenge the Democrats’ decision to abandon their legislative duties.

The Texas Supreme Court’s directive to Rep. Wu marks the latest development in an ongoing standoff over the redistricting process. The Court has not yet announced a timeline for a final ruling on the matter.

While the legislative impasse continues, other state issues remain unresolved, including responses to recent flooding and other critical matters requiring legislative attention.

The walkout has drawn criticism from those who argue the legislators’ absence is hindering necessary governance.

The debate over redistricting has also spilled into the national political scene.

California Governor Gavin Newsom weighed in on the matter with a post on X, where he listed red states with zero or just one Democratic House representative.

Keep reading