Archive for 2025

VOTING WITH THEIR FEET: Nearly a million New Yorkers ready to flee NYC if Mamdani becomes mayor — possibly igniting largest exododus [sic] in history.

Then there’s this from a local: “I know the realtors here in Greenwich have dubbed Mamdani ‘Realtor of the Year.’ On the flip side, buyers in NYC are demanding price cuts — realtors there are calling it the ‘Mamdani discount.’ It really is a bigger flight than during COVID times. I hope it doesn’t finish off our Republican local government once and for all, though.”

Mamdani is lowering prices already!

CORN, POPPED:

Tish James Is Fighting Another DOJ Probe For ‘Selective Enforcement’ Against Trump’s Business, NRA, Unsealed Docs Show.New York Attorney General Letitia James is fighting a federal criminal probe over alleged “selective enforcement” in cases she brought against President Donald Trump’s business and the National Rifle Association (NRA), court documents unsealed Friday reveal.

James’s effort to block subpoenas issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) touches “on matters of national concern, with implications that stretch well beyond this action,” Judge Lorna Schofield, an Obama appointee, wrote in her order making the filings public Friday.

“Unsealing this action is not only permissible but compelled,” the judge wrote. “One simple fact drives this conclusion: the information at issue is not secret.”

In August 2025, it was widely reported that acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York John A. Sarcone III issued subpoenas related to James’s civil fraud case against Trump and his company, along with her case against the National Rifle Association (NRA).

If the process is the punishment, that’s a lot more process.

KRUISER’S MORNING BRIEFING: Dems Would Love to Cancel John Fetterman Right About Now. “Something strange began to happen during the Democrats’ disintegration last year. The Senator who began his career with a public mental health break started sounding far more sane than any of his Democratic colleagues. Low bar, true, especially when the guy at the top has lost it. The more Fetterman talked, however, the more he reminded us of an earlier time in American politics.”

ONE CHINA POLICY, BEIJING EDITION: Beijing’s New Approach to Taiwan. “A question remains about whether Beijing’s evolving approach constitutes a change of degree or of kind. Some of the actions taken this year, especially in the legal domain, have relied on instruments that the PRC has created over the past few years for this purpose. Shifts in military posture may similarly have as much to do with the availability of new capabilities coming—or current capabilities meeting capacity limits—than with tactical changes. Possible avenues for political influence, chiefly through the nationalist Kuomintang, similarly are just now becoming clear following the election in October of a new party chair. Whichever the case may be, the general trend of Beijing’s actions is the same: toward greater coercion and a ratcheting up of pressure across all domains.”

THEY’RE TRULY HORRIBLE PEOPLE: Left Bullies Erika Kirk Months After Charlie’s Assassination.

Just as the left can’t forgive the Jews for the Holocaust, it can’t forgive Charlie Kirk for being martyred. In both cases it must try to erase the moral lesson by attacking the moral standing of the victims.

I THINK YOU MISUNDERSTAND THE LAW:  I got this in my email yesterday from what I believe to be an actual lawyer who is involved in the reparations movement here in California:

Dear Ms. Heriot,
This letter serves as a formal cease and desist demand regarding your ongoing, public, and targeted efforts to undermine and harass the Black community and its advocates for equity, in direct violation of state and federal civil rights laws and your ethical obligations as a member of the bar.
Your activities—including those publicly associated with the California Foundation for Equal Rights (CFER) (among others) and campaigns explicitly opposing Black-focused equity —constitute racial targeting and harassment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and applicable state hate crime and anti-discrimination statutes. Such conduct is not protected expression when it rises to the level of coordinated intimidation or bias-based obstruction of legally protected programs. It is particularly egregious that your public campaigns have focused solely on efforts benefiting the Black community, while remaining silent on or even supportive of state and federal allocations to other racial or ethnic groups. 
For example:
In 2021 and 2022, the State of California directed substantial funding—over $165 million—to AAPI anti-hate initiatives, a commendable effort to address rising hate incidents against Asian Americans.
In 2024, the California Legislature authorized over $300 million in support for Holocaust survivors and members of the Jewish community, recognizing their suffering and need for continued support.
Despite these allocations, your campaigns have not targeted or criticized these initiatives—only those aimed at repairing centuries of harm done to Black Americans, who remain the most frequent victims of race-based hate crimes nationwide according to federal data. Your selective and racially targeted opposition to Black equity initiatives, combined with your public standing as an attorney, member of a federal civil rights commission and educator, magnifies the discriminatory impact and constitutes a pattern of bias-based harassment under both state and federal law.
Accordingly, you are hereby ordered to immediately cease and desist from any further direct or indirect harassment, public misinformation, or racially targeted advocacy directed toward the Black community or programs designed to support it. Continued actions of this nature may result in:
Formal referral to state bar disciplinary authorities for violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning bias, harassment, and discrimination; and
Referral to appropriate civil rights enforcement agencies for investigation under state and federal hate crime and civil rights statutes.
Please provide written confirmation within ten (10) business days that you have received this notice and that you will comply fully with its terms.
Warmest Regards,

Well, at least the author has warm regards for me.  (And unlike stuff I’ve gotten in the past on the transgender issue, it contains no threats of violence.)

DON SURBER: Taking on foreign cash to Democrats. “This is globalism pushing bad policy in an effort to take down the United States in the name of saving the world. Bear in mind that none of the climate change rules apply to India or Red China, which just happen to be the most populous nations in the world.”

THAT WOULD BE NICE: Fetterman urges Dems to stop labelling Republicans as ‘fascists’ and ‘Nazis.’

Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman is urging Democrats to stop labeling Republicans as “fascists” or “Nazis,” saying such rhetoric unfairly targets the millions of voters who simply hold different political beliefs.

In an interview on Fox News with Lara Trump on her show “My View,” Fetterman said he refuses to use that kind of language because he represents his entire state, not just Democratic voters. He noted that Pennsylvania is perhaps the most “purple” state in the country, and its 13 million residents have a range of views.

“I refuse to call members of the other team as fascists or Nazis,” Fetterman said. “Because if you do, then that implies that, well, the people must be the same too, and that’s absolutely not true.”

“I know and love many of people that voted for the President, and they’re not fascists. They’re not Nazis. They’re not here to destroy our democracy,” he added, explaining that those voters merely hold different values and views on what they believe is the American way of life.

“That’s why I refuse to engage in those things, and that’s why we really have to find a way forward,” Fetterman said.

The only thing newsworthy about this report is that a Democrat senator actually needed to say it.

AS JUSTICE FELIX FRANKFURTER WROTE, ULTIMATELY WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, NOT WHAT THE COURT SAYS ABOUT IT:

ANALYSIS: TRUE.