Say what? Virginia governor tells teachers unions to suck eggs?
In Virginia it’s been a law that a teacher’s union can only come in if invited. Presently out of the 133 school districts in Virginia less then 20 have done so. But the legislature passed a new law.
It would have allowed public school teachers, among other public-sector employees, to form unions and negotiate over their wages and working conditions throughout Virginia.
In layman’s terms the union bosses could just walk in and say we’re union and here’s what you will pay the workers. Well, the governor (and rightfully so) vetoed this crazy law.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom, hold a press conference after Proposition 50 passed at the John L. Burton Democratic Headquarters in Sacramento on Tuesday night.
No Virginia, you can’t eliminate all Republican districts in California, Illinois, and Colorado.
I saw on one of those obscure websites where a loon posted that California, Illinois, and Colorado could eliminate all Republican districts. Here’s what leftist AI has to say about that.
After the supreme court ruling on Gerrymandering in Louisiana, is it possible for California, Illinois, and Colorado to eliminate all Republican districts?
Short answer:No — even after the Louisiana ruling, California, Illinois, and Colorado cannot legally eliminate all Republican districts. The ruling restricts race‑based mapmaking, not partisan gerrymandering, and each of these states faces structural, legal, and geographic constraints that prevent a total wipeout of GOP representation.
🧭 What the Louisiana ruling actually did
The Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais struck down Louisiana’s map because it used race as the predominant factor in drawing a second majority‑Black district. The ruling weakens Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, making it harder to justify maps drawn with explicit racial considerations.
Important:
The ruling does NOT ban partisan gerrymandering.
It only restricts race‑based district design.
This means blue states can still draw partisan‑leaning maps — but they cannot use race as the primary tool to do so.
🗺️ Could California eliminate all GOP districts?
No. Even with Prop 50 giving Democrats power to redraw maps mid‑decade, analysts show California can at most eliminate 3–5 Republican seats, not all seven.
Prop 50 allows Democrats to redraw the map and “put around five GOP seats in play,” but not eliminate every Republican district.
Geographic clustering of Republican voters (e.g., Central Valley, Orange County, parts of the Inland Empire) makes it mathematically impossible to crack every GOP pocket without violating compactness and community‑of‑interest rules.
Even Rep. Terri Sewell’s political call to “eliminate all GOP districts” in CA was aspirational rhetoric, not something legally or mathematically feasible.
🗺️ Could Illinois eliminate all GOP districts?
No. Illinois already has one of the most aggressively pro‑Democratic maps in the country.
Experts say Illinois is unlikely to squeeze out another Republican seat, let alone all three remaining GOP districts.
Republican voters are too geographically concentrated in certain downstate regions to be fully cracked without violating constitutional standards.
🗺️ Could Colorado eliminate all GOP districts?
No — and even less so than CA or IL. Colorado uses an independent redistricting commission, not legislative control.
The Louisiana ruling does not affect Colorado’s commission structure.
The commission is constitutionally required to produce competitive districts.
Colorado’s GOP vote share is too large and too geographically distributed to eliminate all Republican representation.
⚖️ Why total elimination is impossible
Across all three states, three constraints prevent a full partisan wipeout:
1. Federal constitutional limits
Even though partisan gerrymandering is allowed, maps still must satisfy:
Equal population
Compactness
Contiguity
Respect for communities of interest
No predominant use of race (reinforced by the Louisiana ruling)
2. Geographic clustering
Republican voters are not evenly spread; some areas are too strongly Republican to be cracked without creating bizarre, indefensible districts.
3. State‑specific legal structures
California: Legislature can redraw maps but still faces legal challenges and geographic constraints.
Illinois: Already maximized; experts say no further Democratic gains are realistically possible.
The Louisiana ruling makes race‑based gerrymanders harder, but it does NOT empower blue states to eliminate all Republican districts. Political rhetoric aside, the math, geography, and legal frameworks make such a total partisan wipeout impossible in California, Illinois, or Colorado.
The SEIU declares war on California’s tax base — and its economy.
by Bruce Bialosky.
Unions sometimes destroy entire industries when they demand more than companies can afford.
In California, the union demanding a “billionaire tax” might just destroy the state itself.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is one of the country’s most powerful unions, representing government workers. Its California branch is the SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West.
Its president, Dave Regan, is the principal organizer behind the “2026 Billionaire Tax Act,” which said this week that it has collected twice the number of signatures necessary to qualify for a statewide vote.
Though the California secretary of state has yet to review and approve the initiative, it looks like the “billionaire tax” will be on the ballot on Nov. 3.
The SEIU is one of the country’s most powerful unions representing government workers. San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images
We don’t know how much the union spent to put the tax on the ballot. That will be released by the secretary of state when it has officially approved the initiative.
What we do know is that the union likely spent a huge amount, both in hard cash and staff time, with expenditures drawing on various union funds.
The SEIU’s motivation is simple: 90% of the money that would be collected by the “billionaire tax” would be designated for health care spending. In other words, it benefits the union and its members directly.
The SEIU is pursuing that money, notwithstanding recent disclosures of significant fraud in California health care programs, including Medi-Cal, the local version of Medicaid.
After the Trump administration started examining fraud in hospices, California Attorney General Rob Bonta jumped into the act and discovered $267 million of Medi-Cal fraud in the hospice program. Bonta stated that over the last decade, such fraud amounted to $1.5 billion.
We can all imagine what the real fraud level is, across all of the state’s public health programs.
In effect, the unions are attacking California’s tax base. An unknown number of billionaires have already relocated out of the state. Some have done it very publicly — among them Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Ellison, and Peter Thiel. The amount of wealth that left with them is in the ballpark of $1 trillion. (That represents $50 billion in lost revenue under the proposed new tax.)
The SEIU’s motivation is simple: 90% of the money that would be collected by the “billionaire tax” would be designated for health care spending. In other words, it benefits the union and its members directly. AFP via Getty Images
It is the undisclosed departures that may do the real damage. We don’t know about them, and will not know for some time.
Most of those leaving have a residence in other states, including states with no income tax, and have been working overtime with their lawyers and accountants to make sure their official residence is not in California.
To evade California residency, they may have to show that they have a driver’s license from another state; that they get their medical care there; and even that they attend a house of worship there.
(My money is on the tax pros versus the California bureaucrats on that issue.)
We are already seeing the devastating results of the SEIU’s gambit, regardless of whether the billionaire tax actually passes.
In 2024, California collected $129 billion in personal income tax. The top 1% pay 40% of that. The state stands to lose annual revenues of $13 billion if just 25% of those people vacate.
That does not include the revenue from the businesses and employees they are taking with them, which could easily hit $25 billion in the first year.
The SEIU has estimated that a “one-time” 5% tax on wealth will produce $100 billion in revenue. You don’t have to be a financial wizard to realize that will never happen.
Dave Regan, is the principal organizer behind the “2026 Billionaire Tax Act” membersunited4strength.org
That is because every time we are told that a “new source” of revenue will produce a claimed amount, the true amount is never even close to what they project.
The billionaires who do remain in California will also be hiring attorneys and accountants to hide or devalue their assets and assure that they pay as little of the new tax as possible.
You’d better believe they are planning that already. None of them has the cash on hand to pay the prescribed 5% of their net worth. They could be forced to liquidate assets, including their stock of California-based companies.
That will drive down asset values for the billionaires — and also for all of the employees and all the California residents who hold the stocks in their 401(k) accounts.
Economic harm will spread among the residents of the state and boomerang, causing even less tax revenue to be collected.
All this to pay more into government health care programs riddled with fraud, and to punish people for creating jobs and wealth for people throughout California and the country.
The SEIU’s billionaire tax could impoverish California for generations. No billionaire comes close to that kind of destructive greed.
Bruce Bialosky, a former presidential appointee, is a certified public accountant specializing in taxes.
You make the call. Did Spanberger lie to voters during the campaign about how she would not pursue this gerrymandered redistricting?
What she said when she was running. In 2019, Spanberger publicly criticized gerrymandering and positioned herself as a supporter of fair, non‑partisan redistricting. According to reporting, she said that:
Gerrymandering is “detrimental to our democracy.”
Opposing it should be a “bipartisan priority.”
She supported Virginia’s independent redistricting commission, which voters approved in 2020.
These comments aligned her with a reform‑oriented, anti‑gerrymandering position.
And today. Supporting a Democratic‑led redistricting amendment
Backing a plan that critics say would create a 10–1 Democratic congressional map
A real AG. Pam Bondi during the confirmation hearing.
I’m sorry but Bondi was screwed over.
The President threw her under the bus. 99% successful rate wasn’t good enough for him. I’m sorry but she did the best that she could. Below is part of her statement.
“Leading President Trump’s historic and highly successful efforts to make America safer and more secure has been the honor of a lifetime, and easily the most consequential first year of the Department of Justice in American history.
“Since February 2025, we have secured the lowest murder rate in 125 years, secured first-ever terrorism convictions against members of Antifa, shattered domestic and transnational gangs across the country, taken custody of more than 90 key cartel figures, and won 24 favorable rulings at the Supreme Court.
Jefferies may be gone either way.
Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Jefferies may be gone either way.
Axios is reporting that about 80 House Democrats are not very happy with the affirmative action boy. Axios reported last fall that more than 80 Democratic House candidates across the country were either non-committal on backing Jeffries’ leadership or outright opposed to it. It’s only gotten worse for him since then.
If the Democrats don’t take the House, odds are he’s for sure gone. He can only hide for so long behind his being Black.
Depends upon who you ask. Conservatives will tell you that the government is the only ones who can own property meaning housing and businesses. Progressives say that a start would be only houses and rentals that whites and well to do folks of color would have their property seized. Below is a progressive example.
What collective housing” means in Mamdani’s context.
Based on the resurfaced statements from his top housing appointee, Cea Weaver, and the ideological framing in his inaugural speech, “collective housing” refers to:
1. Reducing or eliminating private homeownership
Weaver has said that private property—especially homeownership—is a “weapon of white supremacy” and should be replaced with collective models.
2. Treating housing as a “collective good”
Weaver argued that property should be treated as a collective good, not an individually owned asset.
3. Moving toward shared or publicly controlled housing
While Mamdani hasn’t laid out a detailed blueprint, the ideological framing aligns with:
Community land trusts
Social housing
Cooperative ownership
Public or quasi-public control of land and buildings
These are all forms of collectivized housing, where individuals do not own property outright.
4. A broader ideological shift toward “collectivism”
In his inauguration, Mamdani said he wanted to replace “the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism”. Housing is one of the clearest policy areas where this worldview shows up.
🧩 Why these matters
The Fox News reporting highlights that Weaver explicitly said transitioning away from private property would impact “white families especially”—because they disproportionately hold home equity. That frames “collective housing” not just as an economic model but as a redistributive and racialized policy goal.
Why some US White Progressive Supremacists have no issues with South Africa. The main reason? South Africa has passed laws allowing land expropriation without compensation.
This amounts to legalized theft, disproportionately affecting white farmers, and could harm South Africa’s food production and economy.
Carsten Koall/Getty Images - PHOTO: Former FBI Director James Comey talks backstage before a panel discussion about his book "A Higher Loyalty," June 19, 2018, in Berlin.
The Comey team went over the sitting judges head and got a Federal Magistrate to demand that the government turn over grand jury evidence to the Comey lawyers. The Justice Department requested the stay earlier Monday. They WENT TO THE JUDGE HEARING THE CASE.
The federal judge overseeing former FBI Director James Comey’s criminal case on Monday granted a request from federal prosecutors to block a magistrate judge’s order that mandated they hand over a trove of grand jury evidence to Comey’s attorneys.
1,565 Clemency Actions in One Day — But Who Signed Them?
THE CONCERN Was President Biden mentally competent when 39 pardons were issued on Dec 22, 2024? Reports suggest aides may have used the autopen — without his direct approval.
THE LAW Only the President can grant pardons. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives this power exclusively to the President. It cannot be delegated — not even to a Chief of Staff or Cabinet Secretary.
AUTOPEN ≠ INTENT The autopen is legal only if the President gives contemporaneous, knowing approval. If that didn’t happen? Those pardons are constitutionally void.
THE SCALE 1,565 clemency actions in one day. That’s more than any President in modern history — and it happened during a period of reported cognitive decl
THE INVESTIGATION The House Oversight Committee is probing:
Unauthorized autopen use
Lack of documentation
Concealment of Biden’s condition
WHY IT MATTERS If aides issued pardons without Biden’s approval, it’s not just a scandal — It’s a constitutional cris
CALL TO ACTION The world deserves answers. Demand a full review of every December 2024 pardon. The rule of law depends on it.
