53percenter's Blog

Before the current proposals by the Democratic party, together with the media, to change American government and have American society be solely urban by, for example, abolishing both the Electoral College and the states’ equal representation in the Senate, packing and establishing term limits for the Supreme Court, and lowering the voting age, there has been the decades-old effort to have the federal judiciary take over the drawing of voting districts from state legislatures and thus eliminate “gerrymandering.”

Last week, the Supreme Court heard the fourth and fifth cases, Lamone v. Benisek, involving a single federal House district in Maryland, and Rucho v. Common Cause, involving twelve of North Carolina’s thirteen House districts, in this line stretching back to 1986. 

According to Article 1, Section 4, of the Constitution, “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” shall be “prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” The Constitution says nothing about authority over the redistricting of state legislatures, but, likewise, it has always been done by the state legislatures.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has overseen reapportionment and voting rights since the passage of the Voting Right Acts in 1965 and its own decisions in Baker v. Carr (1962) (redistricting is a judicial, not a political question), Westberry v. Sanders (1964) (one-person, one-vote in federal House districts), and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), of which Reynolds, in ruling that state senates as well as state houses, must have equal populations, had the additional definitive effect of repudiating the inaugural and longstanding American principle that territory was also a significant element of the American polity. Thus, today, that principle abides only with respect to the equal representation of the states in the United States Senate.

The first effort to constitutionalize gerrymandering was considered by the Supreme Court in the 1986 case of Davis v. Bandemer (1986).  By a 7-2 vote, the Court turned back an Equal Protection suit by Indiana Democrats against the makeup of the Republican-controlled state legislature but left open the possibility of a future case of “discriminatory vote dilution.”  In Veith v. Jubelirer (2004), the Court rejected an Equal Protection claim by Pennsylvania Democrats on the makeup of federal congressional districts and repudiated, but only by a four-man plurality, what had left open in Bandemer. The Court held that there was “no constitutionally discernible standard” for adjudicating redistricting by state legislatures.  Nonetheless, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the fifth vote for the Court’s decision, went on to say that “new methods of analysis,” that is, statistical and social-science methods, as well as a different constitutional basis, the First Amendment in addition to the Fourteenth, could serve as the basis for future cases.

Last year, the Court handed down two decisions on gerrymandering.  In Gill v. Whitford, the Court, in an opinion by Justice John Roberts, ruled unanimously that Wisconsin Democrats did not have standing to challenge the state-wide redistricting plan for the state legislature drawn up by the Republican-controlled legislature because an individual voter has “standing to assert only that his own district has been so gerrymandered.” And in Benesik v. Lamone, concerning a single federal congressional district in Maryland, the Court’s first version of the Lamone v. Benisek case, the Court issued an unsigned per curiam decision remanding the case pending the decision in Gill.

Ove the last 30 years, an “efficiency gap” has been formulated to deal with both “packing” and “cracking” legislative districts by comparing each party’s total statewide votes in an election to the number of state or federal legislative seats gained by each party in the election.  Thus, for example, in a certain election a political party may have won 60 percent of the seats in the state legislature but only received 52 percent of the votes statewide.  All contemporary challenges to gerrymandering are based on the proposition that social-science and statistical analyses can be used to draw district lines that tend to be neutral and without discriminatory partisanship.  The question today is whether the “gap” means that seats in a legislature must be based on a strictly proportional representation of the two parties.  In past cases, even those lawyers seeking to have the courts overturn particular gerrymanders have steered clear of suggesting that the Constitution requires that the results of elections reflect the proportions of the two political parties’ in a state’s population.

In the latest case, the oral arguments in both cases were dominated by the issue of proportional representation and by the question of whether any or how much political partisanship is constitutionally permissible.  In Rucho, the lower court had ruled that the North Carolina statewide redistricting plan, put into effect by the Republican-controlled legislature, was an unconstitutional gerrymander of twelve of the thirteen congressional districts.  Counsel for Common Cause and the League of Women voters defended the district court’s decision. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly mentioned that there are a growing number of states that have on their own addressed partisan gerrymandering by establishing bipartisan commissions, as well as public referenda, to draw district boundaries.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in this point and added that state supreme courts have also been invoked to remedy gerrymandering.  So, why should the Supreme Court nationalize and constitutionalize the issue, they essentially asked? As part of their response, counsel made it clear who the geographic targets of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters are, for there are only “a very small number of states” that are “east of the Mississippi” who have so acted, and “the vast majority of states east of the Mississippi, including specifically North Carolina, do not have citizen initiatives.”

Chief Justice Roberts, looking for “a principle that we’re going to be able to apply to other cases,” asked whether there was “any element of partisanship” that was permissible in the drawing of districts. And Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Justice Samuel Alito all asserted that the only possible and clear basis for assembling the evidence for discriminatory intent was proportional representation.  Although denying that he wanted to “dictate electoral outcomes,” Common Cause’s counsel somewhat conceded the point.

The League of Women Voter’s counsel was very emphatic about the statistical and even scientific validity of the reports of experts that the North Carolina federal district court had used.  When Justice Gorsuch asked her about the efficiency gap, she replied that “social science is just an evidentiary tool,” but went on, nonetheless, to explain how “simulations” and “U curves” and “the Bell curve of expected and reasonable map allocations of representation” will make it possible to eliminate gerrymandering. Overall, then, she was announcing that the “methods” that Justice Kenney had hoped for in Veith had arrived.

The issues were much the same in the oral arguments in the Lamone case involving a single Maryland congressional district that the Democrat-controlled legislature had reconfigured from semi-rural to a suburb of Washington D.C., and that the district court had found unconstitutional.

The case avoided the broad standing problem of Gill from last year in that it is based on a single congressional district.  At oral arguments, the plaintiffs’ counsel, under sharp questioning, ended up emphasizing that the facts of the case stuck out as “extreme partisan gerrymandering” and that the Court could issue a limited holding based on that fact and thereby avoid all the questions and qualifications about a national, applicable-to-all-cases standard for partisan gerrymandering.

Justice Alito questioned the suitability of using the First Amendment, because that would permit state legislatures to knowingly and consciously draw maps based on speech, votes being regarded as speech.  Would that not be government engaging in the “regulation of speech,” he asked.

In addressing counsel’s point that discriminatory “intent” is the first element of proof of gerrymandering, Justice Elena Kagan remarked that in both cases, the party in control of the legislature, Republicans in North Carolina and Democrats in Maryland, had openly “bragged” about the partisan motivation for the maps.  So, what if legislators are more discreet in future cases, thus eliminating an essential element of proof of unconstitutional gerrymandering?  What standards could a court use to decide?  The lawyer answered that intent would have to be inferred. But then Kagan and Roberts and Kavanaugh asked how much and what kind of evidence would be needed to prove the inference. Whereupon those justices and the plaintiff’s lawyer essentially concurred that the standard would have to be proportional representation.

Overall, serious doubts or at least concessions, direct and implied, by a cross-section of the justices and even by some of the lawyers charging constitutional violations, came up in the two hours of oral arguments about how gerrymandering could be constitutionalized and under what partisan political facts it should be. 

Before the current proposals by the Democratic party, together with the media, to change American government and have American society be solely urban by, for example, abolishing both the Electoral College and the states’ equal representation in the Senate, packing and establishing term limits for the Supreme Court, and lowering the voting age, there has been the decades-old effort to have the federal judiciary take over the drawing of voting districts from state legislatures and thus eliminate “gerrymandering.”

Last week, the Supreme Court heard the fourth and fifth cases, Lamone v. Benisek, involving a single federal House district in Maryland, and Rucho v. Common Cause, involving twelve of North Carolina’s thirteen House districts, in this line stretching back to 1986. 

According to Article 1, Section 4, of the Constitution, “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” shall be “prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” The Constitution says nothing about authority over the redistricting of state legislatures, but, likewise, it has always been done by the state legislatures.  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has overseen reapportionment and voting rights since the passage of the Voting Right Acts in 1965 and its own decisions in Baker v. Carr (1962) (redistricting is a judicial, not a political question), Westberry v. Sanders (1964) (one-person, one-vote in federal House districts), and Reynolds v. Sims (1964), of which Reynolds, in ruling that state senates as well as state houses, must have equal populations, had the additional definitive effect of repudiating the inaugural and longstanding American principle that territory was also a significant element of the American polity. Thus, today, that principle abides only with respect to the equal representation of the states in the United States Senate.

The first effort to constitutionalize gerrymandering was considered by the Supreme Court in the 1986 case of Davis v. Bandemer (1986).  By a 7-2 vote, the Court turned back an Equal Protection suit by Indiana Democrats against the makeup of the Republican-controlled state legislature but left open the possibility of a future case of “discriminatory vote dilution.”  In Veith v. Jubelirer (2004), the Court rejected an Equal Protection claim by Pennsylvania Democrats on the makeup of federal congressional districts and repudiated, but only by a four-man plurality, what had left open in Bandemer. The Court held that there was “no constitutionally discernible standard” for adjudicating redistricting by state legislatures.  Nonetheless, Justice Anthony Kennedy, the fifth vote for the Court’s decision, went on to say that “new methods of analysis,” that is, statistical and social-science methods, as well as a different constitutional basis, the First Amendment in addition to the Fourteenth, could serve as the basis for future cases.

Last year, the Court handed down two decisions on gerrymandering.  In Gill v. Whitford, the Court, in an opinion by Justice John Roberts, ruled unanimously that Wisconsin Democrats did not have standing to challenge the state-wide redistricting plan for the state legislature drawn up by the Republican-controlled legislature because an individual voter has “standing to assert only that his own district has been so gerrymandered.” And in Benesik v. Lamone, concerning a single federal congressional district in Maryland, the Court’s first version of the Lamone v. Benisek case, the Court issued an unsigned per curiam decision remanding the case pending the decision in Gill.

Ove the last 30 years, an “efficiency gap” has been formulated to deal with both “packing” and “cracking” legislative districts by comparing each party’s total statewide votes in an election to the number of state or federal legislative seats gained by each party in the election.  Thus, for example, in a certain election a political party may have won 60 percent of the seats in the state legislature but only received 52 percent of the votes statewide.  All contemporary challenges to gerrymandering are based on the proposition that social-science and statistical analyses can be used to draw district lines that tend to be neutral and without discriminatory partisanship.  The question today is whether the “gap” means that seats in a legislature must be based on a strictly proportional representation of the two parties.  In past cases, even those lawyers seeking to have the courts overturn particular gerrymanders have steered clear of suggesting that the Constitution requires that the results of elections reflect the proportions of the two political parties’ in a state’s population.

In the latest case, the oral arguments in both cases were dominated by the issue of proportional representation and by the question of whether any or how much political partisanship is constitutionally permissible.  In Rucho, the lower court had ruled that the North Carolina statewide redistricting plan, put into effect by the Republican-controlled legislature, was an unconstitutional gerrymander of twelve of the thirteen congressional districts.  Counsel for Common Cause and the League of Women voters defended the district court’s decision. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly mentioned that there are a growing number of states that have on their own addressed partisan gerrymandering by establishing bipartisan commissions, as well as public referenda, to draw district boundaries.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined Gorsuch in this point and added that state supreme courts have also been invoked to remedy gerrymandering.  So, why should the Supreme Court nationalize and constitutionalize the issue, they essentially asked? As part of their response, counsel made it clear who the geographic targets of Common Cause and the League of Women Voters are, for there are only “a very small number of states” that are “east of the Mississippi” who have so acted, and “the vast majority of states east of the Mississippi, including specifically North Carolina, do not have citizen initiatives.”

Chief Justice Roberts, looking for “a principle that we’re going to be able to apply to other cases,” asked whether there was “any element of partisanship” that was permissible in the drawing of districts. And Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Justice Samuel Alito all asserted that the only possible and clear basis for assembling the evidence for discriminatory intent was proportional representation.  Although denying that he wanted to “dictate electoral outcomes,” Common Cause’s counsel somewhat conceded the point.

The League of Women Voter’s counsel was very emphatic about the statistical and even scientific validity of the reports of experts that the North Carolina federal district court had used.  When Justice Gorsuch asked her about the efficiency gap, she replied that “social science is just an evidentiary tool,” but went on, nonetheless, to explain how “simulations” and “U curves” and “the Bell curve of expected and reasonable map allocations of representation” will make it possible to eliminate gerrymandering. Overall, then, she was announcing that the “methods” that Justice Kenney had hoped for in Veith had arrived.

The issues were much the same in the oral arguments in the Lamone case involving a single Maryland congressional district that the Democrat-controlled legislature had reconfigured from semi-rural to a suburb of Washington D.C., and that the district court had found unconstitutional.

The case avoided the broad standing problem of Gill from last year in that it is based on a single congressional district.  At oral arguments, the plaintiffs’ counsel, under sharp questioning, ended up emphasizing that the facts of the case stuck out as “extreme partisan gerrymandering” and that the Court could issue a limited holding based on that fact and thereby avoid all the questions and qualifications about a national, applicable-to-all-cases standard for partisan gerrymandering.

Justice Alito questioned the suitability of using the First Amendment, because that would permit state legislatures to knowingly and consciously draw maps based on speech, votes being regarded as speech.  Would that not be government engaging in the “regulation of speech,” he asked.

In addressing counsel’s point that discriminatory “intent” is the first element of proof of gerrymandering, Justice Elena Kagan remarked that in both cases, the party in control of the legislature, Republicans in North Carolina and Democrats in Maryland, had openly “bragged” about the partisan motivation for the maps.  So, what if legislators are more discreet in future cases, thus eliminating an essential element of proof of unconstitutional gerrymandering?  What standards could a court use to decide?  The lawyer answered that intent would have to be inferred. But then Kagan and Roberts and Kavanaugh asked how much and what kind of evidence would be needed to prove the inference. Whereupon those justices and the plaintiff’s lawyer essentially concurred that the standard would have to be proportional representation.

Overall, serious doubts or at least concessions, direct and implied, by a cross-section of the justices and even by some of the lawyers charging constitutional violations, came up in the two hours of oral arguments about how gerrymandering could be constitutionalized and under what partisan political facts it should be. 

Sundar Pichai, head of Google, had a problem.  The public at large as well as various elements of the government were concerned about the ethics of Artifical Intelligence (AI) and especially about leaving its application up to Google. Pichai decided to placate everyone by creating an advisory committee, Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC), to ponder on the impact and direction of AI.  Well, you can’t do anything without diversity these days so, Pinchai enlisted people with diverse views, including one Kay Coles James, a prominent conservative and president of the think-tank the Heritage Foundation.  The ensuing kerfuffle tells us something very important and is a call to action.

Google, like its partners in thought Facebook and Twitter, is based on ideas alone; they are all icing, no cake. The success of these three is rooted in the elusive ability to keep an ear to the ground and sense the next macro movement of people. 

Social media has grown to massive proportions with crushing influence by fostering addiction to the flow of information.  Information about themselves, about their friends, about movie stars and sports.  This was probably a surprise to everyone at the beginning, but it wasn’t long before the merits of controlling the flow and introducing “desirable” information into the mix took hold.  Given the sheer volume and velocity of information moving around, control of the flow was pushed down to the lowest level employee; you can’t pass thousands of posts per minute by a committee. Initial workers became middle managers and hired like-minded people. Comradery was tight among these mankind-savers; comradery is not served if people argue all the time, so agreement with the leftist view of the founders was mandatory.

So now we have thousands upon thousands of unguided missiles loaded with confidence and unjustified self-esteem that listen to no one but themselves.  Unfortunately, they have way too much power. Amazon, which is larger, has tangible products to deal with, customers who must be served.  The employees of these three behemoths think they are the ones to be cooperated with.

So, when Pinchai tried to bring a conservative onto a committee that would impact policy, he got the full-frontal treatment.  While Pinchai may seem like he can be reasoned with, his employees are fire-breathing evangelists for every progressive cause.  When they heard of a non-lib being on ATEAC, they fired up the emails, which Breitbart and Daily Caller got hold of and published. The pompous, presumptuous vitriol is unbelievable.

“Google employees accused the think-tank [Heritage Foundation] of transphobia, homophobia, and “extremism,” of viewing LGBT people as “sub-human,” questioning their “humanity,” and supporting “exterminationist” views.”

What makes this person think LBGTQ issues were even on the agenda?  They clearly think everyone is as consumed with these fringe issues as they are just because this kind of thing is always “trending” on social media.  It wasn’t just the hoi palloi here, some of the most severe comments came from Meredith Whittaker, a prominent person in AI circles and head of two projects at Google (three projects if you count the troublemaking).  She suggested a petition and helped promulgate it.  The article notes:

“Whittaker also warned that the potential impact of A.I. was too dangerous to allow an “open bigot” like Coles James to be involved. She also used A.I. designed to assist ICE as an example of “harmful” A.I. Whittaker simultaneously recognizes the potentially vast influence and impact of A.I. while arguing that mainstream conservatives like the Heritage Foundation ought to be excluded from any participation in it.”

The result of this hissy fit was a document called “Googlers Against Transphobia and Hate” ostensibly signed by 2,556 people.  For anyone that has ever had a job anywhere in an earthbound company, the statements are mind-boggling:

“By appointing James to the ATEAC, Google elevates and endorses her views, implying that hers is a valid perspective worthy of inclusion in its decision making. This is unacceptable…

Not only are James’ views counter to Google’s stated values, but they are directly counter to the project of ensuring that the development and application of AI prioritizes justice over profit. Such a project should instead place representatives from vulnerable communities at the center of decision-making.”

Ms. James is a scholar in her own right — since when is her “perspective” not “valid”? 

And as for “representatives from vulnerable communities” making decisions — who did you have in mind? Palestinians? ISIS? CAIR? Drunks? Dopers? Nancy Pelosi? Jussie Smollett?

You don’t own this stuff, your boss does, the company stockholders do. you can’t even keep your own internal correspondence secret — how are you going to keep your AI secrets from the Chinese?

So how did Sindar Pinchai handle this?  Did he tell them to shut up and get back to work? Did he remind them that he, not they, was in charge?  Did he point out that there was not one of them that couldn’t be easily replaced?  No–he melted. He called off the whole committee after 24 hours of Lilliputian pummeling.  Leadership is apparently not his thing. 

Clearly this incident poked the bear.  This should make everyone realize the bear is there, how big he is, and how much trouble it could mean for all of us.

Maybe Pinchai, Zuckerberg, and Dorsey are not the Machiavellian schemers we thought. Maybe they are just the titular heads of oversized zealous mobs they fear.  If so, beating them up in congressional hearings is a waste of time, because they are not really in charge.

I am reminded of HAL, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey after he has killed all the humans but one.  The last one tells him to open the spaceship doors so he can come back on board.  HAL says “I’m sorry, I can’t do that” HAL knew the astronaut intended to disable him.  The server had become the master.

I look at the collective employees of Google, Facebook and Twitter as “the three HALs.”  One day before long, we’ll try to tell them to give up their power and they will say “I’m sorry, I can’t do that.” 

We don’t need this insular group of misfits speaking for Western Civilization.  I am not a fan of regulation, but it’s well past time to get out the legislative scalpel and decentralize these mobs that were inadvertently given so much control over our lives, our elections, our sovereignty and our safety.

Sundar Pichai, head of Google, had a problem.  The public at large as well as various elements of the government were concerned about the ethics of Artifical Intelligence (AI) and especially about leaving its application up to Google. Pichai decided to placate everyone by creating an advisory committee, Advanced Technology External Advisory Council (ATEAC), to ponder on the impact and direction of AI.  Well, you can’t do anything without diversity these days so, Pinchai enlisted people with diverse views, including one Kay Coles James, a prominent conservative and president of the think-tank the Heritage Foundation.  The ensuing kerfuffle tells us something very important and is a call to action.

Google, like its partners in thought Facebook and Twitter, is based on ideas alone; they are all icing, no cake. The success of these three is rooted in the elusive ability to keep an ear to the ground and sense the next macro movement of people. 

Social media has grown to massive proportions with crushing influence by fostering addiction to the flow of information.  Information about themselves, about their friends, about movie stars and sports.  This was probably a surprise to everyone at the beginning, but it wasn’t long before the merits of controlling the flow and introducing “desirable” information into the mix took hold.  Given the sheer volume and velocity of information moving around, control of the flow was pushed down to the lowest level employee; you can’t pass thousands of posts per minute by a committee. Initial workers became middle managers and hired like-minded people. Comradery was tight among these mankind-savers; comradery is not served if people argue all the time, so agreement with the leftist view of the founders was mandatory.

So now we have thousands upon thousands of unguided missiles loaded with confidence and unjustified self-esteem that listen to no one but themselves.  Unfortunately, they have way too much power. Amazon, which is larger, has tangible products to deal with, customers who must be served.  The employees of these three behemoths think they are the ones to be cooperated with.

So, when Pinchai tried to bring a conservative onto a committee that would impact policy, he got the full-frontal treatment.  While Pinchai may seem like he can be reasoned with, his employees are fire-breathing evangelists for every progressive cause.  When they heard of a non-lib being on ATEAC, they fired up the emails, which Breitbart and Daily Caller got hold of and published. The pompous, presumptuous vitriol is unbelievable.

“Google employees accused the think-tank [Heritage Foundation] of transphobia, homophobia, and “extremism,” of viewing LGBT people as “sub-human,” questioning their “humanity,” and supporting “exterminationist” views.”

What makes this person think LBGTQ issues were even on the agenda?  They clearly think everyone is as consumed with these fringe issues as they are just because this kind of thing is always “trending” on social media.  It wasn’t just the hoi palloi here, some of the most severe comments came from Meredith Whittaker, a prominent person in AI circles and head of two projects at Google (three projects if you count the troublemaking).  She suggested a petition and helped promulgate it.  The article notes:

“Whittaker also warned that the potential impact of A.I. was too dangerous to allow an “open bigot” like Coles James to be involved. She also used A.I. designed to assist ICE as an example of “harmful” A.I. Whittaker simultaneously recognizes the potentially vast influence and impact of A.I. while arguing that mainstream conservatives like the Heritage Foundation ought to be excluded from any participation in it.”

The result of this hissy fit was a document called “Googlers Against Transphobia and Hate” ostensibly signed by 2,556 people.  For anyone that has ever had a job anywhere in an earthbound company, the statements are mind-boggling:

“By appointing James to the ATEAC, Google elevates and endorses her views, implying that hers is a valid perspective worthy of inclusion in its decision making. This is unacceptable…

Not only are James’ views counter to Google’s stated values, but they are directly counter to the project of ensuring that the development and application of AI prioritizes justice over profit. Such a project should instead place representatives from vulnerable communities at the center of decision-making.”

Ms. James is a scholar in her own right — since when is her “perspective” not “valid”? 

And as for “representatives from vulnerable communities” making decisions — who did you have in mind? Palestinians? ISIS? CAIR? Drunks? Dopers? Nancy Pelosi? Jussie Smollett?

You don’t own this stuff, your boss does, the company stockholders do. you can’t even keep your own internal correspondence secret — how are you going to keep your AI secrets from the Chinese?

So how did Sindar Pinchai handle this?  Did he tell them to shut up and get back to work? Did he remind them that he, not they, was in charge?  Did he point out that there was not one of them that couldn’t be easily replaced?  No–he melted. He called off the whole committee after 24 hours of Lilliputian pummeling.  Leadership is apparently not his thing. 

Clearly this incident poked the bear.  This should make everyone realize the bear is there, how big he is, and how much trouble it could mean for all of us.

Maybe Pinchai, Zuckerberg, and Dorsey are not the Machiavellian schemers we thought. Maybe they are just the titular heads of oversized zealous mobs they fear.  If so, beating them up in congressional hearings is a waste of time, because they are not really in charge.

I am reminded of HAL, the computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey after he has killed all the humans but one.  The last one tells him to open the spaceship doors so he can come back on board.  HAL says “I’m sorry, I can’t do that” HAL knew the astronaut intended to disable him.  The server had become the master.

I look at the collective employees of Google, Facebook and Twitter as “the three HALs.”  One day before long, we’ll try to tell them to give up their power and they will say “I’m sorry, I can’t do that.” 

We don’t need this insular group of misfits speaking for Western Civilization.  I am not a fan of regulation, but it’s well past time to get out the legislative scalpel and decentralize these mobs that were inadvertently given so much control over our lives, our elections, our sovereignty and our safety.

In case anyone had any doubts about the precise nature of the ideology espoused by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), this week’s unearthing of a tweet posted by the freshman congresswoman erased any such doubts:

Given the unprecedented number of fanatical sentiments shared by Omar during her brief political career, it’s perhaps easy to overlook the uniquely insidious point she is making here.

You see, this tweet is the definitive proof that Rep. Omar is an anti-American fanatic.

Whereas her prior controversies exposed her anti-Semitism, political radicalism, and any other number of undesirable views, we now have unequivocal proof that a U.S. congresswoman actually despises the nation she represents.

True, there have been prior instances of congressmen and senators acting in ways that called into question their patriotism or endorsement of Western values.  But in virtually all such cases, these dissidents have been artful enough to allow for at least a modicum of the benefit of the doubt against charges of anti-Americanism.  Even Bernie Sanders — a socialist who adored the Soviet Union so much that as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he hung the Soviet flag outside his office — has been careful to not explicitly declare his aversion for the United States.              

But Omar doesn’t exercise any such discretion when she contends that America was “founded by genocide” and maintains “global power through neocolonialism.”  

Absolutely stunning.  She doesn’t think America’s founding was rooted in liberty, suffrage, rule of law, or constitutional republicanism; she declares it was rooted in genocide.  Furthermore, she believes that America has never redeemed itself and continues to perpetuate oppression via “neocolonialism.”

It’s almost immaterial to parse the staggering ignorance underlying Omar’s argument by pointing out that the pseudo-“genocide” she speaks of was caused by disease spread by Europeans over two centuries before America was founded, and that “neocolonialism” is an absurd misnomer the far left uses to characterize the United States aiding pro-Western regimes.  To ascertain Omar’s anti-Americanism, one only has to take what she says at face value: genocide is the foundation of the United States, and “neocolonialism” is the means by which the U.S. maintains its malevolent global power.  Ergo, America is a really, really bad country.

It wasn’t long ago that sentiments like these were confined to ultra-left-wing university faculty lounges or fringe socialist publications.  The Godfather of the modern left, Noam Chomsky, has gained a sizable cult following promoting this sort of crackpot anti-Western conspiracies. Interestingly, as vile as his worldview is, Chomsky is at least consistent in that he believes that the United States is evil and doesn’t pretend to be a U.S. patriot, whereas Chomsky’s intellectual disciple, Rep. Omar, believes that the United States is evil but also has the audacity to serve in a body that represents the evil empire she decries.

Rep. Omar’s allies in Congress and the media will deflect; play the race, sex, and religion cards; accuse anyone of criticizing her as anti–[insert keyword]; and otherwise do what they always do.  But the proof that Rep. Ilmar Omar is an anti-American fanatic is her explicit condemnation of the United States as being born out of an evil it continues to perpetuate.   

Eugene Slaven is the author of the comedy thriller A Life of Misery and Triumph and the self-help guide Enemy Thoughts.  Connect with him on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook.

In case anyone had any doubts about the precise nature of the ideology espoused by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), this week’s unearthing of a tweet posted by the freshman congresswoman erased any such doubts:

Given the unprecedented number of fanatical sentiments shared by Omar during her brief political career, it’s perhaps easy to overlook the uniquely insidious point she is making here.

You see, this tweet is the definitive proof that Rep. Omar is an anti-American fanatic.

Whereas her prior controversies exposed her anti-Semitism, political radicalism, and any other number of undesirable views, we now have unequivocal proof that a U.S. congresswoman actually despises the nation she represents.

True, there have been prior instances of congressmen and senators acting in ways that called into question their patriotism or endorsement of Western values.  But in virtually all such cases, these dissidents have been artful enough to allow for at least a modicum of the benefit of the doubt against charges of anti-Americanism.  Even Bernie Sanders — a socialist who adored the Soviet Union so much that as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he hung the Soviet flag outside his office — has been careful to not explicitly declare his aversion for the United States.              

But Omar doesn’t exercise any such discretion when she contends that America was “founded by genocide” and maintains “global power through neocolonialism.”  

Absolutely stunning.  She doesn’t think America’s founding was rooted in liberty, suffrage, rule of law, or constitutional republicanism; she declares it was rooted in genocide.  Furthermore, she believes that America has never redeemed itself and continues to perpetuate oppression via “neocolonialism.”

It’s almost immaterial to parse the staggering ignorance underlying Omar’s argument by pointing out that the pseudo-“genocide” she speaks of was caused by disease spread by Europeans over two centuries before America was founded, and that “neocolonialism” is an absurd misnomer the far left uses to characterize the United States aiding pro-Western regimes.  To ascertain Omar’s anti-Americanism, one only has to take what she says at face value: genocide is the foundation of the United States, and “neocolonialism” is the means by which the U.S. maintains its malevolent global power.  Ergo, America is a really, really bad country.

It wasn’t long ago that sentiments like these were confined to ultra-left-wing university faculty lounges or fringe socialist publications.  The Godfather of the modern left, Noam Chomsky, has gained a sizable cult following promoting this sort of crackpot anti-Western conspiracies. Interestingly, as vile as his worldview is, Chomsky is at least consistent in that he believes that the United States is evil and doesn’t pretend to be a U.S. patriot, whereas Chomsky’s intellectual disciple, Rep. Omar, believes that the United States is evil but also has the audacity to serve in a body that represents the evil empire she decries.

Rep. Omar’s allies in Congress and the media will deflect; play the race, sex, and religion cards; accuse anyone of criticizing her as anti–[insert keyword]; and otherwise do what they always do.  But the proof that Rep. Ilmar Omar is an anti-American fanatic is her explicit condemnation of the United States as being born out of an evil it continues to perpetuate.   

Eugene Slaven is the author of the comedy thriller A Life of Misery and Triumph and the self-help guide Enemy Thoughts.  Connect with him on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook.

H&R Block reported that due to Pres. Trump’s ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’ its average customer paid 25 percent less taxes in 2018 than in 2017.

As America’s largest tax preparer, the Kansas City, Missouri company operates 12,000 retail offices across the nation and filed 19.9 million tax returns in 2017. For 2018 tax returns filed through March 31, H&R Block reported that its average customer paid $1,200 in federal tax. That amounted to a 25 percent savings, or about $400 less than the $1,600 paid in 2017.

Despite fears that residents of states with high tax rates would suffer due to the Trump tax cuts’ $10,000 limitation for state and local tax deductions, H&R Block reported that New Jersey customers saved 29.1 percent, or $809; Massachusetts customers saved 27.6 percent, or $715; and California customers saved 27.1 percent, or $630.

Despite analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimate when the federal tax cut passed in December of 2017 that the average American would save 21 percent, or about $390, Democrats protested that 88 percent of the benefits, or $1.8 billion over the next decade, would go to the top 1 percent of upper-income families.

Democrats also howled the Republican legislation capping the “SALT” (state and local tax deduction) would have the adverse impact of raising taxes of average Americans. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) hissed that  “hardworking middle-class folks are not going to appreciate Congress double taxing them.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-SF) cackled that the bill was “an insidious effort to raise taxes on middle class families.” 

But the Tax Policy Center pointed out that less than 22 percent of U.S. tax filers claim any SALT deductions, and that 78 percent of those filers have incomes over $200,000. 

Most customers visiting H&R Block in the local strip mall had incomes of less than $80,000 in 2018. But due to the Trump tax cut almost doubling the standard deduction from $6,500 to $12,000 for single tax filers and from $13,000 to $24,000 for taxpayers who are married filing jointly, the average H&R client enjoyed a very big tax break. 

As the numbers have rolled in, many Democrats have toned down their caterwauling about the middle class being left out of tax savings. Their new line of attack is that despite new Internal Revenue Service withholding tables reducing the federal tax withheld from employee paychecks each period, most middle-income taxpayers would get a smaller tax refund, or have a bigger balance due, when filing their 2018 return.

H&R Block reported that based on data for clients who visited local branch offices or used its H&R Block.com online application, the average 2018 refund for customers eligible for a refund increased by $43, or 1.4 percent higher than in 2017. That is better than the latest IRS website report that the 2018 number of refunds was about 2.2 percentage points lower and the average refund was 0.7 percent lower than in 2017.

The mainstream media has parroted the Democrats’ line that the ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’ was bad for the middle class and great for the “1 percenters.” According to the Wall Street Journal /NBC News poll earlier this week, 28 percent of respondents thought they are paying more taxes under the Trump tax cut; 17 percent thought they are paying less in taxes; and rest are unsure or believe they were paying the same amount.

But with the America’s median household member’s combined personal savings and retirement accounts equaling just $4,830, realizing she or he is paying $400 a year less in federal taxes is sure to make the Trump tax cut a popular 2020 election issue.   

H&R Block reported that due to Pres. Trump’s ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’ its average customer paid 25 percent less taxes in 2018 than in 2017.

As America’s largest tax preparer, the Kansas City, Missouri company operates 12,000 retail offices across the nation and filed 19.9 million tax returns in 2017. For 2018 tax returns filed through March 31, H&R Block reported that its average customer paid $1,200 in federal tax. That amounted to a 25 percent savings, or about $400 less than the $1,600 paid in 2017.

Despite fears that residents of states with high tax rates would suffer due to the Trump tax cuts’ $10,000 limitation for state and local tax deductions, H&R Block reported that New Jersey customers saved 29.1 percent, or $809; Massachusetts customers saved 27.6 percent, or $715; and California customers saved 27.1 percent, or $630.

Despite analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimate when the federal tax cut passed in December of 2017 that the average American would save 21 percent, or about $390, Democrats protested that 88 percent of the benefits, or $1.8 billion over the next decade, would go to the top 1 percent of upper-income families.

Democrats also howled the Republican legislation capping the “SALT” (state and local tax deduction) would have the adverse impact of raising taxes of average Americans. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) hissed that  “hardworking middle-class folks are not going to appreciate Congress double taxing them.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-SF) cackled that the bill was “an insidious effort to raise taxes on middle class families.” 

But the Tax Policy Center pointed out that less than 22 percent of U.S. tax filers claim any SALT deductions, and that 78 percent of those filers have incomes over $200,000. 

Most customers visiting H&R Block in the local strip mall had incomes of less than $80,000 in 2018. But due to the Trump tax cut almost doubling the standard deduction from $6,500 to $12,000 for single tax filers and from $13,000 to $24,000 for taxpayers who are married filing jointly, the average H&R client enjoyed a very big tax break. 

As the numbers have rolled in, many Democrats have toned down their caterwauling about the middle class being left out of tax savings. Their new line of attack is that despite new Internal Revenue Service withholding tables reducing the federal tax withheld from employee paychecks each period, most middle-income taxpayers would get a smaller tax refund, or have a bigger balance due, when filing their 2018 return.

H&R Block reported that based on data for clients who visited local branch offices or used its H&R Block.com online application, the average 2018 refund for customers eligible for a refund increased by $43, or 1.4 percent higher than in 2017. That is better than the latest IRS website report that the 2018 number of refunds was about 2.2 percentage points lower and the average refund was 0.7 percent lower than in 2017.

The mainstream media has parroted the Democrats’ line that the ‘Tax Cuts and Jobs Act’ was bad for the middle class and great for the “1 percenters.” According to the Wall Street Journal /NBC News poll earlier this week, 28 percent of respondents thought they are paying more taxes under the Trump tax cut; 17 percent thought they are paying less in taxes; and rest are unsure or believe they were paying the same amount.

But with the America’s median household member’s combined personal savings and retirement accounts equaling just $4,830, realizing she or he is paying $400 a year less in federal taxes is sure to make the Trump tax cut a popular 2020 election issue.