Category: Politics

Peter Franklin is an Associate Editor of UnHerd.

The Rochdale by-election was a disaster for all four main parties. We needn’t dwell on the debacle of Labour’s campaign. The fact that they finished fourth behind George Galloway, a local independent and the Tory candidate says it all.

But let’s not kid ourselves this wasn’t an awful result for the Conservative Party. From the 31 per cent of the vote in 2019, we held on to just 12 per cent of the electorate. Still, at least we didn’t come fifth like the Liberal Democrats, who used to get MPs elected here.

So there it is: an all round humiliation for the political establishment. But, hang on, didn’t I mention four main parties?

Opinion polls now regularly show Reform UK either level-pegging with, or ahead of, the Lib Dems. Indeed, the latest YouGov had Reform on a record 14 per cent vote share. So if we’re giving the yellows main-party status, then the same spirit of generosity should be extended to Reform.

And yet in Rochdale – despite confident assertions that they were in a two-horse race with Galloway – they limped in sixth.

They can hardly claim that this was because they were squeezed out by the establishment parties, or because the mainstream media ignored them. After all, no one was as under-rated as the independent candidate David Tully, and yet he finished second with more votes than the Labour and Conservative candidates put together.

Certainly, the police should investigate claims of intimidation on the campaign trail. Furthermore, in respect to postal votes we need to see a full breakdown of the numbers.

Yet whatever went on, it doesn’t explain why those voters who didn’t want Galloway or the Westminster parties turned to Mr Tully and not Reform.

This isn’t just a Rochdale issue. It should be obvious by now that voters in Red Wall constituencies across the North and Midlands are desperate for an alternative to the status quo. Reform UK should be in pole position to provide it.

But they’re failing to hit the spot. If you compare Reform’s record to that of it predecessor party, UKIP, the problem becomes clear. From 2010 to 2015 (UKIP’s heyday) there were 19 by-elections (excluding two in Northern Ireland). Across those contests, the UKIP vote share exceeded ten per cent eleven times, 20 per cent seven times and 30 per cent three times.

Now look at the by-elections since Reform UK was created in 2018 (initially under the name of the Brexit Party). Its vote share has exceeded ten per cent just twice and 20 per cent never.

Admittedly, Britain’s departure from the European Union did come as a massive blow; ironically, the European Parliament was the party’s natural habitat.

Still, when one door closes another opens. The collapse in support for the Conservative Party has certainly opened-up a huge space on the right of British politics. There have never been so many ex-Tory voters up for grabs.

But Reform, while making some progress, has fallen short. Even if their 14 per cent in the latest YouGov poll reflects reality (Ipsos Mori puts them at eight per cent), that’s no higher than the UKIP vote share in the 2015 general election – and they got that when the Conservatives were on 37 per cent, not 20 per cent. It may seem a small thing compared to the Tory meltdown, but Reform are underperforming.

So, what’s the explanation? Well, let me answer that with another question: where is Nigel Farage?

He was supposed to be returning from his adventures on I’m A Celebrity to assume the leadership of Reform UK. But months later, it’s yet to happen. Perhaps he and Reform are awaiting the moment of maximum impact.

However, time is running out. Rumours of an imminent generational election, though perhaps exaggerated, are not implausible. All the parties should at least be prepared for a May 2 polling day, and a campaign starting roughly four weeks from now.

So, again, I ask: where’s Nigel? In his continued absence, Richard Tice is filling in as leader, but that’s suboptimal. Tice isn’t terrible, but even compared to the lacklustre Conservative, Labour, and Lib Dem leaders, he lacks oomph.

He isn’t even the best leader of the challenger parties. George Galloway has more charisma; William Clouston of the SDP is wiser by far; and Lawrence Fox of Reclaim is at least entertaining. Reform desperately needs star quality – and only Farage can supply it.

The leadership vacuum isn’t Reform’s only problem. There’s also the gap between what the party stands for and the natural inclinations of most Leave voters. I’ve explored this in greater detail before: while the leaders of British populism have libertarian instincts, the Leave electorate is remarkably authoritarian.

During the pandemic, Tice, Fox and others tried to rally the public against the excesses of lockdown. This fell flat on its face, because, if anything, most people (including Leavers) wanted even tougher restrictions. For all the flowery talk of ancient English liberties, most of our fellow citizens put security first.

There is, of course, an overlap between the interests of Reform UK and those of its potential supporters. But the party has done a poor job of focusing on this common ground. The essential context here is the catastrophic failure of the last three prime ministers to deliver on the offer that won the 2019 general election.

Yes, Brexit got done, but the other key components of the winning formula – controlling our borders and levelling-up the country – have been betrayed.

This is an open goal for Reform UK, but they’ve barely bothered to take the shot. The focus on immigration should have been relentless, but just look at the party’s homepage. It’s a heap of soft libertarianism with a garnish of anti-wokery. Immigration gets a single mention.

As for anything resembling a levelling-up programme or an industrial strategy, we just get a load of green-bashing. Blaming Net Zero for this country’s problems has become to the populist right what Brexit is to the remainiac Left. It also forgets that cleaning-up the environment and protecting nature are nearly as popular with Red Wall electorates as they are elsewhere in the country.

So am I claiming that Reform UK doesn’t matter? Absolutely not. Any party with about ten per cent of the vote matters, even if First Past the Post denies them seats. A glance at long-term poll trends suggests that, since the second-half of last year, it is Reform, not Labour or the Lib Dem,  who are responsible for the decline in the Conservative vote.

There’s always the possibility that Tice and Farage might do what they need to do to storm the Red Wall. But even if they stay stuck in their rut, they will still exert an influence on the British party system.

As the direct inheritor of the Brexit Party and spiritual successor to UKIP, Reform UK is the first port of call for the populist protest vote. The leadership may lack the vision and courage to move beyond this strategic position, but they make it very hard for a hungrier, savvier party to move into it.

As used to be the case with the Liberal Democrats, and the Liberals before them, Reform UK is the bed-blocker party. Along with the electoral system, it is an impediment to the raging populism that has disrupted politics elsewhere in Europe.

I don’t suppose the strategists of Downing Street have ever stopped to thank Farage and co. However, that’s only because neither the Sunakites nor the Trussites nor the Borisites understand the full extent of their errors.

Between them they’ve reduced the Conservative Party to a state in which it is acutely vulnerable to replacement by a rival party of the right. That this hasn’t happened (yet) is in no small part due to the influence – and limitations – of Reform UK.

Though teachers unions are well known for donating huge sums to Democratic candidates, a closer look at donor data reveals that the unions have spent the last six years quietly slipping millions of dollars into the pockets of Republican candidates for state legislatures in contested primary races.

According to databases maintained by Open Secrets and Follow the Money, the largest teachers unions in 32 states have drastically increased donations to Republican state house, assembly, and senate candidates since 2018—donating up to $117,700 to individual candidates in a Republican primary.

In the 2012 and 2016 elections, only 12 states’ teachers unions donated to Republican primary candidates for state legislatures, and of those, only three states’ unions donated average sums of over $3,000 per Republican candidate.

Teachers unions are the largest donor to Democratic campaigns in the United States, with their unions and affiliated political action committees donating $55.3 million to Democratic primary and general candidates in congressional elections in 2022 and $66.5 million to Democratic primary and general congressional and presidential candidates in 2020. In 2022, teachers unions only donated $26,050 total to Republican primary and general congressional candidates.

But in state legislative races, as opposed to congressional ones, things are a bit different, and some Republicans started getting a lot more support from teachers unions starting around 2018—especially those running in districts that typically elect Republicans to office.

For the majority of the states, the local teachers unions are affiliates of one of the two largest national unions, either the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers. (As an aside, state affiliates are usually identified by the state’s name followed by a variant of “Education Association,” if connected to the NEA, or “Federation of Teachers,” if connected to the AFT.)

Both unions appear to have adopted a different donation strategy over the last decade: Instead of only investing in Democratic campaigns, they also put money behind the unions’ preferred candidates in Republican primaries.

Fifteen states’ teachers unions have donated at least $3,000 each to Republican candidates in state legislative primaries since 2018, with 16 states’ unions donating less than $3,000 each.

In Alabama, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas, where Republican-sponsored education legislation from school choice reform to parental rights bills have consistently dominated state legislative sessions, unions have pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into certain Republican candidates’ state legislative primaries.

For example, between 2018 and 2024, the Pennsylvania State Teachers Association has contributed $887,854 to Republican state legislative primaries in Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State Education Association has donated $97,000 to Rep. Thomas Mehaffie III, R-Dauphin, and is his second biggest donor. He has received $15,000 so far in 2024 and got $19,000 in 2022 and $62,000 in 2020.

The Ohio Education Association donated $681,740 to Republicans in state legislative primary races between 2018 and 2024. 

Since 2018, the Indiana State Teachers Association has contributed $230,100 to Republican state legislative primaries in Indiana. After incumbent Edward Clere, R-New Albany, was challenged by New Albany anti-union candidate Jackie Bright Grubbs, Clere received a $30,000 donation from the Indiana Political Action Committee for Education, which is funded by the Indiana State Teachers Association.

State Sen. Ron Alting, R-Lafayette, who has received $42,500 from the Indiana State Teachers Association since 2018, has voted against the Senate’s Republican majority on more education and parental rights bills than any other currently serving Republican state senator.

Neither Alting nor Clere responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by time of publication, but the story will be updated if they do.

The two largest Texas teachers unions, the Texas State Teachers Association and the Texas Federation of Teachers, and at least two associated PACs have spent $343,239 on Republican primaries between 2018 and 2024.

Zeph Capo, president of the Texas Federation of Teachers, urged teachers in a Mar. 1 letter to vote for 16 Texas House GOP incumbents who have taken union donations and “stood against Gov. [Greg] Abbott’s voucher push last year.” “Voucher” refers to school choice vouchers that allow students to take part of the public funding that would have been spent on them in public schools and use it for private, charter, or homeschool expenses. 

Capo described the GOP primary challengers as “well-monied.” Sixteen House incumbents have received between $3,000 and $25,000 for their primaries so far this year from various PACs and union-associated organizations.

Corey DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children, an organization that advocates for school choice, posted on X that the Texas Federation of Teachers has endorsed 77 candidates in 2024 but has not openly endorsed any Republican candidates, despite contributing to GOP campaigns via the Defend Rural Texas PAC and the Texas AFT Committee on Political Education.

In a statement to The Daily Signal, DeAngelis argued that teachers unions aren’t openly documenting their donations to Republicans because such endorsements are a “kiss of death”:

The Texas affiliate of Randi Weingarten’s teachers union [the American Federation of Teachers] publicly endorsed a bunch of House Republicans in 2022. But this year, although they made 77 public endorsements, none of them were Republicans.

Instead, leaked evidence reveals they are supporting ‘Republicans’ in the primaries who voted against school choice in more private ways, including phone-banking and funding a PAC that contributes to some of them. The radical leftist teachers union is trying to hide their support because they know their public endorsement has become the political kiss of death for Republicans.

The Illinois Education Association spent the second-highest amount on Republican state legislative primaries, only behind Alabama. Between 2018 and 2024, the association spent $2,650,315 on Republican candidates.

A report from public radio station WGLT in Illinois reports that at least $250,000 of this sum is dedicated to “unseating two conservative House Freedom Caucus members in southeastern Illinois,” state Reps. Adam Niemerg, R-Dieterich, and Blaine Wilhour, R-Beecher City.

Dick Simpson, a former Chicago alderman and professor at the University of Chicago, told WGLT that this move would be “to the advantage of the unions to try and get more moderate Republicans.”

“Even if they’re not going to vote with [the unions] 100% of the time,” Simpson said, “at least their more vocal opponents will be out of the legislature.”

Niemerg’s primary opponent, Jim Acklin, is neither a stranger to state representative primaries nor to teachers union donations. In 2016, Acklin received $63,900 from the Illinois Education Association but lost the primary for Illinois’ House District 102.

Acklin did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by time of publication, but the story will be updated if he does.

Illinois isn’t the only state where teachers union donations don’t always guarantee a victory. In 2022, the Tennessee Educators Association donated at least $3,000 to 21 Republicans in primaries for the state Senate and House. Nine of those lost their primaries, including the two GOP candidates on whom the Tennessee Educators Association spent the most: Gabriel Fancher and Donnie Hall—both of whom received $12,700 each.

Since 2018, the Tennessee Educators Association has donated $480,597 to Republican primaries in Tennessee.

In some states, teachers unions have thrown so much money into the GOP primary system that they’ve outspent all other Republican donors.

A 2023 report from the Alabama Policy Institute showed that the Alabama Education Association was the largest contributor to Republican state legislative candidates in the 2022-23 election cycle, spending $1,557,500 on Republican House and Senate campaigns. Since 2018, the Alabama Education Association has donated a total of $3,270,938 to Alabama Republicans—the most of any teachers union in the country.

The union has given at least $2.4 million to candidates for the Alabama House of Representatives, and $1.51 million to candidates for the Alabama State Senate in the last decade.

Republicans have a supermajority in the Alabama state Legislature, with 73 of the 105 seats in the Alabama House and 27 of the 35 seats in the Alabama Senate. According to an article from Alabama Today, only 18 Republican representatives and seven senators refused the teachers unions’ donations.

Becky Pringle, president of the NEA, prematurely claimed responsibility for the defeat of an expanded school choice bill in Alabama in 2023 in an early January email to all NEA members, though a version of the bill since passed on Feb. 28. All six of the Republicans who voted with Democrats against the bill received between $5,000 and $25,000 in primary donations from the Alabama Education Association.

Jason Bedrick of The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy told The Daily Signal that these union trends are an obvious and desperate move:

It’s obvious what’s going on here: The unions are terrified that parents are clamoring for more education choice, so they’re doing everything they can to stop it. In red states, or even red areas of blue states, that means supporting candidates who might disagree with them on other issues but who can be relied upon to oppose policies that expand education freedom for families.

(The Daily Signal is Heritage’s news and commentary outlet.) 

While the AFT and NEA still only endorse Democrat candidates in official emails, letters, and voting guides, their donations, and those of their state affiliates, continue to flow into Republican state legislative primaries around the nation at an increasing pace.

Neither the AFT nor NEA responded to a request for comment from The Daily Signal by time of publication.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected], and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

As Twitchy readers know, earlier this morning SCOTUS ruled unanimously in Trump’s favor so states cannot remove him from the ballot. Unless you are a complete moron with zero understanding of the Constitution this was a big ol’ ‘Duh’ moment …

In other words, complete morons with zero understanding of the Constitution are losing their minds over the SCOTUS decision. 

Here are some of the ‘best’:

I am disappointed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision stripping states of the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for federal candidates. Colorado should be able to bar oath-breaking insurrections from our ballot.

— Jena Griswold (@JenaGriswold) March 4, 2024

Jena is disappointed.

Boo hoo.

We’re sure SCOTUS is super worried about disappointing her.

For all you #MAGAMorons doing the whole “9-0 Trump won so Liberals are mad” trend. We democrats don’t really care if he’s on the ballot or not. Either way, We’re just going to kick his and your ass*s again in November, & those are the facts, bit**es😘 pic.twitter.com/Ny17dMRl3e

— Carrie (@fmacgirl1) March 4, 2024

She cares SO LITTLE she’s posting about it.

Alrighty then.

“But States Rights” 🙃

— Luke Zaleski (@ZaleskiLuke) March 4, 2024

Tell us you don’t understand States’ Rights without telling us you don’t understand States’ Rights.

Insurrection sympathizer Clarence Thomas ruled that insurrectionist Donald Trump can remain on the ballot in 2024. That should be the headline.

— Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) March 4, 2024

So does that make Sotomayor and Kagen insurrectionists?

Holy Hell these people are stupid.

Congress should enforce Section 3 now and pass a law that says: “All persons who have engaged in insurrection against the United States are hereby disqualified from holding elected federal office under the Constitution.”

This sadly may not be the last time this will matter.

— Heath Mayo (@HeathMayo) March 4, 2024

*sigh*

The Supreme Court made it virtually impossible to keep an insurrectionist presidential candidate off the ballot and if he wins, he can just kill Congress and the Supreme Court so he can’t be removed from office and pardon himself so he can’t be charged criminally.

Suicide pact.

— I Smoked $364M Trump Bucks (@BlackKnight10k) March 4, 2024

Woof.

Breaking 🚨🚨🚨
Supreme Court rules 9-0 Trump can remain on Colorado ballot and lose in November as planned. pic.twitter.com/FOsdYcwKfG

— Caballero 🏹 (@HughAkston0) March 4, 2024

So angry.

And speaking of angry … 

The Supreme Court has betrayed democracy. Its members including Jackson, Kagan and Sotomayor have proved themselves inept at reading comprehension. And collectively the “court” has shown itself to be corrupt and illegitimate.

It must be dissolved.

— Keith Olbermann⌚️ (@KeithOlbermann) March 4, 2024

None of them seem to be able to deal with the fact that this was a unanimous ruling.

Even their beloved ‘lefty’ justices voted in Trump’s favor.

*POPCORN*

Welp Trump is going to end up being President for eternity, SCOTUS will do whatever he wants pic.twitter.com/WfZuY61OrD

— 🫡🏴 (@corncommunist) March 4, 2024

Is SCOTUS deliberately creating a legal pathway to let Trump be president for life by invalidating the self-execution of the two-term limit?

— MRF 🏳️‍🌈 (@mliles329) March 4, 2024

REEEEE. All the REEEEEE.

SCOTUS ruled Colorado can’t remove Trump from the ballot.

So now Reddit accuses the entire SCOTUS of being “traitors” and calls for their execution. pic.twitter.com/PSe0MufTa7

— Reddit Lies (@reddit_lies) March 4, 2024

YIKES.

What enforcement mechanism is available to SCOTUS ???
What might happen if a State like Colorado simply printed all their ballots without Trump’s name on them ??

— baffled (@farrellbruce2) March 4, 2024

Cripes.

What is wrong with these people? Wait, don’t answer that.

Voters decided they didn’t want Trump as President.
Trump didn’t like what they decided, so he tried to overthrow the government.
The Constitution says that when you do that, you can’t run for President again.
SCOTUS ignored the Constitution to restore him to the ballot.

— UJ_roc (@UJ_roc) March 4, 2024

What did Reagan say about Democrats? How so much of what they know is wrong? Something like that.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court restores Trump to ballot, rejecting state attempts to hold him accountable for attack on Capitol in 2021.

— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) March 4, 2024

They’re such melodramatic little things, you know?

The Supreme Court is a captured partisan tool for the right. It has no legitimacy, and no one on the left should pretend it does. Colorado should simply ignore it and keep that traitor off the ballot, regardless of what the rightwing activists on the “court” has to say about it.

— Saturday (@Sinonsabbath) March 4, 2024

Sotomayor and Kagen are ‘partisan tools for the Right’?

Since when?

What’s more disappointing is that it was a 9-0 opinion. Even the democratic leaning judges didn’t dissent. Doesn’t matter though. Trump won’t win in November. He doesn’t have the support to do so other than his MAGA base. I’m not as nervous as I was in 2016 and 2020.

— Gavin Noble (@NobleGavinMr) March 4, 2024

Who’s he trying to convince?

I am saddened by the Supreme Court Injustices to allow Trump to remain on the ballot.. Lest we forget.. He who laughs last .. Laughs the loudest and longest..Here’s the deal.. Trump doesn’t have the numbers to win a general election.

— Kenneth j labrie (@Kennethjlabrie2) March 4, 2024

They’re really not handling this well. Like, at all.

Why on EARTH did the Democrat Justices agree to keep a deadly Insurrectionist on the ballot? Why do they go out of their way to overturn a case brought to Colorado by REPUBLICANS?

At the risk of appearing “non-partisan” — the Democratic Justices have catered to MAGA terrorists

— Dash Dobrofsky (@DashDobrofsky) March 4, 2024

Or, you know, adhered to the Constitution.

Crazy, we know.

There is no more Supreme Court anymore, most of them are compromised, taking gifts and not reporting them, getting their HUGE bills paid off before they get on the SCOTUS, lying to get on the Scotus, they’re almost as big a joke as DJT.

— Laurie Anne NO DM’s PLEASE (@LaurieWalski) March 4, 2024

Especially Sotomayor.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

We will continue to gather more meltdowns and update this piece, so stay tuned.

======================================================================

Related:

THIS –> John Fetterman Calls Down the THUNDER on Hamas in Kick-BUTT Thread and Lefties Just Can’t DEEEAL

Rolling Stone TORCHED for ‘Exclusive’ Hit Piece on Trump, Claiming His White House Was ‘Awash in Speed’

Laken Riley’s Mother Releases First Public Statement After Her Daughter’s Death at the Hands of Illegal

Mayorkas in SPIN-Mode About Illegals Even Refusing to Say Laken Riley’s Name (Bill Melugin Has RECEIPTS)

Went Woke, Now They’re Going BROKE: CNN Looking to Cut Costs – May Cut EXPENSIVE (Annoying) Pundits

======================================================================

Editor’s Note: Hi there. I know it’s been some time since we changed this up but changing it up now to see if any of you read this far. How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? Also, if you are reading this far please sign up for Twitchy VIP and help us continue bringing you the truth, especially the truth Biden and his Big Tech goons don’t want us sharing.

Today the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Anderson. The majority, in a per curiam opinion, makes four primary moves.

First, the Court agrees with Chief Justice Chase’s opinion in Griffin’s Case (1869) that Congress must establish the procedures to enforce Section 3:

It is therefore necessary, as Chief Justice Chase concluded and the Colorado Supreme Court itself recognized, to “‘ascertain[] what particular individuals are embraced'” by the provision. App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a (quoting Griffin’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 7, 26 (No. 5,815) (CC Va. 1869) (Chase, Circuit Justice)). Chase went on to explain that “[t]o accomplish this ascertainment and ensure effective results, proceedings, evidence, decisions, and enforcements of decisions, more or less formal, are indispensable.” Id., at 26.

Second, the States have the reserved power to disqualify state officials, but States have no power to disqualify federal positions:

We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency. . . .  Although the Fourteenth Amendment restricts state power, nothing in it plainly withdraws from the States this traditional authority. And after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, States used this authority to disqualify state officers in accordance with state statutes. See, e.g., Worthy v. Barrett, 63 N. C. 199, 200, 204 (1869) (elected county sheriff); State ex rel. Sandlin v. Watkins, 21 La. Ann. 631, 631–633 (1869 )(state judge). Such power over governance, however, does not extend to federal officeholders and candidates.

Third, legislation to enforce Section 3 must satisfy the “congruence and proportionality” test from City of Boerne v. Flores. We think the Court is suggesting that the Electoral Count Reform Act does not meet this test. And the Court suggested that Section 2383 would be valid enforcement legislation.

Any congressional legislation enforcing Section 3 must, like the Enforcement Act of 1870 and §2383, reflect “congruence and proportionality” between preventing or remedying that conduct “and the means adopted to that end.” City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 520. Neither we nor the respondents are aware of any other legislation by Congress to enforce Section 3. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 123.

Fourth, under Anderson v. Celebrezze, there are distinct interests in having a uniform system for electing the President. 

Finally, state enforcement of Section 3 with respect to the Presidency would raise heightened concerns. “[I]n the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest.” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 794–795 (1983) (footnote omitted). But state-by-state resolution of the question whether Section 3 bars a particular candidate for President from serving would be quite unlikely to yield a uniform answer consistent with the basic principle that “the President . . . represent[s] all the voters in the Nation.” Id., at 795 (emphasis added). Conflicting state outcomes concerning the same candidate could result not just from differing views of the merits, but from variations in state law governing the proceedings that are necessary to make Section 3 disqualification determinations.

There is much more to say about this case. Here we offer several preliminary observations.

First, the Court agrees with Chief Justice Chase’s decision in Griffin’s Case. Indeed, the Court arguably amplifies Chase’s reasoning. From the very beginning, we have led off with Chase’s opinion. We wrote about it in the New York Times regarding Madison Cawthorn. It was the lead argument in our article, Sweeping and Forcing. And it was Roman Numeral I in every amicus brief we filed. All the efforts by legal professors, academics in other fields, and others to attack Chase and his credibility have failed. The most that the Sotomayor-Kagan-Jackson opinion can summon to criticize Chase was to point out that Trump’s counsel, Jonathan Mitchell, “distanced himself from fully embracing” Griffin’s Case. (Blackman addressed Mitchell’s discussion of Chase and Griffin’s Case here.) Chase and his legal craftsmanship has been again vindicated, as it has been on many occasions in the past. 

Second, the Court agreed with our position that state positions stand in a different position than federal positions. In Sweeping and Forcing, we argued that Worthy v. Barrett and Sandlin v. Watkins can be explained as enforcing Section 3 against state officials. Law professors roundly rejected this distinction. Indeed, Trump’s own counsel resisted this argument. Justice Barrett asked Mitchell, “Why don’t you have an argument that the Constitution of its own force, that Section 3 of its own force, preempts the state’s ability not necessarily, I think, not, to enforce Section 3 against its own officers but against federal officers, like in a Tarble’s Case kind of way.” Mitchell responded, “there could also be an argument that’s more limited. You’re suggesting there may be a barrier under the Constitution to a state legislating an enforcement mechanism for Section 3 specific to federal officers.” Justice Barrett responded incredulously: “Well, why aren’t you making those arguments?” (Blackman discussed that colloquy here.) In fact, it was this argument carried the day. 

Third, none of the Justices addressed the “office” and “officer”-related arguments. Perhaps in several decades, when the papers are released, we will gain some insights into how this opinion came together in its final form. Discussions of the Constitution’s and Section 3’s “office”- and “officer”-language led to probing questioning by Justices Jackson and Gorsuch during oral argument. 

Fourth, the various opinions did not cite any law review articles, amicus briefs, blog posts, or social media. But it was decided, after briefing and after oral argument. In due time, we can explore how so many, perhaps a majority of legal academics, got this case so very wrong.

A beat-up old Ford pickup, in exhausted, rust-patched gray, waited in the alley behind the neatly manicured back yard of the brick-red pre-fab stack whose ground floor housed Sharon’s Salon. The truck’s passenger-side door, facing Lorinda, said PATRIOT FARM FRESH VEGETABLES. The pickup bed was loaded with crates of potatoes, carrots, and what Lorinda thought looked like beets. The engine grumbled, the exhaust pipe spewed smoke, the whole thing shuddered and rattled. A big automatic weapon hung on a rack outside the back window of the cab. The dark-haired young man in the passenger seat waved out the window for Lorinda to hurry up. As she approached, he opened the door, jumped out, and gestured with both hands toward the seat. 

No sooner had she slid in across the ripped brown vinyl than he piled in next to her and slammed the door. She looked at the driver: another young man, late twenties, early thirties, bigger than the other one, with longish dirty-blond hair and a full beard. Without looking at her, he threw the truck into gear, drove quickly down the alley, and said, “She’s onboard.” 

“Hi,” she said, looking from one to the other. “I’m Lorinda Moon.” 

The dark-haired one shushed her, then whispered, “He’s getting an update.” Tapping the side of his head: “Earpiece.” 

“Right,” said the driver. “See you in ten or fifteen.” Then, not looking at Lorinda: “Do you have a ­­­­phone on you?”

“Me? No. I got rid of it.”

“Good. You need a reset?” said the driver, turning out of the alley onto a small street, still not looking at her.

“Reset?” 

“Abortion,” said the dark-haired one. 

“Reset,” she said. “That’s good. Yeah, I need a reset. Where are we going?”

“Out of here,” said the dark-haired one.

“Out of Little Harlem?”

“Out of the CCSA,” the driver said.

Lorinda didn’t know whether or not he was kidding. “Um … really?”

“What did you expect?”

It was a good question. “That … I don’t know … That we’d find somebody else to do the … reset.”

“Look,” said the dark-haired one. “I don’t think you understand what’s happening. You’re looking for an abortion. And you attacked a Federal official. They’re coming after you. Even if we knew of another doctor —”

“Which we fucking don’t,” the driver huffed.

 “Right. I mean, we couldn’t just cruise on over to his — or her — place. They’re going to be looking for this truck pretty soon. Our job is to get you out of the country.”

For a few moments Lorinda said nothing. She tried to grasp the enormity of the situation, but felt a sort of emotional force field keeping her from it. Hitting that woman back at the hospital — that had been self-defense! Hadn’t it? She had been about to be taken into custody and it wasn’t fair. It was a violent act, but the woman had been mean to her. Lorinda was maybe sorry she did it — or, okay, she wasn’t sorry. But it didn’t mean she was a criminal. And it sure didn’t mean she had to flee the entire country. How would she be able to come back? Or did they mean forever? And never see her parents or brother again? It was unimaginable. This whole thing had spun out of control.

“We have to go back,” she said.

“Forget it,” the driver said.

“I can’t just leave the country.”

“Listen,” the dark-haired one said patiently. “If you insist on going back, we’ll drop you off somewhere and we’ll disappear. They’ll pick you up off the street, or when you try to go home. You’ll be arrested and tried for assaulting a government agent. You’ll be found guilty. They’ll put you in a breeding center until your baby is born, and then they’ll put you in jail. Sound good?”

“How do you know all this?”

“Because,” the driver sneered, “this is what we do. We’ve seen that happen. We’re not going through what we’re about to go through if you’re not a hundred percent committed to it.”

“What do you mean, you’ve done this before. Who are you guys?”

“I’m Ren,” said the dark-haired one. “He’s Stimpy.”

“Those are your names?”

“Not our real names,” said Ren. 

“Which are?”

“Don’t worry about it,” said Stimpy, maneuvering the truck down one narrow Little Harlem street after another. The place was endless. Lorinda stewed, realizing that with every second, with every turn onto a new street, she was in fact committing to this overwhelming plan.

 Finally, the truck left Little Harlem, exiting from a service accessway onto a desolate street somewhere in, or outside, Austin. 

“But this is all wrong,” Lorinda said. It sounded lame even to her. “I’m a nice person! I work as a bartender at PumpJack’s Perfecton. In fact, I’m being promoted to Head of Bartending Operations.”

“Not anymore,” Stimpy said, as though lecturing a child. Then: “You’re not being promoted, you’re not going back to Perfecton. If you’re really lucky you’ll never have to come back to this shithole country.” His attention flickered away from her as he listened to his earpiece. “Yo, what? Gotcha,” he said, sounding almost friendly. “See you in a few.”

Lorinda felt somehow under attack. So she tried to raise a feeble defense. “If it’s so awful, why are you here?”

Neither man replied. Before she had time to pose a follow-up question, the truck turned into the nearly empty parking lot of an abandoned shopping mall. Stimpy slowed the truck to a crawl to avoid the larger cracks and potholes in the pavement. After a couple of minutes he parked about a dozen slots back from a defunct Skates ‘N Sneakers ‘N Beyond store. Three obese men rode their mobility scooters on the sidewalk in front of the corpse of the store. Stimpy got out and walked briskly toward the building. Ren opened his door, grabbed the red wig from Lorinda’s lap, jumped out, and gestured for Lorinda to follow.

“Why is he so mean to me?” she said softly as she caught up to him. 

“He’s not really mean. He’s just … serious. And paranoid. And, okay, a little fucked up. You’ll like him when you get to know him.”

Lorinda didn’t buy it for a second. 

She must have signaled that, because Ren added, “You’ll see.”

Next to the store, Stimpy ducked into a passageway marked by a barely legible RESTROOMS sign. Ren and Lorinda followed. 

“No cameras in here?” Lorinda asked.

“Not anymore,” said Stimpy over his shoulder. 

Well, at least that was civil, Lorinda thought. 

Down at the end of the corridor were two men — wearing the same jeans and plaid shirts as Stimpy and Ren — and a woman about the same size as Lorinda but a bit older. “Hi, guys,” the woman said, as the men slapped hands with Stimpy and Ren. “Hi, Margaret,” said the woman to Lorinda.

“Sorry,” Lorinda said. “I’m Lorinda.” 

“You’re Margaret until you reach the end of your journey,” said the woman, undoing the belt and popping the snap of the green smock before Lorinda could fend her off. “The wig, please.” Lorinda took off the blond wig and passed it to her. The woman slipped it over her own head and looked at her companions. “So?”

One of the men she was with — Lorinda realized that he was not only dressed the same but was roughly the same size as Stimpy, with similar hair and beard — reached out and adjusted it slightly. “Not too bad,” said Stimpy 2.

The other man, who looked a lot like Ren, tossed Ren 1 some bunched-up fabric that, unfolded, turned out to be three shirts with collars. Ren gave the smallest, a light blue one, to Lorinda, who put it on and buttoned it up. Ren and Stimpy did the same with theirs, which were both white. 

“Wig?” said the woman. Ren handed her the red wig. Lorinda took off the oversized sunglasses as the woman eased the wig over her head and straightened it out. Lorinda started to put the glasses back on. “Uh-uh,” said the woman, holding out her hand, taking the glasses from Lorinda, and putting them on herself. She stepped out of the way as Stimpy 2 moved in and took a picture of Lorinda’s face with some kind of small computer she’d never seen before. Twenty seconds later the device spit out a plastic Citizen Card bearing the name Margaret Melrose under Lorinda’s picture. “There’s a scanner in the car,” the woman said to Stimpy. “Make sure she reads that right away so she knows who she is. And,” turning to Lorinda, “I’ll need your old card.”

“My real card?” 

“That’s right,” said the woman. “It can only get you in trouble now.”

Lorinda opened her purse. “What’s that?” the woman asked. Lorinda showed her the little pink gun. The woman looked vexed and shook her head as though in disappointment. “That’s way too small.” She looked at Stimpy. “She needs a bigger gun.” 

“Everyone says that,” Lorinda said as she took out her Citizen Card and held it out to the woman. “This really makes me nervous.”

“That’s the last thing you should be nervous about,” said Stimpy. “What you should be nervous about is —”

“Leave her alone,” Ren said softly. Ren 2 gave Lorinda another pair of sunglasses, small and round with mirrored lenses. Lorinda put them on. The world looked blue. She wondered if she’d ever get used to seeing the world in blue. 

“Good luck, Margaret,” the woman said, handing Stimpy a car key. “It’s a brown four-door Zhiguli Buckshot. Two stores down, five parking spots out.” 

“Not another piece of shit Zhiguli,” said Ren, good-naturedly.

“We’ll get you a Mercedes Q-Class next time,” the woman said.

“I’m counting on it,” Ren grinned. 

“All right. You guys go first.”

Stimpy gave a raised fist salute and left. Ren said, “Thanks, guys. See you at the farm,” then took Lorinda’s arm and followed Stimpy. They walked past Skates ‘N Sneakers, past what was once a jewelry store, and stepped off the curb and into the parking lot as they passed the next broken-down store, which had a DIGITAL WORLD sign hanging at an angle behind the cracked plate-glass window. Lorinda couldn’t take her eyes off the dozen or so worn-out looking old men and women who were aimlessly riffling through two tables of old clothes and broken-down appliances in front of the ex-computer store. She couldn’t tell if they were buying or selling, or both, or if they were just there because they had no other place to be. The world is a weird place outside Perfecton, she thought.

We didn’t pay the authors: You do. Make us look good, if you like it. Hit up the authors with a one-time or recurring donation!

Tip your bartenders we mean authors!

PREVIOUSLY in THE SPLIT!

Chapter One. In which we meet our heroine and her dainty little gun.

Chapter Two. In which Lorinda demonstrates her bartending virtuosity.

Chapter Three. In which our heroine receives a promotion and prepares to celebrate.

Chapter Four. In which our heroine proves herself an immoral citizen of the CCSA.

Chapter Five. In which our heroine goes to church.

Chapter Six. In which Lorinda contemplates her future, ignores Pastor Doug, and gets something unexpected from Emmie.

Chapter Seven. In which Lorinda learns something that threatens her big dream.

Chapter Eight. In which our heroine freaks out.

Chapter Nine. In which our heroine says the forbidden word as an unwelcome visitor arrives.

Chapter Ten. In which two unpleasant men perturb our heroine.

Chapter Eleven. In which our heroine seems to have found a solution to her problem.

Chapter Twelve. In which that black truck follows our heroine all the way to Austin.

Chapter Thirteen. In which Lorinda lashes out.

Chapter Fourteen. In which our heroine gets a taste of life in the big city.

Chapter Fifteen. In which our heroine meets a fellow bartender and has a drink.

Chapter Sixteen. In which Lorinda once again takes a swing with her little pink gun.

Chapter Seventeen. In which our heroine prepares to escape.

Get THE SPLIT in your inbox every Sunday! Subscribe for free or $$$, either way, over at THE SPLIT!

This is a copy of Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions’ Liz Kendall’s speech as written (rather than delivered) for an event at the think tank Demos on Monday.

This week the Tories’ seventh Chancellor gives his second budget; the last before the general election.

Speculation swirls about what Jeremy Hunt will say and whether it will appease his divided, chaotic party. But whatever Mr Hunt announces, it won’t make up for 14 years of economic failure under this Conservative government.

They claim the economy has turned a corner, but they’ve driven it into a dead end.  Rishi’s recession; with GDP per capita down in every quarter of the last year.

Our economy smaller now than when the Prime Minister first entered Downing Street. The biggest hit to living standards on record. The highest tax burden for 70 years.

More foodbanks than police stations. Public services on their knees.

People in this country don’t need statistics to tell them the state we are in or that they’re paying more but getting less. And as Rachel Reeves, Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, has said: we know what led us here.

Austerity choking off investment. Brexit without a plan. A disastrous mini budget that sent interest rates soaring and mortgages rocketing. With ordinary people paying the price for an ideological gamble, which swathes of Tory MPs still believe in.

Our employment rate’s not back at pre-pandemic levels

But there is another reason why the Tories have failed on the economy, and that’s because they have failed on work.

The official unemployment rate is low. But this isn’t because there’s a record high in the number of people in work. We are the only country in the G7 whose employment rate hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels.

The reality is, increasing numbers of people are leaving the labour market and no longer even looking for work.  This Parliament has seen the highest increase in economic inactivity for 40 years.

And the number of people out of work because of long term sickness is at an all-time high. 2.8 million people not in work because of poor health.

The over 50s: mostly women, struggling with bad hips, knees and joints; often caring for elderly parents at the same time. Young people with mental health problems; many lacking basic qualifications.

With all these problems far worse in Northern towns and cities, which the Conservatives promised to ‘level up’ but have once again born the brunt of their economic failure.  In places like Blackburn, Sunderland, Middlesborough and Hull, including these ‘hidden unemployed’ takes the official unemployment rate from 5 to 20 per cent.

The government is wasting the hidden unemployed’s potential

This is unacceptable. And it is such an appalling waste.

It’s a waste of individual potential, as hundreds of thousands of people who want to work are written off and denied help to get back on their feet. It’s a waste for British businesses, who are desperate to recruit and who need the talents of everyone in our country in order to grow and succeed.

And it’s a waste of taxpayers’ money too, with health related worklessness now costing an extra £16 billion a year, just since the pandemic. For all the Tory claims about being tough on benefits, over the next five years there will be 600,000 more people on incapacity and disability benefits and these benefits will cost an extra £33 billion.

That’s more than our day-to-day expenditure on defence. The Office for Budget Responsibility says the sustained rise in health-related worklessness is holding back growth and living standards while putting ever greater pressure on the public finances.

Yet all we get from the Tories is more of the same. More half-baked programmes which fail to tackle the root causes of the problem.  More re-hashed, re-announced schemes.

And more of the same empty rhetoric on benefits when their failure to get to grips with welfare is there for all to see. But this Tory future isn’t inevitable.

We’ll follow in Attlee’s, Wilson’s and Blair’s footsteps

We can choose a different path.  And under a Labour government, we will.

A path that follows in the footsteps of the great reforming Labour governments before us: Attlee, Wilson and Blair. Labour governments who championed full employment and acted to bring it about.

They understood the key to increasing growth and opportunity – and tackling poverty and inequality – is creating more well-paid jobs, supporting more people into employment and improving the quality of work too.

I have always believed the benefits of work go beyond a payslip. Having a job and providing for your family gives millions of people across Britain a sense of dignity and self-respect.

Good work is good for mental health. Work can bring pride, fulfilment and purpose. And for millions of women, freedom and independence too.

The Labour party was founded by working people, for working people.  And that core belief – that Labour is the party of work – is at the heart of Keir Starmer’s changed Labour party today.

Jobcentres should do what they say on the tin

The truth is for the last 14 years, the overwhelming focus of the Department for Work and Pensions – and the succession of Tory ministers leading it – has been on benefits and the creation of Universal Credit.

Under Labour, the Department of Work and Pensions, and Job Centres will do what they say on the tin. We will have a relentless focus on helping more people get work, and get on at work. And on making workplaces healthier and more productive places to be.

Labour’s back to work plan is built on investment and rooted in reform. It starts by tackling the root causes of worklessness, so no one is excluded from the opportunity and security than comes from having a good job.

A healthy nation is critical to a healthy economy. They are two sides of the same coin. So we will drive down waits for NHS treatment, creating two million more operations, scans and appointments and recruiting 8,500 more mental health workers, paid for by closing unfair tax loopholes.

We’ll ensure back to work support is tailored to individual and local needs.  Overhauling Job centres to end the tick box culture and devolving employment support to local areas. Because the man – or even woman – in Whitehall can never know what’s best for Leicester, Liverpool and Leeds.

We’ll create more good jobs in every part of the country, in clean energy and through our modern industrial strategy.

And we’ll improve the quality of work and make work pay with a genuine living wage, banning exploitative zero hours contracts, and strengthening rights to flexible working that are vital to family life.

Our five-point plan for young people with 1 in 8 not in education, employment or training

I’ll say more about our back to work plans for the over 50s in the coming weeks, but today I want to focus on our offer for young people.

Last month, we learnt over 850,000 young people aged 24 and under are not in education, employment or training. That’s 1 in 8 of all our young people.

More than 200,000 are workless due to ill health. A number that has doubled over the last decade.  As the Resolution Foundation has shown, much of this is driven by poor mental health and low qualifications.

When half of all mental health problems start before 14 years old, we have got to intervene earlier.  So Labour will provide specialist mental health support in every school and walk in access in every community, tackling one of the key drivers of worklessness before it takes hold.

Second, we will deliver 1,000 new careers advisers in schools underpinned by good quality work experience, so young people leave school ready for work and ready for life.

Third, we will overhaul skills with new Technical Excellence Colleges and by reforming the Tories failed apprentice levy which has seen apprenticeship starts for young people fall by a third. Our new Growth and Skills levy will help young people get the skills they need, including offering a second chance at basic skills and pre-apprenticeship training if they didn’t get the right qualifications at school.

Fourth, we will provide new employment advisers for young people in our Young Futures hubs, to offer joined-up, specialist help and support.  Because the old, one size fits all approach won’t cut the mustard when it comes to tackling this problem.

And we will overhaul Access to Work for young disabled people, so they know what equipment, adaptations or personal support they’ll get before they start work – giving them the confidence to take the plunge.

There can be no option of a life on benefits

This is our commitment to young people. We value you. You are important.

We will invest in you and help you build a better future, with all the chances and choices this brings. But in return for these new opportunities, you will have a responsibility to take up the work or training that’s on offer.

Under our changed Labour party, if you can work there will be no option of a life on benefits.  Not just because the British people believe rights should go hand in hand with responsibilities.

But because being unemployed or lacking basic qualifications when you’re young can harm your job prospects and wages for the rest of your life. This isn’t good enough for young people or for our country.

Unlike the Tories, Labour will not let a generation of young people go off track before they’ve even begun.

Our goal is every young person earning or learning, with help to build their skills and careers, and to manage and improve their health. This is how we will grow the economy, transform opportunity and give everyone a stake in our country’s success.

A plan to get Britain building, growing and working again

This year, the British people face a choice. Another 5 years under Rishi Sunak: with more stagnation, low growth, high costs and worklessness – against the backdrop of never-ending Tory psychodrama.

Or a future with Keir Starmer: with a long-term plan to get Britain building again, get Britain growing again and get Britain working again.

Founded on the rock of economic stability, led by a changed and united Labour party.  The public know it is time for change.  Labour stands ready to deliver.

 

When Ethan Block heard that Andy Kim was running for Senate, he got to work. Over winter break, the Rutgers University senior launched a campus group to spread the word about the low-profile congressman taking on Bob Mendendez, the longtime Democratic senator who’d just been indicted for allegedly accepting bribes of gold bars and cash-stuffed envelopes. By February, Block’s new group—RU For Andy—boasted a roster of about 40 students volunteering to take part in canvassing and voter education.

To Block, Kim wasn’t just battling one disgraced incumbent—he was also challenging the iron grip of New Jersey’s political ruling class, which, having finally been forced to abandon Menendez, had now thrown its weight behind a candidate from its own ranks: the governor’s wife. Although Tammy Murphy trailed Kim by double digits in the polls, she was crowned the presumptive frontrunner almost as soon as she entered the race.

But swapping an indicted politician for the first lady, Block argues, just felt like “replacing corruption for nepotism.” And “we’re not looking for either one of those things.” 

At first, Kim probably wouldn’t strike most people as the kind of candidate who would energize young voters like Block. The 41-year-old, three-term congressman from South Jersey casts himself as a humble civil servant who believes in “customer service governance.” He famously cleaned up trash in the Rotunda after rioters stormed the Capitol. He speaks about filibuster reform and prescription drug affordability. He’s unafraid of cringey political cliches: “I’m a workhorse, not a show horse,” is a campaign mantra.

Throughout his political career, Kim has been a pretty mainstream Democrat. For years, he served as a national security staffer in the Obama White House. He flipped his pro-Trump House district in 2018 by defending Obamacare, but he stopped short of embracing Medicare for All. He’s in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but as many of his fellow members were pushing for the Green New Deal, Kim considered the legislation a “pie in the sky.” Recently, amid a growing outcry against the war in Gaza, Kim has called on lawmakers to send more humanitarian aid but hasn’t signed on to resolutions demanding a ceasefire.

Yet Kim has become a rising star among many young voters, who say his campaign does in fact pose a radical vision: that a relative outsider—or at least someone not fully enmeshed in New Jersey’s infamous political machines—could triumph over the system that’s long dominated the state. As their generation stares down existential threats like climate change and gun violence, many argue, the status quo has simply allowed leaders like Menendez to enrich and empower themselves. But if Kim can somehow prevail, then maybe he can help usher in a fairer, more democratic system that will finally put voters first.

“As a New Jerseyan, we’re used to having the party leaders just, like, choose our next senator,” says V Matthew Steinbaum, a 21-year-old student at Northwestern University who hails from New Jersey. But Kim can “break that system,” he believes. “He’s going around showing that it is possible for our state to have someone who is chosen by the people.”

New Jersey’s reputation for corruption and backroom dealing is well deserved. This isn’t even the first set of criminal charges for Menendez, who was indicted for corruption once before, in 2015. But after that case ended in a mistrial, practically every top Democrat in New Jersey fell in line to prop up his 2018 reelection bid, including fellow Sen. Cory Booker and then-governor-elect Phil Murphy, whose wife is now running against Kim for the seat. With their hearty endorsements, Menendez sailed back into the Senate for a third term.

Strong party endorsements offer an outsized electoral advantage in New Jersey’s primaries. Nineteen of the state’s 21 counties design their ballots in an extraordinarily confusing way that tips the scales toward local bigwigs’ favorite candidates. On ballot sheets, party bosses can put their top picks on the county line—a list of candidates endorsed for all seats currently up for election, from county clerk all the way to the presidency. Challengers who lack the bosses’ favor are often kicked to “ballot Siberia,” where they are likely to be ignored by voters.

When Murphy announced her bid in November, it seemed like the machine was churning as usual. Despite never having held elected office—she started out at Goldman Sachs before marrying Phil and taking up board seats at schools and nonprofits—and being a registered Republican until 2014, the first lady quickly locked up dozens of endorsements from state and local Democratic leaders. Come primary day in June, it’s likely that many New Jerseyans will see her name on the coveted county line.

For many young voters, the influence of party bosses has long sucked the oxygen out of elections, making it difficult for them to fight for the changes they desperately want.

Aidan DiMarco, a Rowan University freshman, recalled this frustration when canvassing for a progressive newcomer in his district challenging Rep. Donald Norcross, then a four-term Democratic congressman and brother of one of New Jersey’s biggest power brokers. For DiMarco, this was a chance to elect someone who backed the Green New Deal—or at to least crank up the pressure on other lawmakers. “My generation can’t afford to ignore the climate crisis,” he explains. But he watched in disappointment as top Democrats lined up behind the incumbent as usual. 

“We don’t really have an opportunity to elect people who we see more eye-to-eye with,” says Ryan True, a sophomore at Rowan. Many leaders in New Jersey “are not really liberal, they’re just moderate Democrats or even left-leaning Republicans who just won under the name of Democrat, and they get elected despite any of their challengers,” says True. “And it’s impossible to get more progressive candidates into office.” 

Kim has made ballot reform a key part of his platform. “We don’t see a fair process when it comes to this Senate race,” he said in a debate against Murphy in February. New Jersey, he argued, should join the ranks of every other state and abolish the county line.

The Murphy team shot back. “Congressman Kim has also happily ran on county lines with party support in every single election he’s ever run in,” a spokesperson told Politico. Kim “seems to be of the opinion that when he receives a county line it’s OK, but when someone else does, it’s not.”

In early February, Kim secured a resounding victory in the state’s first county convention in Monmouth, granting him a spot on the line on Murphy’s home turf. He’s since defeated Murphy in two more conventions. Even so, last week he sued the state’s counties—including the counties whose conventions he’d won—in an effort to get a federal judge to bar the use of county lines. 

Aside from the ballot issue, Kim also brings a new vision for cleaning up New Jersey politics in general, argues Nate Howard, a junior at Princeton University.

Howard points to a recent controversy that sparked outrage among many young voters in the state: In January, the New Jersey College Democrats was gearing up to endorse Kim when they received a series of alarming calls from someone connected to the Murphy team, warning them that the move could hurt members’ job prospects. The caller, also a college student, told the New York Times that while she wasn’t asked to pressure the group, some of Murphy’s staff had “wanted to do something to prevent the endorsement.”

It backfired. The College Democrats of America and its New Jersey chapter came out with a ringing endorsement of Kim. A Murphy spokesperson later denied any campaign involvement, telling the Times that the comments “were made by a young person with no connection to our campaign.” The student caller, who worked part-time for the Democratic State Committee, said to the Times she was receiving texts from a Murphy campaign consultant and wanted to alert students to the possible fallout of a Kim endorsement.

But for Howard, who was on one of the calls, the incident exemplified the “kind of dirty machine tactics” that has long throttled the democratic process in New Jersey. “This was exactly why we needed Andy Kim,” he says, so that “there won’t be these types of calls that happen where people are threatened.”

It was “everything that Andy Kim is running against,” says Block. “That we have to play it like it’s House of Cards. That’s not what politics should be.”

Still, other Gen Z voters are skeptical about whether Kim represents a change at all. The congressman’s reluctance to call for a ceasefire in Gaza shows that “he definitely is not as progressive as he advertises himself to be,” argues Gabi Green, a student at Brookdale Community College. “It’s just going to be more of the same crap of just having another blue politician in a blue state.”

On Gaza, Kim has supported a “mutually-agreed upon ceasefire” but has disagreed with calls to halt the fighting while Hamas still holds Israeli hostages captive. For 21-year-old Green, this stance has pushed her towards more left-leaning challengers, like activist Larry Hamm.

Murphy, for her part, has remained vague about her position on Gaza, even raising a questionable theory about the war’s origins: “‘In my opinion,’” she told New York magazine, “‘there’s about four really bad actors in the world’—Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea—‘and this whole thing was instigated as a proxy war in order to distract the West, in order to make sure we weren’t able to focus on Ukraine.’”

With the outcome of Kim’s ballot lawsuit unclear, Murphy’s roster of powerful supporters could still prove pivotal in the race. But at least it’s closer to a real competition, says True. And if that forces candidates to work harder for the youth vote, it’ll be a first step towards “seeing candidates who better represent our ideologies, who better represent the future.”

What do you get if you mix policy and politics, expertise mixed with challenge, with the space to think and ask questions? The answer is probably something like Imagine! Festival of Ideas and Politics, now in its tenth year. Top enterbrainment as the festival strapline phrases it.

Running between Monday 18 and Sunday 24 March, there are a hundred or so films, talks, gigs, walking tours, exhibitions, panels, workshops and theatre shows.

Climate Improvement Districts // Tuesday 19 at noon in the Maldron Hotel // Poor planning decisions are blamed for exacerbating the negative impact of climate change in some urban environments. Andrew Haley will suggest measures which Belfast could adopt, before audience members are invited on a short walking tour of recent nearby work by (event sponsor) Linen Quarter Business Improvement District, such as the rejuvenated Bankmore Square and urban ecology projects like turning a gap site on Great Victoria Street into an ecologial haven with bird habitats. There will also be an opportunity to hear from the Maldron Hotel on their own initiatives, and sample some tea and honey, harvested from the beehives on the roof of the hotel (subject to a good harvest!)

What Does a Peacebuilder Actually Do? // Tuesday 19 at 6.30pm in Accidental Theatre //
A chance to find out from peacebuilders about their work and practice. Expect to hear less about latte-drinking, peace-processing letsgetalongerism and more discussion about the work that is done over years at a grassroots level to encourage and develop better community relations, and insight into the highs and lows. Organised by Shared Future News.

Post-Brexit Futures — Youthful Visions? // Wednesday 20 at 2pm in QUB Canada Room // Brexit has happened. The UK has left the European Union. Yet, the UK is still in Europe. An opportunity for young people to discuss their views on the post-Brexit Europe and their place within it. Many of those involved did not – or could not – vote in the 2016 referendum. Are they content with what the new Europe is doing to address the challenges societies are facing? How do they view their position in this new post-Brexit world? What do they think of Brexit and the Windsor Framework? What do they think of their rights in post-Brexit Europe? Would they welcome greater youth mobility opportunities? Would they like to see more language learning opportunities? What are their visions for Europe and their place within it? Organised by Professor David Phinnemore (European Politics) and Professor Katy Hayward (Political Sociology).

Thursday 21 March is Democracy Day at Imagine! Festival. With events throughout the day in Crescent Arts Centre, you can find out about the achievements and ambitions of participatory budgeting (10am-noon), drop into the Democracy Lounge  (noon-3pm) for the launch of the new Network for Better Democracy and an open space where participants will decide on the day what to investigate, how to unlock democracy by removing barriers for young people to participate in democratic processes (1pm-2pm) with Hattie Andrews (The Politics Project), Tom Brake (Unlock Democracy) and Paul Smyth (Politics in Action), putting the debate around the Union vs unification into perspective with five short talks that explore public opinion and also ask how the debates about Northern Ireland’s constitutional future compare to previous dramatic changes (specifically, German unification), and to round off the day, the art of political speechmaking (5pm-7pm) with five local MPs and MLAs reciting elements of their favourite political speeches (originally made by other politicians!) and discussing the continued importance of speechmaking in the political arena.

I Can’t Believe It’s Not Ireland! – Paddy Cullivan // Thursday 21 at 8pm in The Black Box // Join Paddy on what he promises will be a hilariously insightful journey through the history of partition and the Ireland of the future. Imagine it’s 2032. The people have spoken on both sides of the border and Ireland is a brand new 32-county country. There’s a new flag. A new anthem. There’s even a new capital. As Unionists holiday in the south, discovering the imperial joys of ‘Royal’ Dublin, southerners discover the ancient landscape of Ulster beyond the retail outlets of Newry and Titanic Belfast.

Community Farming: A Catalyst for Change // Friday 22 at 11am in QUB Senate Room // Imagine! might be a Belfast-based festival, but that doesn’t stop it examining agriculture and crop growing. A community farm is a place where people come together to grow and harvest crops, raise animals, and learn about sustainable agriculture. It is a space where people can connect with nature, learn new skills, and build a sense of community. Community farms can provide fresh, locally grown produce to the community and promote healthy eating habits. They can also offer educational programs, workshops, and events that teach people about the importance of sustainable agriculture and the benefits of eating locally grown food. The first ever accelerator programme for community farms in Northern Ireland has just ended. Come and hear about some of the projects with Dr Jonny Hanson (founder of Jubilee Farm). Did I mention that the event includes lunch!

Alice Asks: What are the ethical challenges with AI? // Friday 22 at 2pm in Crescent Arts Centre // Disinformation, misinformation, conspiracy theories and deep fakes … is AI eroding our trust in communications and is it posing a serious threat to our democracy? In this case, Alice isn’t an AI-driven chatbot, but instead is a public relations company organising the event. Be prepared for a controversial and lively debate among the panellists: AI export Niall McKeown (CEO of Ionology), communications professional Martina Quinn (CEO of Alice Public Relations), researcher into extremism and disinformation Ciaran O’Connor (Institute for Strategic Dialogue) chaired by Sarah Travers.

Looming Elections and Political Futures // Friday 22 at 5pm in Europa Hotel // Slugger’s resident election nerd Dr David McCann will be chewing over the upcoming British and Irish general elections, casting an eye towards the forthcoming European election, and stray into the 5 November US elections. He’ll be joined by the Mystic Meg of election predictions Professor Jon Tonge (University of Liverpool), Stratagem political consultancy deputy director Anna Mercer, and the Belfast Telegraph’s Sam McBride. The event is supported by Linen Quarter Business Improvement District and if you’re early there’s a free drink at the bar.

What economic history does the next UK government need to know? // Friday 22 March at 5pm in McHugh’s Bar // If you can’t get a ticket for the Slugger event, can I recommend this one! One of the most informative and entertaining events I attended (and filmed) at the ESRC Social Science Festival last year was organised by this group of academics. It turns out that economic historians are great communicators and can put numbers into perspective. They argue that understanding economic history can be the key to successful government policymaking. At the event, rapid fire presentations by some of Ireland’s top economic historians will explore the concept of government decision making and the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this process. Organised by Dr Chris Colvin for the Centre for Economics, Policy and History (CEPH), and chaired by historian and comedian Dr Andrew Dorman in a pub.

The Ulster Workers’ Strike: 50 Years On // Saturday 23 March at 1pm in Crescent Arts Centre // The Ulster Workers’ Council (UWC) strike was called in May 1974 by unionists and loyalists opposed to the Sunningdale Agreement, which had been signed the previous year and gave a consultative role to the Irish Government. The stoppage ended the prospect of power-sharing for a generation. Introduced by Dr Connal Parr and Dawn Purvis, panellists include Carmel Gates, Jackie McDonald, Jackie Redpath and Sean O’Hare, who share their memories and reflections on the legacy of the strike and what it means in 2024. Connal Parr organised a conference on the UWC’s 40th anniversary: you can still listen back to my recording of the sessions https://sluggerotoole.com/2014/05/22/ulster-workers-council-strike-the-strike-which-brought-down-sunningdale/ in a post from 22 May 2014. The internet never forgets …

Alan Johnson in conversation with Stephen Walker: The Long and Winding Road // Saturday 23 at 8pm in Crescent Arts Centre // Former postman (and later general secretary of the Communications Workers Union), Labour politician and three-time memoirist Alan Johnson will discuss his political career, his views on current political affairs, the long-running Post Office Horizon scandal, and the prospects of a Labour government in the forthcoming general election with former BBC journalist Stephen Walker who recently published a well-received biography of John Hume.

And there are still a couple of tables left at the Imagine! Festival Politics Quiz that rounds off the week’s events in The American Bar at 8pm. £10 will secure a table for maximum four people who think they know their left wing from your right wing? Dominic Doherty will test your knowledge about them ’uns, us wans, and our lovely history in Norn Iron, Northern Ireland, North of Ireland, our wee country, occupied 6 counties, Ulaid etc! The organisers stress that it’s a light-hearted quiz and you don’t have to be expert to take part or have an opinion about the convoluted and always contested politics. Though being a self-appointed expert or being opinionated won’t be a bar to entry!

There’s lots, lots more in the full programme on the Imagine! Belfast festival website. And over on the Alan in Belfast blog, I’ve previewed some of the more overty arty events in the festival.

Budget 1) Hunt “planning another 2p cut in National Insurance contributions”

“Jeremy Hunt is drafting plans for up to £9 billion worth of tax rises and spending reductions in an effort to balance the books and pay for a potential 2p cut in national insurance. The chancellor said on Sunday that he would use the budget to “show a path” in the direction of tax cuts, but stressed that any reductions would have to be “prudent”. Hunt is not expected to cut income tax as he focuses instead on further reductions in national insurance, which is only paid by those in work. Cutting national insurance is cheaper than income tax and will allow Hunt the flexibility for further budget announcements.” – The Times

• • Hunt must show in Budget he has a plan to curb spending and ease tax burden on workers – Leader, The Sun
  • Be bold, Chancellor – Leader, Daily Mail
  • AI and drones in £800m Budget technology package – BBC
  • Chancellor claims free child care plan is “on track” – BBC

• Barnardo’s criticises closure of Household Support Fund – BBC
• Tory right tells Hunt to scrap stamp duty for a prosperous Britain – Daily Telegraph
• Britain can boom. That’s the story the Chancellor must tell – Nick Timothy, Daily Telegraph
• The OBR has become a millstone around the Chancellor’s neck – Leader, Daily Telegraph
• Last-ditch effort to scrap the “tourist tax” – Daily Mail
• Bring back VAT-free shopping for tourists, says Priti Patel – Daily Telegraph
• Hunt has given over £100,000 to local Tory party in bid to retain seat – The Guardian

>Today:

>Yesterday:

Budget 2) But other taxes expected to rise to finance it

“The chancellor has been looking at an “emergency package” of revenue raisers to pay for personal tax cuts, including stealing Labour’s plan to scale back the “non-dom” tax regime, securing between £2bn and £3bn a year. Also on Hunt’s list of potential revenue raisers are an increase in air passenger duty for business travel, an extension of the windfall levy on oil and gas producers, a tax on vapes and abolishing the furnished holiday let regime, according to those close to the Budget process.” – Financial Times

• Business class airfare duty could rise to pay for Budget tax cuts – Daily Telegraph

Budget 3) Bootle: Claims of tax cuts will be smoke and mirrors without lower state spending

“There is a way to generate more scope for tax cuts if the Chancellor announces a tighter squeeze on public spending…Since Covid, believe it or not, the number of civil servants has increased. How can I put this politely? This increase has not been matched by an obvious rise in the quantity or quality of output. If the Government is really serious about getting to grips with Britain’s dire economic predicament it would need to radically reduce marginal tax rates and cut public spending as a share of GDP. Don’t hold your breath.” – Roger Bootle, Daily Telegraph

Police fail to solve a single burglary in half the country’s neighbourhoods

“Police have failed to solve a single burglary in nearly half of all neighbourhoods in England and Wales in the past three years despite pledging to attend the scene of every domestic break-in to boost detection rates. A Telegraph analysis of police data shows that no burglaries were solved in 48 per cent of neighbourhoods – areas covering between 1,000 and 3,000 people – in the past three years. In October 2022, all 43 police chiefs in England and Wales made the landmark promise to attend every break-in.” – Daily Telegraph

Islamism 1) Government to broaden definition of extremism

“Ministers are to broaden the government’s definition of extremism as part of a crackdown on people and groups “undermining” Britain’s institutions and values. Rishi Sunak has asked Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, to update the government’s definition of extremism, which was first set out more than a decade ago. It defines extremism as “vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values” and is seen by the government as no longer being fit for purpose. A new definition, which is still being finalised, is expected to cover those whose actions more broadly “undermine” the country’s institutions or values.” – The Times

• Who will help blighted towns like Rochdale? – Philip Collins, The Times
• Galloway’s shock return is clear sign Gaza conflict has changed public mood – Trevor Kavanagh, The Sun
• UK ministers “consider ban on MPs engaging with pro-Palestine and climate protesters” – The Guardian
• Politicians remain in total denial – Tim Stanley, Daily Telegraph
• I’m still reeling from Rishi Sunak’s shameless, dangerous speech – Caroline Lucas, The Guardian

>Yesterday: Video: “I don’t like the Prime Minister’s theatre”. Chakrabarti responds to Sunak’s “sinister” extremism speech.

Islamism 2) Jenrick claims football fans are treated more harshly than jihadists

“Police treat football fans more harshly than jihadists, an ex-Home Office Minister says. Senior Tory Robert Jenrick is demanding cops take stern action to tackle the “cancer of Islamist extremism”. His call comes after MPs were told the threat of a terrorist incident in the UK has increased due to the war in Gaza. Mr Jenrick said: “We must immediately end the two-tiered policing that has consistently let extremists off the hook. “Appeasement has only emboldened them. I’ve seen stronger enforcement against football fans than extremists promoting terrorism and calling for jihad.” – The Sun

>Yesterday: Video: Jenrick: “You cannot integrate people at this pace”

Islamism 3) Foreign hate preachers “face deportation”

“Foreign hate preachers face deportation in a crackdown on extremism following the Rochdale by-election. Ministers are examining plans to cancel the visas of foreigners caught spreading hate at pro-Palestine events after an upsurge in anti-Semitism in the wake of the Hamas terror attacks on Israel on October 7. Troublemakers could also be barred from travelling to the UK. The Border Force already has powers to block visas for anyone whose presence is deemed to be ‘non-conducive to the public good’.In the past, this has been applied only in cases where there is considered to be a threat to national security.” – Daily Mail

Labour pledges there will be ‘no option of life on benefits for young’

“There will be “no option of a life on benefits” for young people under Labour, its shadow work secretary will declare in a speech on Monday. Liz Kendall is expected to say the party will invest in careers and skills training but warn young people have a “responsibility” to take them up. The party warned the number of people aged between 16-24 who are not in work, education or training is rising. A Tory spokesman said Labour has an “abysmal” record on youth employment.” – BBC

• Labour will fight the next election as the “party of work” – Interview with Liz Kendall, Daily Telegraph

Pembrokeshire’s record 16 per cent Council Tax rise

“Families in a Welsh county are facing the UK’s highest council tax increase of more than 16 per cent. Pembrokeshire, which is run by a coalition of Labour, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru, was accused of using “strong-arm” tactics on Sunday to pressurise councillors into approving the plans. They will vote on Thursday on a budget including a 16.31 per cent increase in council tax, the highest proposed increase in the country for 2024-25. It would add more than £200 to the council tax bill of a Band D household and would be the highest increase in Wales since 2000-01.” – Daily Telegraph

>Today: Local government: Councils are funding groups seeking to thwart deportations

“Candidate X” polls well as Conservative leader

“A secretive meeting took place in Parliament last week in which Tory MPs were handed the profile of a person — named only as ‘Candidate X’ — who could save the party from catastrophe at the next election…Candidate X backed Brexit, wants lower immigration and would scrap the mad dash to Net Zero by 2050. Candidate Y backed Brexit, but wants higher immigration to support some industries and opposes cutting taxes too quickly. Candidate Z was a Remainer, opposes tax cuts and backs Net Zero. The polling showed that Candidate X romped home with the support of 34 per cent of all voters — while Y received 19 per cent and Z, 22 per cent. Under Candidate X, the Tories would be the largest party in a hung Parliament. Andrew Hawkins, of Whitestone Insight, said: ‘I did not want to give them a name, I wanted them to see what sort of leader they need to win an election.’ ” – Andrew Pierce, Daily Mail

>Today: ToryDiary: YIMBYism is not enough to make young voters Conservatives

Other political news

• Doctors urge MPs not to go ahead with plans to decriminalise late abortions – Daily Mail
• Haley beats Trump in Washington DC primary – Daily Telegraph
• Supreme Court expected to rule on whether Trump can hold office – Daily Mail
• Mortgages for first-time buyers were at a 10-year low last year – Financial Times
• Attempt to agree anti Conservative candidate in Totnes – The Times
• Rayner under pressure to explain why council paid to upgrade a property she says she did not live in – The Sun
• Primary school considers giving pupils ‘brick’ phones – The Times
• Labour would shift focus of development aid to fewer countries, says Lisa Nandy – The Guardian
• Humza Yousaf ‘gaslighting’ Scotland by claiming he is tackling poverty, homeless charity says – Daily Telegraph

News in brief

• The Observer’s education reporting still has the power to surprise me – Andrew Old, Substack
• Is this really the Tory party’s election budget? – Kate Andrews, The Spectator
• Blaming Churchill for the Bengal famine is historical illiteracy – Hira Jungkow, CapX
• The Budget won’t save the Tories – George Eaton, New Statesman
• Do not sanction the truth – Cath Walton, The Critic

We’re pretty sure that all corporate, legacy media journalists are all issued a Buzzword Bingo card each week. For every time they use phrases like ‘white supremacy,’ ‘Christian nationalism,’ or ‘threat to democracy,’ they get issued a few social credit points. And the winner each week gets a brand new Klaus Schwab or George Soros plush doll. 

If you think we’re making this up, check out the latest column from Washington Post ‘reporter’ Maura Judkis, who claims that the crime waves causing products to be locked down, store shelves to be empty, and many stores to shutter their doors completely is just, you know, ‘late stage capitalism,’ guys. (One bingo square checked off.)

Washington Post reporter says shoplifting not a big deal because US built on ‘stolen land’ https://t.co/cpsTg1gGwd pic.twitter.com/UnV9TlfNQX

— New York Post (@nypost) March 2, 2024

Judkis noted how a Columbia Heights, D.C. CVS had been looted and shoplifted from so much that there was hardly anything of value on store shelves until it was shut down this week. 

She wrote, ‘Everything else that remains in the store in Northwest D.C., which is not much, is under plexiglass: Dawn dish soap, L’Oreal shampoo, MiraLax, a handful of Clairol root touch-up hair dye kits, flu season combo packs of DayQuil and NyQuil. The diapers are behind the counter. The Cetaphil and Neutrogena face washes are under lock and key.’

This is a problem for Judkis not because of the crime wave itself, but of course, because conservatives are noticing it. (‘Republicans pounce’ = second bingo square checked off.)

‘It became a horror story of Late Capitalism,’ she wrote, adding that ‘the empty CVS had somehow become a stand-in for all that is wrong with American cities — and liberals (and liberal democracy?) — in 2024.’

Judkis wrote, ‘America is a sticky-fingered nation built on stolen land, and its current moral panic is about shoplifting. It’s not just a worry in Columbia Heights. All over the country, from sea to shining CVS, there are concerns about petty theft.’

She said it has become a ‘political talking point’ even though the data behind this crime spree is ‘murky,’ as she described.

She provided her evidence, stating, ‘Theft has gotten worse in some cities but better in others; it’s either underreported or overexaggerated, depending on whether you’re asking a corporation or a bureaucracy.’

She later added, ‘While it’s true that the Columbia Heights CVS, as well as parts of the surrounding neighborhood, are experiencing crime and theft, it’s hardly the dystopian nightmare that outsiders make it out to be.’

Wow. Look at all those buzzwords. ‘Stolen land,’ another bingo square. ‘Moral panic,’ one more. Add to that Judkis denying the data of crime while providing no countering data of her own, and concluding by telling D.C. residents to believe HER about the conditions in the city, not their own eyes and ears, and we’re pretty sure that Judkis won Buzzword Bingo for the past week in just one column. Enjoy the plush doll. 

By the way, we should mention that Judkis is a lifestyle reporter for the Post, covering food and the arts, so she is TOTALLY an expert on crime and its causes, everyone.

Legal expert Jonathan Turley understandably ripped Judkis and the Post for the column. 

A Washington Post reporter is mocking shoplifting as “a horror story of Late Capitalism.” It follows calls to downplay such stories. It is all part of advocacy journalism. Just call it “a late-journalism horror story.” https://t.co/dmQt7zkUin

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) March 2, 2024

The real story, [Judkis] suggests, is the economic conditions leading to shoplifting.

Other journalists have made similar objections. New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones, has called upon journalists to stop covering shoplifting crimes, even criticizing MSNBC’s Al Sharpton for his discussion of a viral video of a man who recently stole steaks from a New York City Trader Joe’s.

Writers like Hannah-Jones believe that reporters should actively suppress or dismiss stories on such crime to frame public opinion. It is all part of advocacy journalism. You can almost attribute the denial of reality to ‘a late-journalism horror story.’

Crime is simply not happening the way you see it happening and you are a racist and right-wing extremist for even mentioning it.

We’re only a couple of news cycles away from the media turning to, ‘OK, crime is running wild, but here’s why that’s a GOOD thing.’

Judkis wasn’t finding much support for her position from anyone on Twitter. 

The Washington Post is a garbage publication and everybody knows it
Washington Post reporter says shoplifting not a big deal because US built on ‘stolen land’ https://t.co/8xGarfhsxv

— NotYourJewishMom (@CaffMomREDACTED) March 3, 2024

This is the same rational Antifa use to loot and burn buildings, homes and businesses. They say the U.S. must be destroyed so any means is legitimate, including threatening, maiming and killing people who get in the way. Many in Antifa are true believers but their movement also… https://t.co/03bfIUiZsa

— Andy Ngô 🏳️‍🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) March 3, 2024

Ngô’s tweet is cut off here, but it ends with, ‘… but their movement also attracts psychopaths who just want to be violent.’

If anyone has first-hand knowledge of Antifa psychopaths, it would be Andy Ngô.

Cool, what’s her address. I need some stuff. https://t.co/XRKW6N235N

— The Dank Knight 🦇 (@capeandcowell) March 3, 2024

That’s dangerous ‘colonizer’ talk, friend. 

So I guess she wouldn’t have a problem with a gang breaking into her house and stealing everything from it… because her house is built on “stolen land”. https://t.co/DEG7tFpHb6

— Sean The Producer (@SeanTheProducr) March 3, 2024

She would probably write about her ‘white guilt’ throughout the robbery (one more buzzword checked off). 

It’s almost always privileged white ladies with these ridiculous hot takes. https://t.co/X5TmKS3TCl

— Jason Rantz on KTTH Radio (@jasonrantz) March 3, 2024

Yep, we don’t call them ‘AWFLs’ for nothing. 

How ever much you hate the media, you don’t hate them enough. https://t.co/lGqmeLiM38

— Jeremy Carl (@realJeremyCarl) March 3, 2024

So @MauraJudkis you sound like a moron, but then again, it doesn’t surprise me that some of you at WaPo would create the dumbest reason re: WHY there are no items on shelves (always anti-capitalism w/ you guys, gotta push that woke BS narrative). God forbid you use your brain. https://t.co/yuzmZwps7L

— Sarah Johnson (@SarahJohnsonPR) March 3, 2024

It reminds us of the old anti-drug commercial, ‘This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs.’ Well, this is Judkis’ brain on the woke mind virus.

Washington Post reporters aren’t known for being the brightest lights in the candelabra these days.#JournalismIsDead

— M D Campbell 🇺🇸🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 (@MCampbell1041) March 2, 2024

They aren’t attending any Mensa conventions, that’s for sure.  

They’re just trying to feed their families! – AOC https://t.co/GIgWDkdX4w

— Jesse Oppenheimer (@JesseOppie) March 2, 2024

Even the media isn’t trying to claim that one anymore. They’ve moved on to, ‘It’s all your fault, capitalists.’

It’s not late capitalism It’s Early Marxism. https://t.co/4iFOswGOFq

— JNGbunny🇺🇸 (@hidden56246) March 2, 2024

Yes, it is. And it is VERY scary. 

It’s also a “luxury beliefs” issue, in that people are more likely to be okay with shoplifting if they’re from a rich background and never had to see the other side of the shoplifting coin…business owners making not that much money…either that, or they’re on the side of lower… https://t.co/lHJnuLjrfZ

— John Madziarczyk (@MadziJ) March 2, 2024

We won’t transcribe the rest of that tweet because it has some NSFW language, but the first part of it is dead on. The crime doesn’t affect people like Judkis. So, it doesn’t matter, regardless of how many small business owners and low-income communities it destroys.

Can we stop allowing complete morons to become reporters? Media, please Stop putting idiocy out into the universe. Set some standards, good grief! https://t.co/yT1UMGKwpy

— TN Perspective (@SpeakinFromTN) March 3, 2024

Hey, who are you going to believe? Maura Judkis or your lying eyes?

But we have an idea (we’re all about solutions at Twitchy). This writer lives in Virginia, but very close to D.C. We know what Columbia Heights — the neighborhood Judkis was referring to in her column — is really like. 

So, we challenge Judkis to walk alone in Columbia Heights at night for a week. Heck, do it in the daytime if you want. Then report back on how you feel about crime in D.C. and whether the city has become a ‘hellhole’ or not. (Or just have your next of kin report back for you if needed.) 

Somehow, we doubt she will accept the challenge. After all, she’s really good at staying far away from the crime and just playing Buzzword Bingo for The Washington Post.

***

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy’s conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 50% off your VIP membership!