The network announced it was pulling the plug on the iconic program last year because of "financial reasons," and said the decision to end the show after 10 seasons was not a reflection on the years-long host.
CBS unexpectedly defended its decision to pull "The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" off air, revealing in a statement Thursday that the show was losing approximately $40 million a year.
Maine’s Graham Platner is one of the vile candidates for the United States Senate that the Democratic Party has vomited up and into public prominence. He recently attacked Army combat vet and Purple Heart recipient Teddy Daniels. I have posted a thumbnail photo of Daniels on the home page. Fox News caught up with Daniels for a video response to Platner that is posted here.
The editors of the Wall Street Journal also reached out to Mr. Daniels for comment. Today’s Journal has published his column “I’m the Soldier Graham Platner Mocked.” Mr. Daniels writes at the top of his column:
Mr. Platner presents himself as a savior for working-class Americans while his background screams the opposite and his offensive comments about fellow veterans—including me—speak poorly of his character.
The tough-talking Marine veteran struts around in a Carhartt jacket and jeans, but recent reporting relates that he comes from a prestigious family where he had access to an elite private-school education and a lifestyle of privilege. He also plays up his job as an “oyster farmer,” but the only client mentioned in his federal financial disclosure was the restaurant his mother owns.
He concludes:
Mr. Platner has been caught disparaging the service of fellow veterans like decorated Navy SEAL Chris Kyle and Vice President JD Vance. He also disparaged me while commenting on a viral video of a firefight in which I sustained numerous wounds from a Taliban ambush. I received a Purple Heart for my injuries, but Mr. Platner cheered for my death from behind a keyboard.
Kyle, Mr. Vance and I didn’t grow up privileged. Kyle’s father worked for the phone company. We all know Mr. Vance’s story from “Hillbilly Elegy.” I was the son of a brick-mason father and a mother who worked in a textile mill.
My father, who died of cancer several years ago, would have had a field day with Mr. Platner. He was always talking about the “spoiled,” “rich kid” politicians who came out to job sites to get votes and take pictures. Dad would comment on the work boots they wore, boots that never saw a day of work, and their Carhartt jackets, which still had creases from being on the shelf at the Tractor Supply Co. store.
Flannel shirt and all, Graham Platner is Tim Walz on steroids. An entitled brat who campaigns with socialist Bernie Sanders. A real man by the lights of the Democratic Party, he presents himself as “relatable” to working-class Americans, but in reality he’s a typical elitist who believes blue-collar, hardworking, salt-of-the-earth rural Americans are stupid and racist. I couldn’t care less about the comments he made about me, but they are a reflection of his character. I never thought I’d see the day when Democrats would even consider backing a candidate like this.
Whole thing here. There is much more and worse to be said about Platner, but that should do for today.
Jews are losing the culture war to Jew haters due to failure to control the language of the argument and failure to deploy targeted hate propaganda against the Jew haters.
Psychological warfare is almost exclusively an offensive weapon, and one does not defend with it.
Jews are losing the culture war to Jew haters due to failure to control the language of the argument and failure to deploy targeted hate propaganda against the Jew haters.
By "targeted," I mean the same way chemotherapy drugs are targeted against cancer and not healthy tissue. Hate must similarly be directed onlyat Jew haters, terrorist supporters, and other bigots, and never against anybody's race, religion, or ethnicity.
And definitions matter. First, it's Jew hatred, not antisemitism.
According to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), "… the neologism 'antisemitism,' coined by German journalist Wilhelm Marr in 1879 to designate anti-Jewish campaigns, was spread through use by anti-Jewish political movements and the general public." Antisemitism found its origins in pseudoscientific theories about racial differences, to the effect that some races are superior to others.
IHRA also points out that Semites include not only Jews, but many other Middle Eastern people including Arabs — and Hitler didn't like them. either. There are videos of ethnic Arabs who proclaim gleefully that Hitler was right, that Hitler should come back, and Jews should go back to the ovens.
I can envision a broken clock with Hitler's scowling face in the center, and his two arms giving Nazi salutes to positions on the clock, one with this Arab woman and another with a Black man who is on video giving a Nazi salute. (I just saw another of a Black man dressed as Hitler stepping on an Israeli flag.) The caption would read, "Right twice a day," with Hitler calling the Arab a "lacquered half-ape (lackierter Halbaffe)," and the black man the N word or its German counterpart. I don't call him that, no civilized person calls him that, but that is what he calls himself by saying Hitler was right.
The IranWire reference elaborates that Hitler's complete statement was, "We will continue to stir up unrest in the Far East and in Arabia. We must think as Masters and see in these peoples at best lacquered half-apes, who want to feel the whip." Hamas, and ethnic Arabs who support Nazism, therefore self-identify as lackierte Halbaffen. This is not what we call ethnic Arabs; it is what these particular Arabs call themselves by praising We must use the new language to control the argument.
We should therefore replace "antisemitism" and "anti-Semites" with words for Jew hatred and Jew haters. German is a great language because we can combine almost any words to create new ones. I therefore propose the following:
Now let's use these words in sentences.
Judenhasser talking points are right — about Judenhasser.
A lot of anti-Jewish propaganda can, and should, be repurposed against the Judenhasser and racists. If we take what the Nazis said about Jews, Black people, Romany, Arabs, and Slavic people, and apply it to the Nazis themselves, it's pretty accurate. This includes useless eaters and Untermenschen, as most Nazis were the dregs of German society with few if any productive skills. Google AI reports of Hitler himself, "He worked as a casual laborer, including carrying bags and in construction, while living in homeless shelters." Hitler wasn't fit for anything other than menial labor, when he felt like doing even that.
If we take the rat swarm from the movie The Eternal Jew, and have the rats morph into Nazis, white supremacists, and "Justice in Palestine" instead of Jews, it's spot on. The same goes for white supremacists and the "Justice in Palestine" crowd who create and build nothing, but ruin everything. Their vandalism, like the pellets rats leave in their wake, speaks for itself. I saw a new video of a white supremacist who is berating a Jew with mostly monosyllabic words, and language typical of somebody who probably didn't finish eighth grade. Untermensch is as Untermensch does.
"Who really runs America?" could feature Qatar, with puppet strings consisting of dollars controlling various Ivy League universities, the U.N., the International Criminal Court, and so on. Add "felony violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act," but don't accuse anybody in particular of a crime without proof. Per Romeo and Juliet, "I do not bite my thumb at you, Sir, but I bite my thumb, Sir."
What does this have to do with the cancer analogy?
It is meanwhile vital that we never promote hatred against anybody's EEOC-protected characteristics. It is not racist to equate "Justice in Palestine" and "Globalize the Intifada" to a swarm of destructive rats, locusts, or cockroaches, because these are behaviors and not races or ethnicities. We can elaborate on this as follows.
This language makes a clear separation between a behavior and an EEOC protected characteristic. When we depict Hamas as cancer, we're talking specifically about Hamas, and not Arabs. However, any Arab who expresses support for Hamas self-identifies as cancer. This gives us powerful talking points to drive the Judenhasser, and their fellow travelers who call for death to America and celebrate the deaths of American service members, back into their holes like the undesirables they are.
Civis Americanus is the pen name of a contributor who remembers the lessons of history, and wants to ensure that our country never needs to learn those lessons again the hard way. He or she is remaining anonymous due to the likely prospect of being subjected to "cancel culture" for exposing the Big Lie behind Black Lives Matter.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is gaining a reputation for penning nonsensical solo dissents in what should otherwise be unanimous Supreme Court decisions. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that her colleagues are no longer shy about putting such incoherence in its place.
The latest incident came on Thursday in the Supreme Court’s Fernandez v. United States decision, in which the 8-1 majority held that “the supposed invalidity” of a prisoner’s conviction “is not among the ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ that justify compassionate release.” (Compassionate release is a process by which convicted individuals may seek a reduced sentence or early release due to “extraordinary and compelling reasons” like age and medical condition.)
The high court rejected convicted prisoner Joe Fernandez’s motion for compassionate release, in which he argued that “extraordinary and compelling reasons — above all, that he was innocent — warranted a sentencing reduction.” The majority opinion authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett was joined by the court’s conservative justices, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a separate opinion (which Justice Elena Kagan joined) concurring in the judgement.
Throughout her solo dissent, Jackson, while pretending to be a textualist, claimed “nothing about the text or history of the compassionate-release provision suggests that Congress meant for this discretionary second-look opportunity to be cabined in the way the majority suggests.” She further accused the majority of employing an “atextual and unsupported limitation on a district court’s sentencing discretion,” which she characterized as “an unnecessary rewriting of the statute Congress wrote and an unwarranted revision of the compassionate-release scheme Congress intended to establish.”
Writing on behalf of her conservative colleagues, Barrett wasted little time in torching the Biden appointee’s illogical tirade.
In one footnote, Barrett noted how Jackson “perplexingly” accused the majority of “failing to define ‘what it means for a prisoner to “collaterally attac[k] the validity of his conviction”‘ … and characterizes this limit as unworkable.” Calling out her junior colleague’s apparent illiteracy, the Trump appointee underscored how the majority did, in fact, explain its “holding in detail,” and how “its application is straightforward.”
“There is an obvious distinction between a prisoner who asserts that he should not have been convicted in the first place and one who asserts that his present circumstances warrant an exercise of compassion,” Barrett wrote. “Indeed, we routinely require courts to draw much finer distinctions than this.”
Barrett went on to detail how Jackson “betray[s] the weakness of [her] criticism” by relying on “a source that offers no support.” “[T]his source,” Barrett wrote, “describes the difficulty of determining when relief other than a release from custody (for example, a damages award) would ‘necessarily imply the invalidity of [the plaintiff’s] conviction’ within the meaning of [the Supreme Court’s 1994] Heck v. Humphrey [decision].”
But “[t]hat issue has no bearing on today’s case,” Barrett wrote.
The Trump appointee chastised Jackson in a separate footnote over the latter’s dismissal of Supreme Court precedents the majority cited in its opinion. She explained how the Biden appointee seemingly misunderstood how those decisions handled “the relevant statutes” and how the court “undertake[s] the same inquiry” in the Fernandez case.
Thursday’s decision is hardly the only instance in which Barrett has excoriated Jackson’s lackluster argumentation. In the court’s 2025 Trump v. CASA ruling on nationwide injunctions, the former slammed part of the latter’s solo dissent for being “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.”
Judge ruled Democrats failed to show they have standing at present to challenge the order or have suffered any harm.
federal judge on Thursday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to implement his executive order tightening mail-in voting, slapping down Democrats’ arguments for now that federal efforts to police voter rolls with citizenship checks was illegal.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointed jurist, ruled that Democrats failed to show they have standing at present to challenge the order or have suffered any harm that would warrant a preliminary injunction.
"Given that the Executive Order does not command Plaintiffs to do anything, and that no agency has yet acted pursuant to the Order in a way that could harm Plaintiffs, they have not suffered any harm at present," the judge wrote.
You can read the ruling here.
Fighting the attempt to Islamize America
A group of antisemitic UCLA students beat their Jewish classmates unconscious, attacked them with sticks and pepper spray and created Jewish exclusion zones — all while the school did nothing to stop it — according to a new lawsuit against the University of California.
The school allowed for vile antisemitic attacks on Jewish students on the campus following the Hamas attacks on October 7, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said in the suit, obtained by The California Post.
“Antisemitic hatred against UCLA’s Jewish and Israeli students reached a point where students were physically assaulted, injured, excluded from campus, and deprived of educational opportunities because of their perceived Jewish or Israeli heritage,” the lawsuit said.
The explosive Department of Justice complaint alleges anti-Israel protesters seized control of UCLA’s main quad in April 2024, setting up barricades and physically blocking Jewish and Israeli students from entering classrooms, libraries and walkways.
One Jewish student was knocked unconscious with an open head wound, while others were kicked, beaten with sticks and blasted with pepper spray. Another victim was assaulted and told “Hitler missed one.”
One Native Jewish woman-who counter protested by holding a sign reading “Hamas supporters are not welcome on native land”-was “violently assaulted,” per the complaint. UCLA police were “directly behind [her] and [did] absolutely nothing,” it added.
Protestors established militia-style checkpoints on UCLA’s campus and refused to allow Jews to traverse public property unless those Jews denounced a core tenet of their religion, per the complaint.
The encampment took over Royce Quad — the heart of campus — with barricades, checkpoints and graffiti including “F*** ALL Jews” and ‘F*** Israel’ scrawled on buildings.
The vile students also allegedly set up “human phalanxes” to stop access for Jewish students for some areas — demanding students renounce Zionism to pass through checkpoints.
By the time police finally moved in, the situation had spiraled into what officials later described as a “war zone,” with fireworks, strobe lights and violent clashes between rival groups.
The DOJ says UCLA violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by showing “deliberate indifference” to widespread harassment and discrimination.
More than 100 complaints were filed by Jewish and Israeli students — many allegedly ignored by the school.
Internal findings cited in the lawsuit say UCLA leadership repeatedly refused to enforce its own rules, allowing the illegal encampment to persist for days.
Nearly 60% of Jewish students said they avoided campus at the time, while more than 40% considered leaving UCLA altogether, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims UCLA officials knew students were at risk of assault but “took no serious action whatsoever” for nearly a week.
Instead, administrators told students to “avoid the area if they wish” while describing the chaos as “mostly peaceful.”
Behind the scenes, the school chose a “de-escalation strategy” — even as protesters armed themselves with pepper spray, lumber and makeshift weapons
The DOJ also alleged UCLA breached its federal funding contracts and grants by claiming it complied with its Title VI obligations while allowing discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students to persist on campus.
“Earlier this year, we sued UCLA for subjecting its Jewish and Israeli employees to an antisemitic hostile work environment,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said.
“Now, the Department of Justice calls UCLA to account for its toleration of the equally appalling hostile educational environment against its Jewish and Israeli students.”
Los Angeles’ top federal prosecutor Bill Essayli, First Assistant US Attorney for the Central District of California, said that universities “have an obligation to maintain safe and inclusive campuses for all students.”
“Universities that violate our nation’s civil rights laws by repeatedly failing to shield Jewish students from antisemitism will be held accountable.”
UCLA has been under increased scrutiny following months of protests and encampments over Israel’s war in Gaza.
“The Board of Regents and administrative leadership have been unequivocal: antisemitism has no place at the University of California,” University of California President James B. Milliken said in a statement to The Post.
“We have instituted numerous systemwide reforms and programs to promote safety and combat antisemitism on our campuses. UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk, whose family was profoundly affected by Nazi antisemitism and the Holocaust, has made the protection of Jewish students, faculty, and staff on campus the highest priority since the day he took office.”
“This litigation — and other actions taken by the federal government targeting the University of California — does nothing to aid our ongoing efforts to address antisemitism and create safe and welcoming campus environments for all members of our community,” the statement read.
Posts
All Comments
