The Supreme Court is considering a Louisiana redistricting case that could have a greater impact on U.S. House of Representatives seats than the Texas and California “gerrymandering” maneuvers combined. The New York Times wrote, “Democrats would be in danger of losing around a dozen majority-minority districts across the South if the court struck down part of the Voting Rights Act.” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller tweeted, “How many people just realized that Dems had as many as 20 extra seats based on years of unconstitutional race-based gerrymandering?” For the purpose of “racial justice” under the Voting Rights Act, Democratic legislatures and politicians created several “majority-minority” districts in order to elect black and Hispanic congressional members. The Supreme Court will rule on whether these districts violate equal protection under the Constitution. ACLU Voting Rights Project Director Sophia Lin Lakin, who supports these majority-minority districts, said: “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been a critical tool in safeguarding the promise that people of color can participate in our democracy on equal terms. It has been our shield against discriminatory maps and our answer to laws designed to suppress the vote. Congress passed the Voting Rights Act with overwhelming, bipartisan support -- and reauthorized it again and again -- because our leaders understood a fundamental truth: you cannot cure discrimination by pretending it doesn’t exist.” NAACP lawyer Janai Nelson told the court, “It was clear that, regardless of party, white Democrats were not voting for black candidates, whether they were Democrats or not. We know that there is such a significant chasm between how black and white voters vote in Louisiana that there is no question that even if there is some correlation between race and party, that race is the driving factor.” The Supreme Court decades ago in Shaw v. Reno (1993) and Miller v. Johnson (1995) ruled against districts where gerrymandering by race was the dominant factor. “Ethnic cleansing!” cried Jesse Jackson after the Miller decision. Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund said, “The noose is tightening.” Her colleague, Theodore Shaw, warned that once this decision goes through, the Black Congressional Caucus “could meet in the back seat of a taxicab.” But of the black House members in the four redesigned majority-white Southern districts who decided to run for reelection, three won. One chose not to run. In 2016, the city of over 100,000 population that voted most for Donald Trump, with 80% of the vote, was Abilene, Texas, a city that is over 75% white. Shortly after Trump’s election, Abilene voted for its first black mayor. Black Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) recently said: “Myself, Wesley Hunt, Burgess Owens, John James -- we are all black men who represent majority-white districts (referring to Texas, Utah, and Michigan, respectively.) Tim Scott is the United States senator from South Carolina. South Carolina does have a strong black population, but it’s a predominantly white state. These are the facts.” America’s three largest cities, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, all have black mayors, though none of these cities is majority black. There are many examples of blacks elected to statewide offices in a country where no state has a majority black population. These include Sens. Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, Carol Moseley Braun and Cory Booker, as well as Govs. Doug Wilder, Deval Patrick and Wes Moore. About the 2008 presidential election, Obama’s principal rival for the Democratic nomination was Hillary Clinton. Obama was attempting to become the first black president, while Clinton was attempting to become the first female president. On the Republican side, the two primary rivals were Mitt Romney, who would become the first Mormon president, and John McCain, who would become at 72 the oldest elected president. In February 2007, Gallup found that 5% of Americans said they “would not vote for” a black presidential candidate; 11% “would not vote for” a woman; 24% “would not vote for” a Mormon; and 42% “would not vote for” a presidential candidate who is “72 years of age.” So, Obama’s hurdle was the lowest. As for the Supreme Court, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) calls Republican-appointed jurists “often underqualified or completely unqualified for their role.” Nothing says qualified quite like a bartender-turned-congressional candidate. And AOC got elected, proving yet again that despite America’s “systemic racism,” there’s hope. Larry Elder is a bestselling author and nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. To find out more about Larry Elder, or become an “Elderado,” visit www.LarryElder.com. Follow Larry on X @larryelder. To read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM

Democrat Americans are more likely to view China as having greater economic power in the world than the U.S. has, results of a survey by The Economist/YouGov show. “Which country has greater economic power in the world?” the survey, conducted October 17-20, asked a national sample of U.S. adult citizens. Of all those polled, more U.S. citizens chose America over China: United States: 35% China: 29% About the Same: 23% Not Sure: 13% Democrats, however, were more likely to view China as a greater economic power, by nearly two-to-one: China: 41% United States: 23% About the Same: 23% Not Sure: 13% Republicans, on the other hand, were almost four times more likely to consider the U.S., rather than China, to have more economic power worldwide (58%-16%). Likewise, Republicans were far more likely than Democrats, or the country as a whole, to support the Trump Administration imposing a 100% tariff on goods imported from China. Here, 58% of Republicans said they would support a 100% tariff on Chinese goods, compared to just 5% of Democrats. In all, 56% of U.S. citizens said they oppose the imposition of a 100% tariff, while 29% support it. Another 15% said they weren’t sure what their opinion was.

A long-time Joe Scarborough shtick is to facetiously ask historian Jon Meacham about the causes of the French and Indian War.  But someday in the future, when the causes of the Second American Revolution are discussed, at the top of the list might well be President Trump's decision to build a new White House ballroom. If you believe Meacham, that is. On today's Morning Joe, panel regular and former Biden speechwriter Meacham began by warning the panel, and liberals at large, "Let's not bang on our high chairs here," i.e., let's not overreact to Trump's ballroom moves. But, ignoring his own advice, Meacham proceeded not merely to bang on his high chair, but to do the rhetorical equivalent of filling his Pampers. "You're not a king. You can't just do what you want to do when you want to do it. That's an adolescent response. That's really not fair to adolescents, right? That's infantile. Just to do it because you can is in some ways a definition of why we had the American Revolution." So Meacham's having his own "No Kings" rally speech on MSNBC. In saying that Trump has decided to "do it because [he] can," Meacham acknowledged that the president is acting within his lawful powers. The American Revolution occurred because the colonists had no say or representation in the English King's decisions. Here, Americans had representation, and they used it to elect Donald Trump president -- twice. Note: Meacham concluded by saying that he misses John McCain more than ever, imagining what he'd say about Trump's ballroom moves. Meacham urged senators "to be more McCain-esque." McCain was one of Trump's bitterest critics. Not surprising that Meacham would like more senators to be like him!  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Morning Joe 10/23/25 6:42 am EDT JON MEACHAM: You know, as ever with President Trump, you know, you do have to step back and say, well, what is he trying to do? What is the, you know, let's not bang on our high chairs here.  And to me, one of the issues here, is so much of the -- I haven't seen the National Review piece ["No, Trump Isn’t Destroying the White House"]-- but so much of the controversy here might be settled if, for instance, He actually paid attention to norms, to the customs of having, you know, Congress was very much involved in the 1940s version of this. Bring in the National Trust, bring in the White House Historical Association, a wonderful group founded in the Kennedy administration, terrific people who care deeply about the House.  You know, do this with some sensitivity to the fact that you're not a king. You can't just do what you want to do when you want to do it. That's an adolescent response. That's really not fair to adolescents, right? That's infantile.  Just to do it because you can is in some ways a definition of why we had the American Revolution. And I can hear conservatives saying, oh, construction project leads to fears about democracy. You know, just take a deep breath on that. It is a particular, the way the president's done this, that reflects and illuminates a universal.  And to go back to what you were just saying a minute ago about the Senate, more and more, I don't know if anybody here agrees, I miss John McCain today more than I do when he died.  I just, can you see him on the floor, walking down the hall, talking as he inevitably did to reporters. What he would say about what's happening at the Pentagon, what he would say about the White House. And the immense credibility he had. To the senators there, I would say, try to be more McCain-esque.  WILLIE GEIST: And who is that voice right now? It's hard to find over there on the Hill right now. 

Global censorship has surged in recent years, but a brave few have steadfastly stood against tyrannical regimes attempting to tighten their grip in America and abroad. For the second annual MRC Free Speech Award, the Media Research Center chose to singularly honor Charlie Kirk, who devoted his life's work to protecting free speech and encouraging not merely Americans but citizens around the world to exercise their right to speak without fear. In addition, the MRC has recognized Trump officials and members of Congress, and will recognize legal officers as well. Public and foreign free speech advocates like MRC founder Brent Bozell, tech mogul Elon Musk and best-selling author J.K. Rowling also deserve praise for their dedication to speaking boldly in support of free speech even at personal cost.  As recent as May 2025, Kirk visited the U.K., which he said had “become a totalitarian country” because of its stringent censorship policies that have jailed citizens for disfavored speech critical of the government. Indeed, London Metropolitan Police just dropped an investigation into Irish comedy creator Graham Linehan after he was arrested at Heathrow airport last month. He had written X posts disagreeing with the left’s “transgender” ideology while in the United States — where he now lives — and authorities were waiting to arrest him as soon as he set foot back in the U.K. A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson told Sky News that "no further action” should be taken in this case.  Others, however, have not been so lucky. As Kirk pointed out in May, UK citizen Lucy Connolly was sentenced to 31 months in prison for posts she made criticizing U.K. immigration policy. The posts were deemed “threatening or abusive,” and she later deleted them. Nonetheless, her attempts to appeal her case and sentencing were denied. At the time, Kirk called it “outrageous” and asked, “Is this a way that a liberal democracy and an ‘ally’ of the United States acts?”  Other countries have taken a similarly harsh approach to quashing speech. In February, CBS’s 60 Minutes revealed that Germany has whole police units devoted to this kind of work, and one Lower Saxony unit reportedly had around 3,500 cases it was investigating.  Similar persecution has occurred in Brazil, the European Union, France, Finland and Romania. And under the Biden administration, the United States was not far behind. MRC uncovered 57 censorship initiatives directed by the Biden administration across 93 federal agencies that targeted free speech in the courts, through shadow government programs and via government collusion with Big Tech companies and non-profits. Until recently, censorship in America was hot. But thanks to the tireless work of Kirk and other notable free speech warriors that MRC is now celebrating, the tide is starting to turn. The MRC is proud to recognize the following free speech advocates for their actions in defense of Americans’ free speech rights: L. Brent Bozell III In 2025, Brent retired from the Media Research Censor, a free speech organization he founded and led for almost four decades. He has been the nation’s leading champion fighting against left-wing bias in news media and popular culture. He was also the first to sound the alarm about Big Tech companies suppressing conservative voices, leading the fight to stop this un-American censorship. No one can deny the incredible, lasting impact he has made on American culture. Big Tech and Big Media were no match for him.  Elon Musk  As the founder of the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk showed incredible courage by dismantling Biden’s censorship agencies, firing hundreds of government censors and cutting off thousands of censorship grants, even as terrorists were attacking his business. Musk has also been one of the few men brave enough to try to hold OpenAI accountable for its unlawful and deceptive business model. Now, Musk is attempting to build a free speech social media platform, a free speech AI, and a free speech public encyclopedia — a daunting quest worthy of the real-life Iron Man. J.K. Rowling (United Kingdom) J.K. Rowling risked imprisonment by forcefully speaking out against Scotland’s hate speech law, which created a new category of crime for recognizing biological reality.  MRC presented 35 pro-free speech advocates with the prestigious MRC Free Speech Award last year, honoring the original vision for Free Speech Week with 2024 awards. The 2024 award winners included: five U.S. senators, 10 U.S. congressmen, 10 officials ranging from attorneys general to governors and from state legislators to the FCC, as well as 10 thought leaders. Free speech is under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Lawmakers and the public have long grown tired of Silicon Valley’s "move fast and break things" ethos. But Big Tech hasn’t learned its lesson.In the mad rush to roll out artificial intelligence, companies have cast aside basic corporate responsibility. Meta’s chatbots allowed children to engage in sexual conversations. OpenAI’s ChatGPT helped a child plan and commit suicide. And mounting evidence shows AI chatbots harming mental health, particularly for children.OpenAI has created a copyright infringement factory.The latest example of Silicon Valley’s negligence? Mass copyright infringement.The wild digital westWhen AI products like ChatGPT were new, copyright infringement — while potentially common in AI training — was more opaque. The early versions of today’s large language models weren't really capable of producing realistic copies of original copyrighted works that could compete with the originals. Moreover, training data was hidden from public view.But new releases, particularly OpenAI’s Sora 2, have smashed that paradigm. This past week, X and other social media platforms have been flooded with Sora 2 users’ reproductions of TV shows like “Family Guy,” “South Park,” “SpongeBob,” and more. While these clips are not yet perfect replicas, they are extremely close, and it is likely a matter of years — if not months — before users can produce copyright-infringing content that is essentially indistinguishable from the originals.Flipping the scriptOpenAI initially put the onus on copyright holders to “opt out” of their creations from being used in Sora 2. But this simply is not how copyright law works. In fact, it violates the express purpose of copyright law: to ensure that your work stays yours. Others have to ask you for permission to opt in to using your work; reversing that would render copyright law toothless.After the understandable outcry from copyright holders and actors’ guilds, OpenAI changed its copyright policies, switching from the opt-out model to opt-in. Rights holders now choose whether to have their creations included in Sora 2.CEO Sam Altman seemed to imply that he was surprised at the backlash. “I think the theory of what it was going to feel like to people, and then actually seeing the thing, people had different responses,” he told the Verge. “It felt more different to images than people expected.”This dubious claim is not an excuse to violate copyright laws wantonly. In waiting days to change course, Altman has also opened a Pandora’s box: the idea that AI can create entire seasons of your favorite shows. Altman knows that users will want it and may hope that the pressure will force copyright holders to take a deal that doesn’t fully represent the value of their intellectual property.Altman has said as much. “We are going to try sharing some of this revenue with rights holders who want their characters generated by users,” he wrote recently. His questionable usage of “try” notwithstanding, the game he is playing is clear: Audiences are going to want this. You either give us permission — after which we will “try” to compensate you — or people will likely use AI to violate your copyright anyway.RELATED: Does anyone think we’re up to the task of controlling AI? Mininyx Doodle via iStock/Getty ImagesCongress must actNone of this will eliminate AI’s chilling ability to generate lifelike images of people. While the Trump administration cracked down on some of the worst offenders with the Take It Down Act — which bans involuntarily created AI porn — you can still easily create false images of people doing all sorts of things.For now, the predominant use case may be “funny” videos of SpongeBob fleeing from police. But it would be a simple task, for example, to replace SpongeBob with realistic videos of innocent people committing crimes.OpenAI and other AI companies have, in essence, created a copyright infringement factory that puts the onus on copyright holders to vindicate their rights, while signaling that they may leverage a rabid user base if copyright holders don’t get in line. This isn’t right, and it shouldn’t be how the law works. Given how flippantly OpenAI and other Big Tech companies have treated the law, Congress needs to consider legal clarifications that force these firms to change their behavior.

Among his profiles for Rolling Stone were features on Dylan, Bowie, Elton, Joni, Eagles, Neil Young, Led Zeppelin, Fleetwood Mac and The Who. The post Director/Writer Cameron Crowe Publishes His Memoir, ‘The Uncool’—Review appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

In Episode 419 Jeff Belanger and Ray Auger travel to Portland, Maine, to search for John L. Aitchison, the man, they say, who only spoke twice. Back in 1864, something happened to 44-year-old Aitchison that made him quit every part of life. For the rest of his days he didn’t work, didn’t venture outside, and spoke only twice. BECOME A LEGENDARY PATRON: https://www.patreon.com/NewEnglandLegends CREDITS: Produced and hosted by: Jeff Belanger and Ray Auger Edited by: Ray Auger Guest Voice: Marv Anderson Theme Music by: John Judd SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST FOR FREE: Apple Podcasts/iTunes | Spotify | Pandora | Amazon Podcasts | TuneIn | iHeartRadio JOIN OUR SUPER-SECRET: New England Legends Facebook Group

It's ALL a PLOT! There Are Some STUPID X Posts About WH Ballroom but This From MeidasTouch Takes the Cake

Caught on Camera: Spanberger Campaign Admits Taking Cash From the Democrat Party's Biggest Bogey Man

Take back your privacy. Our guide shows you how to adjust your smart TV's settings to prevent it from collecting data and spying on your viewing habits.