Chris Raschke passed away Sunday

'Europe has veered off course'

‘I was taken from this world too soon’

China’s birth rate is falling below replacement levels, raising questions over the Asian giant’s economic future.   China’s population fell for the third consecutive year in 2024 as the older generation passes away and fewer babies are being born, despite China having ended its one-child policy in 2016. Now, Fortune reports that by 2050, China’s output growth could decline to below 2% as the number of workers declines and those dependent on China’s social support systems grows.   “China’s demographic challenges, exacerbated by a shrinking and aging population, has been a long-term, inevitable consequence of China’s one-child policy,” Anthony Kim, a research fellow in economic freedom at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.   In China currently, according to World Population Review, there are 7.4 births per 1,000 people, falling from 20.9 per 1,000 in 1981. China experienced a slight increase in births in 2024, rising to 9.54 million from 9.02 million in 2023, but still not enough to counteract the death rate.   The diminishing workforce could threaten China’s economic growth unless there is a “counterbalance,” Kim says. “This is where and why China’s aggressive [artificial intelligence] drive comes in, particularly in the context of automation that can practically deal with the labor-supply shortage that will become a bigger problem … for the economy, if the current trend continues.”  A study published in the National Library of Medicine in 2022 found that if China did not find a way to address its shrinking population, there would be adverse impacts on “China’s future socio-economic situation.”   “The repercussions may cascade to other spheres of China’s status,” the study found, including “security and global influence.”  “This is a collapse in population,” Gordon Chang, a Gatestone Institute distinguished senior fellow, told The Daily Signal. He added that such a “collapse” will “obviously affect the economy.”  Chang holds that China’s shrinking population makes the nation “more dangerous, rather than less.”  “I think Chinese leaders probably see a closing window of opportunity, which means that they are motivated to be more risk-accepted. In other words … they could lash out and decide that they’ve got to move while they still can,” he said.   Michael Pillsbury is a leading expert on China and author of “The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower.” He says he is “skeptical” about demographic projection research because it is “used all over the world as the reason why we shouldn’t do anything against the China threat.”   “As a disinformation measure, China has been using these inflated demographic-decline statistics to argue there’s no threat from China,” Pillsbury warns.   The U.S. currently has the largest economy in the world with a gross domestic product of $30.51 trillion. China is second with a GDP of $19.23 trillion, but it’s no secret China would like to surpass the U.S.  AI could help “close the gap” on China’s shrinking workforce, according to Oxford Economics, which projects China will slow toward but stay “above a 2% annual growth pace” until 2050.  Michael Cunningham, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Asian Studies Center, says a 2% growth rate is actually a “pretty standard rate for advanced economies,” warning he would be careful not to write China off over its declining birth rate.   “China is not as held down by the way things have always been done as many other countries are,” Cunningham said, adding that “as we enter a new tech age with AI and robotics, quantum computing … China is really positioning itself at the forefront. I would say it’s important to really think seriously and strategically about its demographic challenges, but not to just take that as clear evidence that China is declining.”   The post Does a Falling Birth Rate Threaten China’s Future?  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. In that 1960s version of the original “Star Trek,” James T. Kirk—William Shatner—the captain of the Enterprise, remember, he went out to explore deep outer space. And the mission statement was, in part, “to go boldly where no one else has gone before.” And then, each week, you met weird things that no one had anticipated. This counterrevolution is sort of like that. All of the expert opinion hasn’t had a good track record, simply because they tried to apply old logic to new explorations that they weren’t sure what was happening or why they were happening or if they’d ever seen it before. So, we were supposed to have a recession, a stock market collapse, poor gross domestic product, reduction in income. We didn’t have that, partly because we’ve never seen a tariff applied across the board to countries, especially that were running surpluses with the United States. And apparently, we can lower—and we never thought we could—this $1 trillion deficit. We don’t know the implications on the budget. We don’t know the implications on the economy. Our secretary of the interior, Doug Burgum, has announced that we may have $15 trillion in foreign exchange. We’ve never had anything approaching that number. What are the economic implications of that, as far as job growth, new factories, new economic activity? We don’t know. We’re all worried that President Donald Trump’s inherited $2 trillion annual budget deficit will not be reduced, at least in the foreseeable future, if not raised by the “Big, Beautiful Bill.” But on the other hand, we’ve never seen anybody try to cut $200 billion, which may be actualized at the end of the year, from the federal budget. Scott Bessent, the treasury secretary, thinks there might be $300 billion in additional revenue. You get up to $500 or $600 billion taken away from the deficit and you’re almost, you know, at a $2 trillion—you’re almost over a quarter of the way there. So, we’ve never seen anybody do that with that amount of tariff revenue. We’ve never seen anybody do that with that amount of federal cutting. As far as the universities, we don’t know what the effect will be of taxing the endowments. Everybody’s shrilling and very shrill and saying, “This is terrible. It’s gonna wreck the universities. We don’t know the effect of reducing the surcharges on federal grants from 50% to 60% down to 15%. We don’t know the effect of saying to the universities, ‘You’re violating the civil rights statutes of the 1960s, and especially, the 2023 Supreme Court ruling by having segregated dorms, segregated safe spaces, segregated affinity graduations.’” But what if we can’t expect, we can’t anticipate what might happen, and what might happen might be very good? Maybe if you stop fixating on race, people will get along better. Maybe they’ll assimilate better. Maybe they’ll be integrated if they live together and race is incidental, not essential, to where they sleep every night or where they go on campus. You know, get rid of safe spaces. Maybe the university will cut the legions of administrators, that big administrative bloat, if they cannot charge the government 55%. Maybe they’ll learn how to run their labs or their computer stations or something on 15%. Maybe if we tax endowments, the universities will say, “Well, you know, our faculty, we’re 95% left-wing. The curriculum that we impose in the general education is all slanted. Maybe just to restore our tax-exempt status, we should try to be more enlightened, more disinterested.” And the same thing, finally, on the border. There is no illegal immigration right now. And we were told that was impossible. The experts said, “You have to have comprehensive immigration reform.” But we’ve never tried it before, the way that Donald Trump did. We’ve never said, “We’re gonna build a wall through the entire border space, from the Gulf to the Pacific.” We’ve never said that we’re going to stop catch and release, together with making people apply for refugee status before they get to the United States. We never said, “If you come across the United States, you will be deported.” We’ve never said, “Here are the incentives for self-deportation.” And a million people took it up. What am I getting at? On the budget, on the economy, on the universities, on the border—and I could apply this as well to the radical changes in military recruitment, in DEI—no one has ever said, “We’re going to actually do what conservatives and Republicans have promised for a half-century.” And when you do that, and you actually carry through your promises, you’re in unknown territory, you’re “boldly going where no one has gone before,” and traditional wisdom is not only correct in predicting what will follow. The post Trump, Conservatives Are Faced With Unknown Frontiers. Are We Ready? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

By the end of July, the Energy Department accrued more than $950 million in contract savings with assistance from the White House’s Department of Government Efficiency.  In some cases, the terminated contracts were tied to regulations. In other cases, the contracts were about “environmental justice” or related to energy “justice.”  One example was a $259 million contract with Guidehouse for “appliance standards analysis and regulatory support service.”  The contract had been partially paid, but the cancellation resulted in $165 million savings for taxpayers, according to the Energy Department and DOGE.   A spokeswoman for Guidehouse declined to comment for this story. Guidehouse says it has public and private sector clients with consultants that focus on efficiency.  Guidehouse has done technical work for the Energy Department for years to maintain a certification database for the federal government to keep illegal products—such as appliances and parts—from being imported, ProPublica reported earlier this year in an article opposing the cut. The Energy Department also canceled a $2.6 million contract with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine regarding a “carbon management study on justice considerations with broader carbon management profile.”  The National Academies of Sciences says the Energy Department award was to establish an “ad hoc committee to examine the safety, societal considerations, and environmental and health impacts of engineered carbon management technologies.” “The analysis should especially consider impacts of carbon management on communities that are heavily burdened by energy system harms and environmental injustices,” the agency says in the description. The National Academies of Sciences referred The Daily Signal to a previous statement on its website that says: “On March 27, 2025, the Department of Energy informed the National Academy of Sciences that it should terminate all work on this activity. This activity has ended, and a final product was not released.” Another $2.4 million was saved by canceling a contract that focused on making energy more equitable and fostering justice in energy sharing, according to the Energy Department.  Although DOGE has faded from the spotlight, and despite a highly public dustup between President Donald Trump and former DOGE chief Elon Musk, the cost-cutting effort continues, said Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, the chairwoman of the Senate DOGE Caucus. This was clear from the revisions package passed in Congress, Ernst said.  “It’s going to live on. It may look a little different, but the taxpayers are tired of seeing their money go down the endless rabbit hole of spending in the federal government for projects that never turn out to be,” Ernst told The Daily Signal.  Ernst notes that the DOGE effort is somewhat different from past movements to slash spending, such as the tea party movement.  “With DOGE, it’s not just about cutting back on expenditures. It is about finding efficiency. Everybody tends to forget, you know, DOGE is the Department of Government Efficiency,” Ernst said. “… So it’s like we’ve taken a holistic approach to actually ferreting out fraud, waste, and abuse in the government, but also taking the extra step of making sure that we’re not just slashing the federal government, but we’re making it more efficient for our constituents.”  The Energy Department terminated a $124.9 million contract with Alaska-based Kadiak LLC for management and business consulting. Though almost half was paid out already, the termination saved taxpayers $62.7 million, according to the DOGE website.  Kadiak did not respond to phone and email inquiries for this story.  The Energy Department had a $318 million contract with Accenture Federal Services, the bulk of which was paid out. But after terminating the contract, taxpayers saved $49 million, according to DOGE.  On top of that, in May, Energy Secretary Chris Wright terminated 24 separate awards totaling $3.7 billion in tax-funded projects. Most involved carbon capture and sequestration, as well as decarbonization initiatives.  Of the two dozen grants Wright identified, the Biden administration’s Energy Department awarded 16 between Election Day and Jan. 20, the day Trump was inaugurated.  “While the previous administration failed to conduct a thorough financial review before signing away billions of taxpayer dollars, the Trump administration is doing our due diligence to ensure we are utilizing taxpayer dollars to strengthen our national security, bolster affordable, reliable energy sources and advance projects that generate the highest possible return on investment,” Wright said in a public statement in May after announcing a series of project cancellations. The post How DOGE Saves Taxpayers Almost $1 Billion by Cutting Energy Department Contracts appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Monday, in the aftermath of an assault in Cincinnati that’s drawn national attention, businessman and gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy returned to his hometown for a townhall. He was joined by Chris Smitherman, former vice mayor and former head of the Cincinnati NAACP chapter. Ramaswamy made clear that he was “not trying to rejudicate” what took place in the early hours of July 26. Rather, they were “there to talk about how to end an epidemic of violent crime.” And, as he reminded throughout, they were “there to start the conversation.” Before taking questions, Ramaswamy spoke about one of the victims, Holly. He had even been criticized for doing so, despite how Holly had spoken about the lack of leaders in touch with her. Ramaswamy pointed to how that lack of communication “shows out-of-touch leadership,” Democratic Mayor Aftab Pureval received widespread criticism after admitting during a press conference last Friday he had not been in touch with Holly, and dismissing concerns about the snub. The Daily Signal reached out to the mayor’s office for comment. The man who allegedly hit Holly has since been arrested. Let’s keep a close eye on this case @WLWT @WCPO @Local12 @FoxNews @Enquirer @BusinessCourier. Let’s see what the courts will do. Let’s all see it through to the end. ? https://t.co/Q7aeFAgoCF— Alex Triantafilou (@ChairmanAlex) August 5, 2025 Sarah Heringer, the widow of Patrick Heringer who was murdered June 4, also spoke, and likewise called out leadership. She blamed her husband’s death on “how the city was run,” calling out how leaders “expect victims to go along,” and how their “refusal to own it is not leadership, but complicity.” Heringer also called on leaders to show “accountability,” “courage,” and “truth” or be “replaced.” “I’m not here to endorse anyone,” she said, “but I will say this: The leadership standing here today has acted far differently than the ones currently running this city.” Sarah Heringer, the widow of Patrick Heringer, an OTR gym owner who was murdered in his own home. “I’m not here to endorse anyone, but I will say this: the leadership standing here today has acted far differently than the ones currently running this City.” pic.twitter.com/ssL1sIywkC— Rachel Whelan WLWT (@rwhelantv) August 4, 2025 Participants in the town hall discussed the need for a “revival” and the immediate need to ensure Cincinnati had proper police to handle crime. Race also came up. The second question, from a man named Robert, had to do with concerns black people have faced. In response, Ramaswamy, who had said there would be questions from those who disagreed, acknowledged that “we’re not perfect but at least we have ideals.” He also focused on the ability to forgive and “bring people together.” Smitherman also responded, reminding throughout that Robert’s voice was needed. He not only spoke of Ohio’s role in freedom for black people, but made clear that they don’t want to “accept it or make excuses for the brutal attack, especially since violence is never okay.” Smitherman called out Councilwoman Victoria Parks, the president pro tem, for social media posts claiming the victims deserved the assault. Parks has faced calls to resign, though she’s stood by her remarks. She is not running for reelection, though Smitherman made clear that that should not matter. Rather, “she needs to go,” adding how such leadership is not helpful for their city. The Daily Signal reached out to Parks’ office for comment. Robert was not the only black attendee to speak about race. Another man, sporting a “Make America Great Again” hat, made clear that he did not agree with the older gentleman, and criticized the Democratic Party, specifically former President Lyndon B. Johnson and his role in making black families dependent on the government. This started a conversation on government dependency as well as the need to strengthen and “restore” the family. Economic concerns also came up. One attendee from Dayton warned of “a snowball effect” and “economic tsunami” if people do not feel safe in the area. Smitherman responded by again calling out leadership, especially those who he said “blame everyone except themselves,” adding “it will take courage to elect the right people.” Others in attendance included Cory Bowman, who’s running for mayor as a Republican, as well as Alex Triantafilou, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. “Vivek’s town hall felt personal—it was a real exchange with the people of Cincinnati,” said Triantafilou in a statement for The Daily Signal. “Across all 88 counties, he’s earning trust by showing up and speaking our values.” Thank you @VivekGRamaswamy for coming to Cincinnati to talk about the epidemic of violence raging in our city. Always great to see @AnthonyMunozHOF @Judgemock and so many other friends there tonight. ?????? pic.twitter.com/s92igozZiL— Alex Triantafilou (@ChairmanAlex) August 5, 2025 Ramaswamy spoke to how he had “candid” conversations with Pureval and Cincinnati Police Chief Teresa Theetge. According to Ramaswamy, the proposals discussed included keeping offenders in prison, opening psychiatric centers, allowing police to do their job, having more officers, increasing punishments, and celebrating rather than villainizing police officers. The role of police was mentioned throughout, as Smitherman condemned the idea of defunding the police as “nonsense.” He also insisted that black residents want police presence, but for police to show respect. The event attracted counter-protesters outside, as local media outlets including WLWT 5 and WKRC, profiled. Those gathered insisted they felt safe in Cincinnati and their city was “united against racism!” In contrast, one local resident speaking during the town hall pointed out how she is considering moving, something Ramaswamy would not blame her for, though he promised accountability if he is elected next year. To close, Ramaswamy spoke of how he was “proud” of Cincinnati and even suggested other town halls take place throughout Ohio. A woman was brutally assaulted on the streets of Cincinnati less than 2 weeks ago, as part of violent mob attack. That’s prompted a deeper reckoning with the issue of violent crime in the city. We’re going to turn this around. Live from Cincinnati tonight. https://t.co/mHHLFxUdfp— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) August 4, 2025 The post A Need for ‘Revival’ and ‘Accountability’: Vivek Ramaswamy Holds Town Hall in Cincinnati appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Maine Chief Capitol Cop in a Bit of a Spot

As Immigration and Customs Enforcement continued to arrest and deport illegal immigrants across the country, the liberal media had seemingly forgotten the purpose of law enforcement. On Tuesday, MSNBC’s Morning Joe gushed for Association of Professional Flight Attendants representative Alex Roberts’s op-ed in The Tennessean, “Commercial airlines are for consumers and cargo, not ICE deportations.” Roberts demanded: “these commercial airlines should not be in the business of deportations.”  Roberts was inspired to write his opinion piece after an interaction with an illegal immigrant and an ICE officer on a commercial flight. He argued that:  The real possibility that the folks being transported on commercial flights could be at-risk of death upon entry to their country of origin or elsewhere- by gangs, domestic abusers, corrupt officials, or environmental and economic ruin- is something airline crew shouldn’t be involved in facilitating.       Was that Roberts' excuse for ICE to stop enforcing the law, or because he worked for the airlines? There’s a possibility for violence in any country, but that does not mean that the United States should shield those who have crossed the border illegally, who could be a potential threat to citizens.    Roberts emphasized the comfort priority of a “vacation” or “business trip” over enforcing the law:  And my main argument is that these commercial airlines should not be in the business of deportations that, like you said Wille, there are specialized government planes that can be used and then specialized contracts for certain carriers that can be negotiated, but they should not be on your next flight whenever you’re going on your next vacation or your next business trip.   ICE can legally carry out deportations via commercial airlines. ICE Commercial Air Operations was “the commercial air transportation entity that coordinates all escorted and unescorted commercial removal travel requests received from the 25 ERO field offices,” according to ICE’s website.  Co-host Willie Geist asked Roberts, “Do they feel pressure from the administration to do this as a business proposition,” as if ICE hadn’t already been doing it for years.   This opinion piece pushed the agenda that MSNBC wanted to cover: how to make ICE arrests and deportations look “cruel” when they uphold the law.     To add a classic liberal “empathic” note, Roberts voiced:   Folks shouldn’t have to worry about the little girl sitting behind them, whether or not she’s being separated from their family and what country she is in route to and what circumstances that she will face when she arrives there. That’s just not something that should be part of your travel process, is my argument.  No one wanted to see the most vulnerable people, children, in that situation, but at what point does the law stop being enforced for the comfort of other people on a commercial flight? What was the difference between someone who yelled threats on a plane and had to be escorted off by law enforcement and someone who crossed the border illegally?  The liberal media would point to all the “loopholes” with ICE’s arrests and deportations while they ignored the law to protect the American people. MSNBC proved once again that it cared more about its agenda being implemented than looking into the reality of the law.    Click here for the transcripts.  MSNBC’s Morning Joe 8/5/25 7:39 am Eastern MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The Trump administration is pushing to increase deportations nationwide, aiming to expel millions of migrants. Part of its plan to accomplish that goal is the use of commercial airlines to shuttle migrants out of the country. In a new op-ed for The Tennessean, a flight attendant discusses his personal experience working on a flight with deportations and why he objects to the practice, quote, “The real possibility that the folks being transported on commercial flights could be at-risk of death upon entry to their country of origin or elsewhere- by gangs, domestic abusers, corrupt officials, or environmental and economic ruin-is something airline crew shouldn't be involved in facilitating. And during perhaps the most frightening time in their lives, migrants shouldn't be paraded in front of other passengers traveling for fun, family or business.” Joining us now, the author of that op-ed, Alex Roberts. He's an aviation worker and a National Government Affairs Representative for a major airline union representing nearly 30,000 workers across the country. So, thank you for coming on the show. I mean, I ultimately want to ask you what you think the alternative must be, but explain why you wrote this piece and what other airline workers like you are experiencing and seeing on these flights that have deportations on them. ALEX ROBERTS: Good morning, Mika. Thank you so much for having back on. The central point of my piece is that commercial airlines should not be a tool for ICE. Commercial flights are for consumers and cargo, not for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Therefore, in my article, I argue that the flying public should not be unwilling or unwitting participants in this cruel process. And flight crew members like myself and the 28,000 flight attendants that I represent through the APFA union should not be forced into roles of facilitation for these deportations. The bottom line is that these commercial air carriers, in my mind and my opinion, as I argue in the piece, should discontinue and disallow these deportation operations. Again at commercial airlines with the flying public and crew members who really signed on to join the airlines to reunite family and friends, to make a world a more welcoming place- not to oversee deportations. BRZEZINSKI: Yeah. WILLIE GEIST: Alex, as you say, there are planes for government operations. There are military planes there’re C-130s. There are all kinds of planes that can be used for something like this. What is your sense of how the commercial airlines themselves are feeling about this? Do they feel pressure from the administration to do this as a business proposition, or what does that relationship look like right now? ROBERTS: Well, to this extent that I have familiarity with the airline, they are kind of in lockstep with the administration when it comes to this process. But I will say there is precedent for the airlines to make a showing against what the administration wishes. Back in 2018, during the first Trump administration, we organized a write-in campaign to our leadership urging that they no longer participate in these deportation flights that were separating children from their families during the family separation policy.  And after several months of this campaign that we had internally, as well as feedback from the flying public, they did come out in a joint statement and said that their airline would not participate in separating families. So again, there is precedent here. And my main argument is that these commercial airlines should not be in the business of deportations that, like you said Willie, there are specialized government planes that can be used and then specialized contracts for certain carriers that can be negotiated, but they should not be on your next flight whenever you’re going on your next vacation or your next business trip. Folks shouldn’t have to worry about the little girl sitting behind them, whether or not she’s being separated from their family and what country she is in route to and what circumstances that she will face when she arrives there. That’s just not something that should be part of your travel process, is my argument. BRZEZINSKI: Alex Robert, thank you very much for coming on the show this morning.

On Monday night and Tuesday morning, the “Big Three” of ABC, CBS, and NBC continued to trumpet Texas Democrats fleeing to Illinois, New York, and other blue bastions across the country because Republicans hurt their feelings by wanting to redraw the state’s congressional maps. But in addition to the typical love notes, CBS and NBC went as far as accepting and peddling their spin that Republicans are the ones holding up needed relief for the Hill Country after the catastrophic July 4 weekend floods as opposed to Democrats and their indefinite temper tantrum. NBC correspondent Ryan Chandler led off the Austin coverage on Monday’s Nightly News by touting warnings from Democrat Governors Cathy Hochul (NY) and Gavin Newsom (CA) they too would pursue new congressional maps to further skew toward their party. However, as we note below in the X post, Chandler left out an important detail: Chandler returned for Tuesday’s Today and opened in part with an attempt at a cutesy play-on-words: “[S]ome of the Democrats in Chicago told me they packed for three [weeks]. They are finding support in friendly territory. Governors in California, Illinois, and New York threatening if Texas messes with the map, they’ll mess with Texas.” He went as far as referring to the Republican redraw as “the political stunt” before us, not the “defiant” Democrats going on vacation. The Texas-based correspondent concluded with the gross claim about what Republicans care about: Back on Monday, Chandler had help from anchor Tom Llamas who took his own shots at Texas Republicans by bemoaning “the Texas-size political battle” over “Republican leaders look[ing] to gerrymander congressional maps” and “open a whole new can of worms” because of their “controversial, gerrymandering redistricting map.” Monday’s CBS Evening News similarly peddled this grotesque lie. After an on-screen boo-boo of putting up the current map when they meant to show the proposed one, senior White House correspondent Ed O’Keefe started with all the usual updates about this being a Trump demand and the state House was unable to meet quorum Monday due to the absent Democrats. It was here that he pivoted to floods with State Representative James Bucy (D) insisting without pushback he and his colleagues, not Abbott and the GOP, who are wanting to help those affected. He also invited Bucy’s colleague Ann Johnson to weigh in, wondering what she’d say “to the Republican charge that you guys leaving the state allows them to turn around and say, they’re playing games, they’re avoiding the flood debate.” Tuesday’s CBS Mornings had O’Keefe back on the case, starting off with a lone mention of the flooding aid:  [D]ozens of Texas state Democratic lawmakers remain here in the suburbs of Illinois, avoiding a special session back home originally called primarily to focus on the aftermath of deadly floods across the Lone Star State, but it’s a fight over the state’s future congressional map that has become a national fight. These officials came off as petty with soundbites following from Bucy telling O’Keefe gerrymandering is “an American people” and the rush to leave Texas was worth it to save the country: “If Greg Abbott and Donald Trump get away with stealing five seats in Texas, that’s just the beginning and it will impact all of us.” While CBS and NBC were sucking up to Texas Democrats and taking their bait on the Hill Country flood relief, ABC only did the former. Like he did hours earlier, chief Washington correspondent Jonathan Karl took to Monday’s World News Tonight as the only network reporter to point out Democrats also gerrymander. However, Karl joined NBC’s Chandler in touting Hochul’s hypocritical and likely fruitless promise to gerrymander New York. Karl returned on Tuesday’s Good Morning America and gently pressed on liberal bubbles by pointing out previous stunts by Lone Star State leftists have failed: “Texas Democrats have tried this move before back in 2021 and in 2003. In both cases, the standoff went on for weeks, but the Democrats eventually returned to Texas and the move failed to stop the Republicans.” To see the relevant transcripts from August 4, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC). And to see the relevant transcripts from August 5, click here (for ABC), here (for CBS), and here (for NBC).