A new 300-page report details the sexual atrocities committed by Hamas against Israeli women and children on Oct. 7 and in the months of captivity that followed, including forcing family members to commit acts of sexual abuse on each other.
The Civil Commission on October 7 Crimes by Hamas Against Women and Children spent two years documenting the terror group’s sexual violence, interviewing more than 430 witnesses and unearthing more than 10,000 photos and nearly 2,000 hours of footage of the atrocities committed against victims of 52 different nationalities.
“The report reveals that sexual violence was a deliberate strategy, carried out with exceptional cruelty,” said international law expert and commission founder Cochav Elkayam‑Levy.
The commission identified 13 distinct patterns of sexual and gender-based violence, including gang rape; sexual torture, including intentional burning and mutilation; executions following or committed in conjunction with sexual violence; postmortem sexual abuse, humiliation, and desecration of bodies; threats of forced marriages; public displaying and parading of women and children; and sexual violence in the presence of or near family members.
“The repetition of these patterns demonstrates that the crimes were not isolated acts of brutality but formed part of a broader operational method used during the attack and its aftermath,” the report states.
“The men pulled a woman from the vehicle … forcibly removed her clothing, and raped her … They repeatedly stabbed her, killing her … They continued to rape her after her death.” – Raz Cohen, Nova music festival survivor
Abuse of Families
Among the most disturbing findings is what the report calls “kinocidal sexual violence” — “crimes deliberately aimed at torturing and destroying the family as a cohesive social and emotional unit.” This distinct pattern of violence targeted family members and exploited familial relationships as an instrument of terror.
“In several documented incidents, victims were sexually assaulted or humiliated in the presence of relatives, and in one of the documented cases family members were coerced into participating in acts of abuse against one another.”
Further, the investigation found that as a weapon in its terror campaign, Hamas filmed and distributed across social media videos of abuse, torture, and murder. In numerous cases, families first discovered the horrific fate of their loved ones via those Hamas videos and images. In some cases, Hamas even posted the material on the victims’ own social media accounts.
“These acts weaponize the deepest human bonds to maximize pain and psychological devastation,” the report stated. “They exacerbate emotional distress and trauma beyond the initial acts and often create multigenerational trauma.”
“It’s these little things that break you. When you have no control over your body and no control over how to take care of your body.” – Former hostage Agam Goldstein, 17
Seeking Justice
“What we have witnessed is deep hatred to humiliate us and terrorize us as a people, as a nation, as women, as vulnerable people who found themselves in captivity and in a prolonged hell,” Elkayam‑Levy told The Times of Israel.
The commission reached the legal conclusion that “these crimes constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocidal acts under international law.”
It calls the prosecution of these crimes an “urgent priority” and is pushing for accountability through domestic Israeli proceedings, as well as through sanctions against individuals and entities responsible for carrying out or materially supporting the Oct. 7 attack and its aftermath.
It specifically calls for Israel to establish a “specialized chamber or panel of judges dedicated to the prosecution of sexual and gender-based crimes committed on October 7th and during captivity.”
“No prosecution will reflect the depth and breadth of what happened,” Elkayam‑Levy told Israeli news site Ynet.
Still, commission CEO Merav Israeli‑Amarant declared, “Institutional international recognition creates the beginning of justice.”
“You hear it. It’s right next to you. You hear the screams . . . and then you hear silence.” – Darin Komarov, Oct. 7 survivor
Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a segment from today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.
Jack Fowler: So, let’s start off with corruption in Maine. And here’s this—Steve Robinson posted this on X the other day. “Maine Democrats are actively recruiting voters who have never lived in Maine and never paid taxes in Maine.
“Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, who previously tried to disenfranchise Maine voters by removing Donald Trump from the ballot, has publicly admitted that noncitizens are registered to vote in Maine. She’s refusing to give Harmeet Dhillon [from the Justice Department] Maine’s voter files so that the Department of Justice can prevent noncitizens from raiding our elections.
“And Bellows has partnered with the Community Organizing Alliance. This is a, quote-unquote, ‘migrant-run ACORN-style group created by the alleged Medicaid fraudsters at Gateway Community Services.’” Etc., etc.
You know, Maine was once a bastion of republicanism. It has important elections coming up, Victor, and we’re gonna talk about that separately with [Graham] Platner. But this is that infamous woman who tried to keep Donald Trump off the ballot. And she is a pure ideologue and in a position of power.
Your thoughts?
Victor Davis Hanson: Well, I think there’s two issues here. One is Platner and the worry about him. The rumors are, and these are alleged rumors, but I think Mark Halperin mentioned them, that his long social media history, which is pretty crazy. Women need to wear Kevlar pants if they don’t want to be raped. White people, rural people are stupid and lazy. He’s a communist.
Fowler: All cops are bastards.
Hanson: All cops are … Yeah. And I don’t know how you can be on 100% disability for post-traumatic stress syndrome and then say you’re going to run for Senate because you’re disabled. But he’s doing that. And of course, no one has called him on it.
The other thing is if you have a candidate like that and you’re going to nominate him over, she’s not very moderate, the governor, but that he was going to win. And then once he’s in the general—Susan Collins, I know that a lot of the true-blue conservatives like us, Jack, get irritated with her, but she has to operate in the confines of Maine.
And I would say, I haven’t looked at her voting record, but I imagine—don’t you think it’s 75% or 80% with the administration?
Fowler: Yeah.
Hanson: On key votes, the SAVE Act and things like that, she disappoints, but she gets elected. And she’s smart. There’s no comparison between the two.
So, the point I’m making is that he is out of the ordinary. He also represents this new strain of elite, very wealthy—here in California, Tom Steyer is really off the scale, hard-Left, but a billionaire. We saw [Zohran] Mamdani. His two parents are billionaires. I mean, they’re not multimillionaires, but they’re very affluent. They’re from a very exclusive family in Uganda.
And then we go to Platner. He went to Hotchkiss School. He’s the son of a famous architect. His father was a lawyer. His mother is a restaurateur. So, he’s among the elite, and yet he keeps yelling and screaming about billionaires and millionaires. His parents are millionaires, no doubt. He grew up as a millionaire.
So, there’s a problem with him. And when you’re a Democrat and your heart says, I love this guy, but your brain says, he’s not gonna be electable under normal circumstances, then you opt for the change the system. And the change the system is what they always do.
James Carville outlined it. He said, when the Democrats come in, no more filibuster. No more Electoral College with a national voting compact solution to that. Four more Democratic senators under the Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico entrance. And pack the court. What does that show? He doesn’t have confidence in the Democratic message appealing to 51%.
They don’t have confidence that this guy can win. So, when they do that, they either open the border or they try to say that felons can vote or they try to change the system, and that’s what they’re doing, whether it’s off the radar or transparently in Maine because they have a problem.
And as I said, Mark Halperin reviewed his problems, and apparently, allegedly, there’s a lot more to come, Jack, about him. His record.
And it’s very ironic, well, not ironic. I should apologize for that. But the Democratic Party made such a fuss about Elon Musk’s Nazi salute. It wasn’t a Nazi salute. He saluted like we’ve seen everybody do that. Cory Booker, I think Elizabeth Warren. They all do it.
And they’ve said nothing about this Totenkopf death head, Third Panzer Division [tattoo] and also used as the Einsatzgruppen people at the death camps, and he knew. People have said, that were in his cohort, he knew what it was. He bragged about it.
He’s changed his story twice. He said, well, you know, I didn’t really know what it was until I ran for Congress, I mean, for Senate. And they told me what it was. And then he’s also said, well, you know, I was brainwashed. I imbued or absorbed this toxic Marine culture. And that made me do it.
So, he can’t tell the truth. And he thinks he’s going to win. Put it this way. 30 years ago, if you were a Democrat and you wore a Nazi tattoo for 20 years and people knew about it, that would exclude you from being nominated.
Today in the Democratic Party, the fact that he had a Nazi tattoo and he removed it will mean, A, the grandees will explain it away, or wink, nod, it will be something that will be of value because of the rising antisemitism.
It sends a message. It sends a message, and he’s reiterated again and again and again about Gaza, Gaza, Gaza, genocide, Israel, Israel, Israel, cut off—so that sends a message to the new Democratic Jacobin Party. And it’s not the Democratic Party anyway. It’s a Jacobin Party, a French revolutionary party. And they have institutionalized antisemitism. So, when a candidate sends those signals and we think they’re disqualifying, we’re in a time warp. That was 20, 30 years ago.
It’s not now.
Fowler: Victor, I want to—we have to talk about Tucker Carlson now. Here’s a headline: “Tucker praises Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner.” Quote, “I certainly appreciate his foreign policy views, and I appreciate how different they are from everybody else in his party. I haven’t met him yet, and I plan to meet him.”
Hanson: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. How is he different than anybody else? He’s representative of the Democratic party, isn’t he?
Hanson: I mean, everything he’s right with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and the older guard that has flipped like Nancy Pelosi and Schumer. They’re for that stuff now. He basically wants open borders, doesn’t care about illegal immigration, critical race theory, DEI, transgender, all of that stuff. He can’t get elected if he wasn’t.
He’s a green guy, no fossil [fuels]—all of that stuff. And the whole He-Man, white working guy, all in the tough talk, and often laced with profanities, all of that is just superficial pablum for this mythical white working class that’ll vote for him because he’s tough.
It’s kind of insulting to the white working class because the people that I see in my neighborhood that are white working class, are pretty well-informed.
Fowler: Yeah.
Hanson: But I don’t know what Tucker-
Fowler: Oh, you said F, I’m going to vote for you.
Hanson: Yeah. I don’t know what Tucker means, but if he says that he would prefer Graham Platner, and I guess he does, because he didn’t say at the same time, he’s an interesting person. I want to interview him. But of course, I’ll also interview Susan Collins because her record, even though I don’t embrace it all, has been more representative of my entire life in the conservative movement. He didn’t say that.
So, I assume that he likes Graham Platner not because his views are at odds—I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt—with the new hard-Left Democratic Party, unless Tucker’s gone the whole Bill Kristol route. I don’t know if he has or not. Or Max Boot route. I don’t think he has.
But he must like him because Graham Platner has been outspoken in his hatred of Israel, Gaza, genocide, all this stuff. And that, it seems to me, that that’s—and he’s had people on—he has appeared with people who have endorsed, and correct me if I’m wrong, I think he’s appeared with or he’s talked with people who have been classified as pro-neo-Nazi. Really, you know, there’s kind of the Darryl Cooper, I don’t know how you’d [say it], revisionist.
So, is that why Tucker is attracted to this new face in the Democratic Party? Because if you look at the totality of what he said, it’s no different than “the squad” or AOC. It really isn’t.
Fowler: Yeah.
Hanson: And I thought Tucker’s criticism of Donald Trump was, I am a principled conservative, and I voted for Donald Trump and campaigned for him and frequented Air Force One and Campaign One. And I was at Mar-a-Lago, habitué a lot. And I did this because I agreed with 90% of his platform. I thought that’s the reason why.
And I still haven’t been enlightened by anybody. Candace. Any of them. Why, if you disagree with him on a particular issue, like you classify the 60-day, and it hasn’t been 60 days of kinetic activity, it’s been 40 days, maybe less, against Iran. You want to classify that as a forever or endless war, that he campaigned against. Okay, that’s a legitimate opinion.
But why would you take one particular issue and then say, well, I thought it over and I don’t like that wall that’s growing on the border. I don’t like the idea there’s no illegal immigration. I don’t like the idea we’re deporting 500,000 criminals. I don’t like the deregulation, the tax cuts. They’re all an abomination.
No. It’s just you crossed me on one issue and I’m done with you. Unless they can cite others, you know, that you don’t like Trump’s language or you feel that his impulsiveness or when he wasn’t respectful of the dead, with Rob Reiner’s passing, or he uses the F-word on his—something like that. But you have to come forward with something that would nullify your whole life’s conservatism.
Fowler: It’s interesting because one of the criticisms from Tucker was—recent criticisms—was that Trump was the Antichrist. And then he was interviewed by The New York Times this past weekend who—and he denied saying it. And they showed the video he clearly—yeah.
Hanson: I saw that. And he said he didn’t know what the Antichrist was, so how could he say that? And that would suggest that somebody always says things he knows.
Fowler: Yeah.
Hanson: Tucker gave an interview with the mayor of Bethlehem, who flat out said that Christians have been fleeing his city because of Jewish pressure, when in fact one of the destinations they go is to Israel, and they’re fleeing Muslim intolerance.
So, you don’t need to know everything to say something. He did say that. The Antichrist—you know, he said he didn’t know what the Antichrist was. And as I remember in the Bible, I’m just doing this—it’s in John, I think. It’s in Revelations, too. The Greek word for it is pseudochristos. The pseudo just means false. The false Christ.
And I have a feeling, isn’t he referred to in Acts or Letters as the person who, as the end of days come, he’s gonna be popular and work miracles?
Fowler: Yes. Right.
Hanson: But he’s not satan or Lucifer. He’s some type of—he’s not referred to very much in the Bible. He’s some person who’s going to emulate Christ and try to deliberately fool people. And then rob them of eternity through his sin. And they’re following his sin as deluded people.
And so if he meant that, I don’t believe he doesn’t—he’s very religious, so when he says, I don’t know what the Antichrist is, when he’s talking about Trump as the Antichrist, and he said that Trump had used foul language on Easter, and that Trump was a very magnetic person, you get the impression he did know.
Because he was trying to, I think, say that Donald Trump led us, in what I thought was a moral crusade, but it was a pseudo-crusade. Maybe that’s what he meant. I think he did. I just don’t believe that someone that aware and well-read and familiar with Christian exegesis does not know what the antichrist is.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
Victor Davis Hanson is a senior contributor for The Daily Signal, hosting a podcast and producing video commentaries four times per week, and writing a weekly column. Follow on VDHanson. Website:https://victorhanson.com/.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Maine-Election-Scam.jpg360640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2026-05-10 12:11:372026-05-12 05:24:49The Maine Election Scam: Noncitizens, Radical Elites, and the Death of Democracy
Barack Hussain Obama operates a clandestine shadow government from his Kalorama fortress to sabotage the American will. This parallel power structure functions as a parasitic entity, draining the lifeblood of the current administration to preserve a corrupt, globalist status quo.
Barack Hussain Obama remains the first president in American history to occupy the capital after his term, transforming a private residence into a tactical command center. He discards the tradition of peaceful transition, choosing instead to command a network of loyalist operatives embedded within the federal bureaucracy. This machine executes a strategy of internal obstruction, strangling the We the People agenda at every turn.
The Senator from Pennsylvania, John Fetterman, confirms the reality of this Democrat lock-step. The party functions as a monolithic strike force, taking direct cues from the Kalorama Cell. Obama himself admits his desire for a front man with an earpiece — a puppet to deliver his lines while he orchestrates the destruction of national borders and economic independence from a basement [04:13]. This is not politics; it is an insurrection of the elites.
The Kalorama Cell coordinates a stay-behind network of embedded insurgents within the federal apparatus. This administrative state functions as a shadow infantry, weaponizing the civil service against the elected executive. These careerists view their oath not as a commitment to the Constitution, but as a blood oath to the Obama-era directives that birthed their careers. They utilize slow-rolling tactics, leak classified shrapnel to corporate media mouthpieces, and execute a strategy of total administrative paralysis.
This is a pincer movement: Obama provides the tactical guidance from his command center, while his disciples within the Department of Justice and the State Department ensure the We the People agenda remains strangled in the crib. This clandestine directive turns the machinery of government into a predatory engine designed to protect the cartel’s interests at the expense of national security.
Obama actively directs a shadow diplomacy corps to undermine official U.S. foreign policy. By engaging with foreign leaders and international bodies like the EU, he creates a dual-track government that confuses allies and emboldens enemies. This interference violates the Logan Act and constitutes a direct assault on the Constitution.
The Obama Foundation functions as a Ministry of Truth, exporting information integrity initiatives that are nothing more than digital execution squads for free speech. His NGO arm pushed for Orwellian censorship laws in Europe to beta-test a total blockade of dissenting voices in America [04:43]. This machine labels truth as disinformation to protect the cartel’s narrative.
Shadow President utilizes a vast network of former aides and appointees who remain in the administrative state. These stay-behind forces prioritize Obama’s globalist directives over the orders of the sitting President. This nepotistic web ensures that while the face of the White House changes, the hands pulling the levers remain the same.
Financial gain fuels this sedition. The Obama Foundation serves as the clearinghouse for a globalist war chest, funneling dark money into NGO strike forces that destabilize domestic policy. This is a system of economic extortion where private capital from international financiers merges with shadow political power to bypass the American voter.
By leveraging sustainability and information integrity grants, the Shadow Machine buys the loyalty of local municipalities and tech giants. They create an environment where opposition to the Obama Machine results in financial ruin or digital erasure. This is not philanthropy; it is the construction of a borderless empire that treats the American taxpayer as a conquered resource. The human cost is a blood-soaked economy where the middle class pays for its own disenfranchisement.
The Shadow Government’s persistence comes at a blood-soaked price for the American taxpayer. While the Kalorama Machine protects the interests of the billionaire class, the average citizen suffers under the weight of weaponized inflation and manufactured border crises.
The Democratic Party’s absolute adherence to Obama’s Shadow Prime Minister model turns the legislative branch into a defensive wall for the elite. They block every attempt to restore law and order, choosing the coaching of a former leader over the sovereignty of the current electorate [08:34]. This refusal to relinquish power is the hallmark of a Marxist regime, not a constitutional republic.
The evidence demands an immediate reckoning. Barack Obama’s own admissions regarding a stand-in and his drawn-back involvement in day-to-day operations confirm the existence of this shadow regime [08:13]. He is the executioner of American stability, using moral persuasion as a cloak for raw, unconstitutional power.
The use of a front man is the ultimate act of cowardice and strategic brilliance. By utilizing a barely warm cadaver to occupy the Oval Office, the Shadow Machine operates with absolute impunity. The front man absorbs the public’s fury while the real decisions — the executive orders, the weaponized indictments, and the border liquidations — emanate from the Kalorama basement.
This earpiece presidency ensures that accountability vanishes. When the policies fail, the public blames the puppet, while the master remains untouched in his mansion, coaching the next generation of radicals to dismantle the Republic. This is the anatomy of a coup d’état in slow motion. The Shadow Government discards the ballot box in favor of a permanent, unelected regency that views the American citizen as a nuisance to be managed, not a sovereign to be served.
The evidence demands more than just awareness; it demands the iron grip of justice. Barack Obama’s admission that he found himself drawn back into day-to-day politics strips away the veneer of a retired statesman. He is an active combatant in a war against American sovereignty. The Democratic Party’s lock-step adherence to this Shadow Prime Minister is a confession of their own irrelevance.
They have abandoned the Constitutional Republic for a Marxist model of permanent power. Sedition is the only label for an ex-president who maintains a parallel government to subvert his successor. The shrapnel of his policies continues to tear through the fabric of the nation. The American people must recognize the executioner at the door.
The path forward requires the total dismantling of the Kalorama Cell. For those who demand the unvarnished truth: the Shadow Government is no longer a theory; it is a documented, predatory reality. The time for diplomatic grace is over. The era of the sledgehammer begins.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/OBAMA-and-Shadow-Government.jpg358640Amil Imanihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAmil Imani2026-05-10 11:25:532026-05-10 11:39:29OBAMA and Shadow Government
Not only was the SPLC allegedly boosting members of the hate groups it says it exists to oppose while demonizing mainstream conservatives, but it also reportedly settled a racial discrimination lawsuit as recently as 2024.
Michael Edison Hayden, who worked as a senior investigative reporter at the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, wrote a tell-all article on Substack last month.
Hayden faulted the SPLC for not attacking conservatives enough; for harassing members of the SPLC’s union; for responding poorly to the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and its aftermath; and for engaging in racial discrimination against him.
Insufficiently Anti-MAGA
Hayden joined the Intelligence Project—the branch of the SPLC that puts out a “hate map” plotting mainstream conservative and Christian nonprofits alongside chapters of the Ku Klux Klan—in December 2018. Yet he said the SPLC had gone weak at the knees in opposing the Right since then.
Hayden blamed then-CEO Margaret Huang—whose lavish salary earned her the moniker “Half-a-mil Mags.” SPLC leadership at the time “seemed to love spending donor money on retreats, and they seemed to hate publishing anything, especially pieces that might upset MAGA,” the Make America Great Again movement.
During the 2022 midterms, “while the organization warned donors about threats to democracy, it sent our editorial team on a retreat to a pricey, wine-centric hotel with no clear agenda,” he wrote.
He faulted the SPLC for delaying the release of the 2022 “hate map”—released on June 6, 2023—in order to help Senate Democrats confirm SPLC lawyer Nancy Abudu to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Union-Busting
A few months after Hayden started, the SPLC fired its co-founder amid a racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal. During the scandal, employees formed a labor union, and Hayden took a leadership position in the union in 2022. When he did so, management turned on him “overnight.”
He said SPLC’s leadership called him into “Kafkaesque disciplinary meetings, issuing verbal warnings over incidents that never occurred.” He even accused leadership of writing down “quotes of mine that they had fabricated wholesale.”
His criticism echoes the union’s 2024 accusations against Huang and SPLC leadership at the time. The SPLC Union voted to demand Huang resign, and she ultimately left in July 2025.
Israel
Hayden, who traces his descent to Egyptians who lived in what is now Israel, condemned the SPLC for doing “almost nothing publicly” after the Oct. 7 attacks.
He helped draft the union statement condemning Israel for launching “the beginnings of a genocide” in Gaza. Apparently, the statement would have been even worse without Hayden, who says he insisted that the union at least mention antisemitism.
Rabbi Yaakov Menken, managing director of the Coalition for Jewish Values, told The Daily Signal that the union’s statement was “laced through with antisemitic bigotry.”
Even though the SPLC Union, not the center itself, had released the statement, Hayden recalled that “pro-Israel donors threatened to pull their funding.” This confirmed my suspicions about the Left’s generational divide over Israel.
Hayden and his colleague, Hannah Gais, also signed an open letter demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and calling Israel an “apartheid” state. When The Washington Free Beacon reported on the letter, Hayden condemned it as a “racist attempt” to target him.
The SPLC disciplined Hayden.
“Maybe I had alienated a wealthy donor,” he speculated. “Whatever it was, the SPLC’s leadership still went through the motions, dressing up the discipline in different justifications because they couldn’t say outright what they were doing. They were a civil rights group, after all.”
The SPLC punished him, an Arab American, but not Gais, a woman of Jewish heritage. The American Civil Liberties Union lawyers were “eager” to represent him and “go after the SPLC,” but ultimately backed down due to conflicts of interest.
The SPLC fired Hayden amid a difficult struggle with mental illness, and he threatened to sue the SPLC for discrimination.
“Rather than let the story become public, they settled in the spring of 2024,” he wrote.
Yet the story is public now, and it does not reflect well on the SPLC.
Not only did the SPLC allegedly not stand up for Jews in the aftermath of Oct. 7, but it also stood accused of applying a racial double standard in punishing staff who spoke out. The SPLC did not respond to my request for comment, and neither did the ACLU.
When the SPLC settled with Hayden, someone in management reportedly told him that the SPLC leaders had given “buyouts” to the people who treated him harshly. The lawyers reportedly told him that “the SPLC had become too wary of MAGA’s litigiousness and vengefulness to continue confronting the movement.”
A Bone-Chilling Complaint
I find Hayden’s major complaint against the SPLC rather curious.
If anything, the SPLC proved more aggressive during Huang’s leadership. That 2022 “hate map” included Moms for Liberty and other parental rights groups alongside chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. The following year, the SPLC added groups of doctors who oppose transgender ideology to the map. Last year, it added PragerU, Focus on the Family, and Turning Point USA to the map. A few months later, Charlie Kirk got a bullet in the neck.
Hayden’s story reveals yet more dysfunction and corruption at the SPLC, but his suggestion that the SPLC should grow even more aggressive in demonizing conservatives is bone-chilling.Let’s hope the new leadership doesn’t follow his advice.
So, like clockwork, it was no surprise that after the U.S. Supreme Court released it’s 6-3 ruling in the Louisiana v. Callais case that radical Black liberal media appointed leaders and organizations lost their collective minds.
Democrat shills like Roland Martin, Joy Reid, Don Lemon, Laura Coasts, Whoopie Goldberg, Sunny Hostin, Jemele Hill, Barak Obama; and radical liberal organizations like the NAACP, The National Urban League, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Black Economic Alliance, the United Negro College Fund, the Thurgood Marshall Fund, the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Bar Association all claimed that white racist Republicans like Donald Trump were trying to put Blacks back in slavery.
The court did not, let me repeat, DID NOT overturn the 1965 Voting Rights Act! They simply said that you cannot base the drawing of a congressional district with the sole intent of packing enough Black voters in a district so that it guarantees a Black will be elected.
Implicit in what these radical Black liberals are saying is that the only way for Blacks to win an election is for them to receive only Black votes.
In other words, whites will not vote for a Black candidate. Nothing could be more anti-American.
There are currently four Black Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives: Byron Donalds (FL), Wesley Hunt (TX), John James (MI), Burgess Owens (UT). They each represent a majority white district.
And what radical liberals always seem to forget is that America voted twice for Barak Obama, each time with a majority of the white vote.
So where is the political racism? I will wait for your answer…
The Supreme Court basically said that it is perfectly fine to gerrymander based on party affiliation (Democrat, Republican); but you cannot do it to guarantee an outcome based on race (majority-minority districts).
Can someone please tell me how this is devastating to the Black community?
Another question for my radical liberal sycophants, I have seen you all over the media ranting about how Republicans and conservatives have been chipping away at voting rights, affirmative action, and other liberal programs for decades; so why did you not do anything legislatively to protect these programs or update these programs for the 21st century?
In Bill Clinton’s and Barak Obama’s first terms in office, Democrats controlled the House, Senate and the White House and you did nothing. Were they also racists?
To the NAACP, The National Urban League, the Congressional Black Caucus, Black Economic Alliance, the National Association of Black Journalists, the Thurgood Marshall Fund, the United Negro College Fund, the National Bar Association, why were you not forward thinking enough to be proactive versus reactive? Since radical liberal Black leadership “knew” Republicans were attempting to eradicate these programs why did they do nothing?
Herein lies the problems with the media appointed radical Black leaders in the Black community, they are worthless. They are supposed to be the “talented tenth,” “the boule,” “the bourgeoisie.”
How much of the blame for the Black community’s plight fall at the feet of these weak, radical, liberal organizations and their bought and paid for leadership?
The Supreme Court’s decision is going to force both Black and white, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican to work together in coalitions based on a shared agenda.
This is what these crazy radical Black liberals refuse talk about. By getting rid of the minority districts, whites will pick up a considerable amount of Black voters that will necessitate dialogue and interaction.
Who would argue that this is a bad thing?
These white and Black elected officials will now have to build relationships with people under the new maps they would normally never have to engage with.
In majority white districts, elected officials could ignore their Black constituents; in majority Black districts elected officials could ignore their white constituents.
Under the new maps Black and white elected officials will be forced to interact with the new voters of their districts.
These once useful laws and programs from the 1960s began with the intent of creating equality and justice specifically for Blacks; but they have morphed into guaranteed outcomes (majority-minority districts, all but guaranteeing that a Black would win the election).
That is the singular issue the Supreme Court was addressing in its ruling last week. Nothing more, nothing less.
The right to vote, still there. The right to pick your representative based on your political values, still there. The right to guarantee that you have a Black representative, gone!
If you want a Black representative, build coalitions and meet at the ballot box.
According to Pew Research, “the number of Black eligible voters in the United States is projected to reach 34.4 million in November 2024 (the latest year data is available) after several years of modest growth. And Black eligible voters stand out for turnout rates that are higher than among Latino and Asian eligible voters.”
According to this same research, Blacks comprise 14% of all voters. Half of Black eligible voters live in one of eight states. Texas has the largest number, with 2.9 million, followed by Georgia and Florida (2.6 million each). Rounding out the top eight are New York (2.4 million), California (2.0 million), North Carolina (1.8 million), and Maryland and Illinois (1.4 million each). Together, these states account for 52% of Black eligible voters in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Black eligible voters are more likely than eligible voters to be women (53% vs. 51%). They also tend to be younger than eligible voters overall: 60% of Black eligible voters are under the age of 50, compared with 52% of all U.S. eligible voters.
Only 64% of eligible Black voters actually voted in 2024. This is the problem, not racism.
So as opposed to giving Blacks a reason to vote, radical Black liberals keep trying to force Black voters to accept amnesty for illegals, boys in girl sports, homosexuality, no punishment for crimes, higher taxes and radical feminism. Black voters continue to show they are not in agreement with these media appointed leaders, so an increasing number are now voting Republican.
As the soulful singer, Michael McDonald told me, “what a fool believes he sees; no wiseman has the power to reason away; ‘cause what seems to be is always better than nothing at all.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Black-Voters-and-the-New-Political-Reality.jpg360640Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2026-05-08 13:25:062026-05-08 13:29:07Black Voters and the New Political Reality after Supreme Court Decision
New York City may be broker than a barista with a college degree but that isn’t stopping socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani from funding his activist army.
On Wednesday, the mayor’s Office of Mass Engagement rolled out a program called “Organize NYC” that’s billed asopens in a new tab a “long-term initiative to bring mass public participation into the work of governing.”
The first thing these paid activists will do is to get people to participate in the Rent Guidelines Board hearing in June.
Volunteers will canvass across the city to encourage tenants and landlords to testify ahead of the board’s June vote, which will determine whether rents increase or remain the same for more than 2 million New Yorkers.
This vote mainly has to do with a potential further rent freeze in the city.
The mayor’s office said in a statement that these publicly paid community organizers “will not advocate for any specific outcome,” but you can bet that critics of the program aren’t buying itopens in a new tab.
If you have any doubts about what that totally, absolutely neutral program is about, just watch a few minutes of the ad pumping this grift.
Yes, “Mohammed” in the commercial here is wearing a keffiyeh, which has become a symbol of Palestinian “resistance” to Israel and is often worn by members of Hamas.
Even some Democrats weren’t too pleased with this sartorial choice.
“It’s all intentionally divisive and hateful,” former Democrat state Assemblyman Dov Hikind said to the New York Post on Saturdayopens in a new tab. “This man is representing the administration. If someone came to my door with a keffiyeh, I’d immediately be nervous.”
But that’s only a small part of the issue with Organize NYC.
In a separate New York Post editorialopens in a new tab on Sunday, John Ketcham and Christian Browne—two Manhattan Institute scholars—called out Organize NYC as an attempt to create a thinly veiled, “taxpayer-funded effort to embed campaign-style political organizing inside city government, dress it up as civic virtue, and deliver Mamdani’s campaign promise under a veneer of official neutrality.”
That certainly seems to be the case.
As the authors noted, Mamdani’s office has been vague about how much money the utterly broke city government facing a “historic” budget crisisopens in a new tab will be sending Organize NYC’s way.
It’s clear what Mamdani is doing. He’s funding his activist class and making sure that public money is going to his people while using them to bolster numbers for their pet causes. As I wrote when he wonopens in a new tab the election in November, Mamdani will “provide an ample training ground for his socialist comrades to gain experience wielding power.”
This is a small but critical part of that larger goal. And you can be sure this model will be copied elsewhere.
The leftist Dissent Magazine celebratedopens in a new tab Mamdani’s initiative to keep activists activated. Though even it had to acknowledge that “pushing against the limits of what is perceived as acceptably ‘political’ within the confines of city government will be one continuing challenge for the Office of Mass Engagement.”
You can be sure that not only will Mamdani lean heavily on this organization in New York City, but the Left will launch similar efforts elsewhere.
That’s why what happens in New York, unfortunately, matters beyond the limits of the five boroughs. Mamdani’s revolution is a pilot program for a socialist government that the Left hopes to scale up and spread elsewhere. Never mind that the previous pilot programs didn’t turn out too good. Surely, True Socialism will work this time, right?
Right now, Mamdani and company are focused on consolidating, ensuring they keep control long after their popularity plummets.
Once Democrats and the Left gain power, they focus immediately on cementing itopens in a new tab, ensuring that their people get the fruits of patronage, and that public money flows toward their pet projects, their people, and away from their enemies.
Whether their policies or other activities serve the broader public matters a lot less than ensuring their own people are taken care of.
You can see why the Left’s activist class, their NGO network, and their hordes of government bureaucrats remain so committed to the cause despite obvious governing failures.
Those failures are your problem, not theirs.
From their perspective, the government doesn’t really have to provide clean streets, efficient services, law and order, or anything like that. It’s about spoils and special benefits, with a little redistribution and social engineering on the side.
This is one of the many reasons so many of our big, blue cities seem utterly dysfunctional despite so many economic advantages.
Unfortunately for New York, Mamdani is doing everything his predecessors did wrong and making things worse. But he’s doing this while cleverly ensuring that even if his socialist experiments fail, there will be nothing anyone can do about it.
Black conservatives perennially face the slur that they’re “not really black” if they aren’t on the left. Not only that, they are tools of white racists if they dissent from the NAACP hard line.
When the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn a racially gerrymandered congressional district in Louisiana, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, was outraged by the local Deseret News in Salt Lake City prominently featuring an Associated Press photo of a lone black protester in front of the court holding a sign that said, “Thurgood is watching you, Clarence.” That implied Thurgood Marshall was disappointed in Clarence Thomas.
Lee tweeted: “They’re going after Justice Thomas for being conservative while Black. That’s racist. And it’s very, very wrong.” He added: “It’d be absurd to assume that Justice Alito should agree with the late Justice Brennan because he’s white. It’s racist and offensive for @Deseret to suggest that Justice Thomas should agree with the late Justice Thurgood Marshall because he’s Black.”
Rep. Burgess Owens, R-Utah, a black conservative, seconded that thought: “When the Left can’t beat a Conservative Black man’s argument, they attack his Blackness.” For example, the Congressional Black Caucus has a membership of 60 Democrats, but none of the five black Republicans in Congress.
This kind of slur greeted Thomas when he was nominated for the Supreme Court in the summer of 1991. NBC reporter Bob Herbert uncorked a commentary underlining “David Duke, former Ku Klux Klan leader, is crazy about Clarence Thomas.”
Columnist Carl Rowan wrote Thomas had no talent, only the ability to “bootlick” Reagan and Bush, that “If you gave Clarence Thomas a little flour on his face, you’d think you had David Duke talking.”
That same spirit continues today, as the ladies on ABC’s “The View” were upset with Thomas. Joy Behar complained he “didn’t stick up for his own.”
Two years ago, Behar complained that Sen. Tim Scott doesn’t understand being black, “the systemic racism that African Americans face in this country and other minorities. He doesn’t get it. Neither does Clarence. And that’s why they’re Republicans.”
At the time, Scott tweeted: “When a Black conservative who believes in the future of this nation stands up to be counted, they lose their minds.”
The standard leftist line is represented by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., pushing hyperbolic lies. “Morning Joe” championed his tweet that Thomas & Co. gave “a green light for unconstitutional attacks on the voting rights that generations of Americans bled and died to secure.” But no one has been denied the right to vote.
The Left insists that unless blacks get to elect other blacks, they have no voting rights. So, what happens when a majority-black district elects a white guy (Steve Cohen in Memphis) or an Indian guy (Shrinivas Thanedar in Detroit)? Did their voting rights disappear?
It got worse. Booker told MS NOW’s Jonathan Lemire that the Court’s verdict is “eliminating black representation, disenfranchising African American voters by drawing creative districts that completely take away any kind of representation.” So, all 65 black members of Congress are going to lose their seats? Or too many Democrats might?
It’s also bizarre that Booker would talk about “drawing creative districts,” when that is exactly what many majority-minority districts look like on a map—as it was in this court case, the 6th District of Louisiana, which looks like a squashed centipede intersecting the district of Speaker Mike Johnson.
Black conservatives aren’t in favor of “eliminating” black legislators or “disenfranchising” black voters. But leftists will villainize them like this because negative campaigning can work. Pretending only black Democrats are black isn’t going away.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
