philibuster

Spirit Airlines died tonight at the hands of the socialist crusader, Elizabeth Warren She must be so proud to add another casket to her achievements. Tonight at 3am, Spirit turns off the lights. 14,000 jobs gone. 30+ smaller airports lose service. JetBlue offered $3.8 BILLION in cash to buy Spirit in 2022. Shareholders, flight attendants union, literally everyone voted yes. The combined company would have held 9% of the US market against a Big 4 that already owned 80%. For anyone who understands numbers: 9% isn’t a monopoly against 80%. Warren said no. She wrote letters. She pressured Buttigieg. Biden’s DOJ sued. A federal judge killed the deal in January 2024. Her argument: the merger would cost consumers $1 billion a year. Now look at her collateral damage she dusts under the rug. 510 pilots gone in the months after. 1,800 flight attendants furloughed in December. 14,000 jobs in 2023. 7,500 last week. Zero tonight. And that’s just the people in Spirit uniforms. Catering goes. Fuel guys go. Baggage crews, gate agents, airport coffee shops, hotels and rental cars in 70 cities Spirit flew to. Every airline job carries 3 more on its back. 40,000 people out of work because of one woman’s moronic crusade against the market. And the math ain’t mathing. Spirit abandoned 90 routes during the death spiral. Fares on those routes are up 14% on average. Oakland to Newark: $135 to $288. Fort Myers to San Juan: $92 to $219. Kansas City to Newark up 66%. That’s reality. Not some BS number from a “study.” So @SenWarren tell me how this saves the consumer money? Cheap carriers in a market drop fares 21% across the board. Southwest did this in the 90s and saved Americans $68 BILLION over 20 years. Warren killed it. That’s what moronic politicians led by socialism do. Then with her own blind arrogance, she tweeted Spirit’s collapse is “a Biden win for flyers.” A win. 14,000 people are reading termination letters tonight. And she’s taking credit. This is socialism in 2026. A senator who’s never made payroll thinks she knows how to run a market better than the people who own and work in the company. She saved you a billion on imaginary paper. She cost you ten times that in real life. She didn’t protect consumers from anything. 14,000+ will go from working to welfare. She will make sure to blame billionaires, hardworking tax payers, AI, capitalism and whatever monster they will make up tomorrow hiding under your bed. Higher taxes. Fewer jobs. More expensive everything. She called it a win. I hope you enjoy winning.

@BarackObama Any policy or action based on skin color is racist and unconstitutional. One would think you'd know that as a former President....

Today’s Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities - so long as they do it under the guise of “partisanship” rather than explicit “racial bias.” And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach. The good news is that such setbacks can be overcome. But that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers - not just in the upcoming midterms or in high profile races, but in every election and every level.

@AustinJustice I've already come to the conclusion that the "progressive" legislation of the 60s was the primary contributor to most of the problems we're seeing today (Hart-Cellar, Great Society, etc) That huge uptick from 61-73 is incredibly interesting. Id love to see a study on it.

"Blue cities are radical hellscapes that can't fix crime." Counterpoint: Baltimore. Baltimore had 334 murders in 2022. Last year it had 133, the lowest since 1977. The turning point was that voters defenestrated a Soros-backed prosecutor Marilyn Mosby who averaged 333 homicides a year across eight years and declined to use mandatory minimum sentences. (She was later convicted of mortgage fraud, so there's that too.) Her replacement, Ivan Bates, ran on the Democratic ticket with a simple message: repeat violent offenders belong in prison. Maryland law already allowed five years with no parole for convicted felons caught carrying a gun, but Mosby never used it. Bates used it a lot. In just two years, his office sent more than 2K repeat violent offenders to prison, double his predecessor's TOTAL. The city paired that with a precision intervention program that identified the small number of people driving most of the violence, which led to 631 arrests (94% haven't reoffended). Police also seized 2,480 firearms last year alone, including hundreds of ghost guns, while maintaining a 64% homicide clearance rate. When shooters know they'll get caught and actually prosecuted, behavior changes. Sandtown-Winchester, once the most violent neighborhoods in the city, just went a year without a killing! Carjackings (-51%) and robberies (-24%) are also down. Baltimore didn't change demographics, or its culture, its rules, or much of anything else in those years. It simply voted in a new Democratic prosecutor, who decided the city needed to finally put violent criminals in prison.

@epaleezeldin @rosadelauro New Yorker here. This is exactly what we REALLY need in our elected officials. I'm still so bummed you didnt beat garbage Governor Hochul. NY might have reversed its slide into the gutter by now. Instead, her and comrade Mamdani have only accelerated it. 😕

Nothing infuriates an uninformed Congressional Dem more than when they realize they voluntarily triggered a debate with someone who actually knows what they are talking about, reads federal statute and adheres to Supreme Court precedent. Today’s self-implosion by @rosadelauro was quite remarkable to witness. Without apology or regret, I will always adhere to the best available reading of federal statute pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright.

When a white supremacist gunned down 10 black people in a Buffalo supermarket in 2022, the NYT's @Jbouie and other liberals blamed mainstream conservatives for "inspiring" the anti-immigration views in whose name that shooter killed. Bouie claimed in the NYT that the killer's manifesto was "virtually indistinguishable from mainstream Republican rhetoric," and conservatives thus bear blame. Liberals wanted Jack Smith to prosecute Trump for the violence on January 6 based on this same theory: that Trump "inspired" the January 6 violence because his speech "inspired" that violence and they acted in the name of Trump's repeated claim that the 2020 election was stolen. The Right also embraces this theory, as they're doing now: blaming liberals and Trump critics for last night's WHCD's shooter because the would-be assassin's manifesto shows he acted in the name of common anti-Trump sentiments (ironically, last night's shooter actually did read and liked many liberal statements, including those of Jamelle Bouie, Wil Stancil and other partisan liberal luminaries). All of this is dumb. Words are not violence. You're not responsible for someone's violent acts because they share some or even all of your views. The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that preserving the distinction between words and violence is vital for basic conceptions of free speech (see Claiborne v. NAACP (1982). You allowed to express opposition to open borders, and you're allowed to criticize the American President, even harshly, without being held responsible if some lunatic uses violence in the name of your views. Bouie in 2022:

Saying the words "white people" in front of a room of white people is WILD, I did it recently. Watch what happens around you... EXTREME discomfort. White people have been conditioned to believe that even saying the words "white people" is a slur. That to even acknowledge themselves as a group, is itself, an act of racism. Really, it's just an insane thing to realize how successful the psychological operation has been. An entire group of people have been taught to be afraid of their own name, taught that noticing themselves is a truly evil thing to do. Yet, simultaneously, taught that EVERY OTHER demographic can speak about itself like that, but if YOU say "White people" it's a slur. The operation was SO successful, it's insane.

There has never once been a civilization at any point in history that died from an aging population because it’s a problem that inevitably corrects itself. The population may wax and wane over the centuries, but low birth rates alone have never killed off a civilization. Meanwhile, countless civilizations have been completely destroyed from unchecked immigration. And they were destroyed because everything you just articulated is actually the inverse of how civilizations form in the first place. It’s particular peoples that produce particular civilizations. If you mass import a different particular group, then the civilization that original people produced dies. If you need proof, you can ask the Romans.

Egalitarianism, the root cause of the evils pestering the West today, has made it so that 99,99% of people in the West will see this video and think “why is he destroying that wall?”, when this question is wholly irrelevant. This migrant does not think like us. He doesn’t know why he does it, just as the migrants in Brussels don’t know why they destroyed and burnt down their new football field and playground less than a day after the inauguration. They are not like us. If we keep projecting our thought processes onto them, we will go extinct and our civilisation with us. It makes me think about the video where three African rapists are asked how they feel about their victims suffering. They are asked again and again, in a calm fashion, but as hard as they try, they can’t understand the question. It’s us, who’s at fault, for projecting our empathy-capability onto people that are _not_like_us.

@throwbackscrave 'She was so quick!' .....with a response that makes zero sense. The idiots applauding this are the same ones that called Rogan 'a right wing extremist,' which only served as evidence that they've never listened to his show.

Joe Rogan: "They all do the same move they drop down and do the splits." Miley Cyrus: "That's what I think when i'm watching your shows too, all the same stuff." She didn’t stutter 😭

Western civilization is not declining. It is already dead. What you are living in is the corpse. In 1918, a German philosopher studied every civilization that collapsed and found they all shared one trait in the final stage: The population stops having children. And it stops having children because it no longer sees the point. His work was mocked, dismissed, and debated by 400 scholars. But he was right (thread) 🧵

This is the first time I've seen this. Holy sh*t! This puts things into perspective. Wow!

The federal government spent 7.01 trillion dollars in 2025 and here is a senator telling what they could do with 7 billion dollars if she could steal it from Bezos. If it’s that cheap why in the fuck haven’t you set aside .1% of the yearly budget to do it? Why should we believe you would do it if we just simply gave you more money? You wouldn’t you’re just pandering to idiots in the hope that envy will give you more power you self important bitch

John Adams, on the importance of only letting the propertied vote: It is certain in theory, that the only moral foundation of government is the consent of the people. But to what an extent shall we carry this principle? Shall we say, that every individual of the community, old and young, male and female, as well as rich and poor, must consent, expressly to every act of legislation? No, you will say. This is impossible. How then does the right arise in the majority to govern the minority, against their will? Whence arises the right of the men to govern women, without their consent? Whence the right of the old to bind the young, without theirs? But let us first suppose, that the whole community of every age, rank, sex, and condition, has a right to vote… But why exclude women? You will say, because their delicacy renders them unfit for practice and experience, in the great business of life, and the hardy enterprises of war, as well as the arduous cares of state. Besides, their attention is so much engaged with the necessary nurture of their children, that nature has made them fittest for domestic cares. And children have not judgment or will of their own. True. But will not these reasons apply to others? Is it not equally true, that men in general in every society, who are wholly destitute of property, are also too little acquainted with public affairs to form a right judgment, and too dependent upon other men to have a will of their own? If this is a fact, if you give to every man, who has no property, a vote, will you not make a fine encouraging provision for corruption by your fundamental law? Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest… Harrington has shown that power always follows property. This I believe to be as infallible a maxim, in politics, as that action and reaction are equal is in mechanics… We may advance one step farther and affirm that the balance of power in a society accompanies the balance of property in land. The only possible way then of preserving the balance of power on the side of equal liberty and public virtue, is to make the acquisition of land easy to every member of society: to make a division of the land into small quantities, so that the multitude may be possessed of landed estates…I believe these principles have been felt, if not understood in the Massachusetts Bay, from the beginning… I would not advise [our people of Massachusetts] to make any alteration in the laws, at present, respecting the qualifications of voters… The same reasoning, which will induce you to admit all men who have no property to vote…, will prove that you ought to admit women and children: for generally speaking, women and children have as good judgment and as independent minds as those men who are wholly destitute of property: these last being to all intents and purposes as much dependent upon others, who will please to feed, clothe, and employ them, as women are upon their husbands, or children on their parents… Depend upon it, sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation, as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters. There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks, to one common level.

Truth is now considered a right-wing conspiracy. That’s the chilling line from Melanie Phillips that stopped me in my tracks. She explains how we’ve reached a point where simply stating observable reality — whether it’s basic biology defining a woman or pushing back against blanket accusations that all white people are inherently bad — gets you branded as evil. Not wrong. Evil. Therefore you must be silenced, cancelled, or erased. No debate. No evidence allowed. She calls it cultural totalitarianism: a Manichean worldview where one ideology claims a monopoly on goodness, progress, and reason itself. Dissent isn’t argued with — it’s treated as a moral threat that has to be removed. The deepest irony? In an era that smugly ditched religion in the name of superior rationality, we’ve ended up rejecting reason, evidence, and open inquiry altogether. We’re so “rational” we’ve dispensed with the very tools of rationality. It doesn’t add up. Her take has me wondering how we got here — and how quickly disagreement turned into moral excommunication. Anyone else seeing this pattern play out in conversations lately? Where have you felt truth itself become off-limits?

No man is allowed to see my naked body without my sexual consent. No man is allowed to show me his genitals without my sexual consent. Nobody is allowed to make sexual consent decisions on my behalf, or on behalf of any woman or girl. When I use a women's locker room I am giving consent to see or be seen by *other women only* potentially in a state of undress. Any man trespassing in a single-sex space where women have, as the law puts it, "an expectation of privacy" is committing a sex crime known as voyeurism. No man has ever "transitioned from male to female" because "sex change" was always a lie. Humans cannot change sex. "Trans women" are men. Only men can be "trans women." It is literally the only requirement. In a single-sex space, which exists because of statistically significant sex differences, a person's "gender identity" is utterly irrelevant. Every jurisdiction that allows men who pretend to be women to trespass in single-sex spaces for the opposite sex, is complicit in sex crimes against women and girls and deserves to be prosecuted in the criminal courts. This has always been the case. Women have been saying these things for years, and yet the abomination known as "legal fiction" continues as does the insanity of "gender self ID." I don't have much to say about "the patriarchy" which is an abstraction that isn't generally helpful in the real world, but the fact that women have been complaining about the systemic violation of our sexual boundaries for years and have been completely ignored by our elected representatives, except to scold us as "hateful bigots" tells me the patriarchy is real and is still destroying women's lives. To borrow slang from back in the day, "Who do I have to fuck to have my grievance heard?"

I think I know why everything sucks... ...and it's because everything is fake We are getting fake college degrees that cost 4 years and six figures that teach you fake education and get you fake jobs. We are eating fake food, with fake ingredients, funded by fake research. We are scrolling through fake lives, with fake relationships, who take fake, curated vacations to promote brands that make fake products. We are voting for fake candidates, who run on fake promises, inside a fake system that was never designed to fix anything. We are raising kids in fake schools that teach fake history, fake science, which quietly produce fake adults who can't think for themselves. We are watching fake news, about fake crises, produced by fake journalists, for fake outrage. We are borrowing fake money that was printed from nothing, to fund a fake economy that would collapse in an afternoon if people stopped pretending it was real. We are buying fake organic food that's just a paid label, and drinking fake juice with two percent juice in it, and putting fake cheese on cheeseburgers that's just "cheese product" on fake burger meat. We are donating to fake nonprofits where the moeny never makes it to the people and then funding fake foreign aid that buys real weapons to prop up fake governments. We are going to fake therapy that teaches fake coping skills instead of telling you hard truths. We are buying fake furniture made of fake wood that's actually compressed sawdust and glue that looks like wood, ships in fourteen boxes with instructions written in a fake language that isn't quite any language, requires tools it doesn't include, takes 4 hours to build, wobbles on day 1, and is totally destroyed in 6 months. We are downloading fake "free" apps that charge a subscription after three days for AI features that don't work, hidden behind a paywall we didn't see, protected by a privacy policy we didn't read, buried inside Terms of Service written by lawyers specifically so we wouldn't read them, that we agreed to by tapping a button the size of a thumbnail, that gave a company we've never heard of the right to sell our data to companies we'll never hear of, to build a profile on us we'll never see, to influence decisions we'll never know were made. IT. IS. ALL. FAKE. And we all yearn for what was once real. Don't you remember? Did you forget? There was a time with a simple handshake between men was a contract. When bread went stale because... well, that's what real bread does! When kids played outside all day until it was dark, and nobody tracked them. When a family could live off a single income. When music was made by people who LIVED something real and you could feel it. When schools was HARD... and that was the point! When doctors knew your name and your family, they even came to your house, When you bought something once... and it was yours forever. When the chair your grandmother bought once lasted 70 years and she passed it onto your dad. And now nothing is real, and that's why everything sucks.

Konstantin Kisin made a point that cuts to the heart of one of the most forbidden conversations in the West today. He argued that much of our current cultural tension stems from an unspoken assumption: that all groups of people are not just equal in dignity and rights, but essentially the same in their aptitudes and outcomes. When reality shows persistent group differences — whether in sports, professions, or other fields — we’re left scrambling for explanations that avoid cultural or, God forbid, genetic factors. Kisin referenced Thomas Sowell’s observation that different groups naturally excel in different areas: Germans dominating global brewing (including China’s Tsingtao), Latinos overrepresented in baseball, white people in hockey, Black people in the NBA. These patterns, he says, are the normal human condition, not evidence of systemic failure. The problem arises, he suggests, when a society insists that any deviation from perfect uniformity must be explained by oppression or discrimination, rather than accepting that people and groups simply differ in strengths and interests. It’s a provocative take on why honest discussion about group differences has become so difficult. What do you think — are group differences in outcomes mostly cultural and environmental, or do we need to be more open to the possibility that biology and natural aptitudes also play a role?

@LibertyCappy Motherfucker thought he was back in the brown countries packing people into trains like animals. DEPORT THEM ALL

Imagine an entire generation that doesn't respect women or the elderly!

@4thOfJuly365 We put rabid animals down, why cant we do it with the rabid humans?

At first I thought this was excessive force, but then I noticed the guy biting the cops ankle. Do you think the cop went too far?