Friday, July 01, 2022

Raccoons Learn From Their Mistakes. Democrats Don't; Watch Them Cling to Wokeness Going Into the Midterms


(Robert MacFarlane via AP)

A raccoon will fudge around with your cooler until it figures out how to open it, and then it will happily eat your hot dogs. It will remember what it has learned and will spend the rest of its fat, happy life raiding coolers and gorging on skinless Sabretts. If only Democrats were as smart as raccoons.

Democrats are not as crafty as raccoons. They refuse to learn from their bloopers.

They have nothing left to run on and continue to break out the old standards that have failed them before — specifically, referring to anyone who doesn’t vote for them as bigoty bigots and rascally racists.

Basically, they are doubling down on “woke.”

FACT-O-RAMA! The Yeti Tundra 35 cooler is supposedly “bear-resistant,” but it costs $275, considerably more than a pack of Sabrett’s hot dogs. My anti-raccoon move is to scatter BBQed bratwursts in a nearby camp, thus insuring that local “trash pandas” will leave my camp alone.

Someone clever, not likely a Democrat, once stated, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The Democrats think they can insult their way to victory in November. I say, have at it. I’ll even help. Here are some election mottos that the Marxtards can break out for 2022:

  • Do you believe in a woman’s “right” to have an abortion up until the third grade, or are you a misogynist? VOTE BLUE!
  • Stop calling them looters, you RACIST!
  • We support women (unless a man in a dress comes along, you transphobe)!
  • Never mind the crime wave we created; give us your guns, redneck!
  • Let us groom your kids, you homophobe!
  • If you don’t vote for us you’re a “white nationalist” even if you’re black!

OCD-O-RAMA! Raccoons will wash their food before they eat it. Some West Coast restaurants allow drug addicts to shoot up in their restrooms. Just sayin’.

Double-down Dumb-Dumbs

Somehow, no one in the Democrat party has wondered why they lost the support of blue-collar unions like the largest police union in the country. Maybe it had something to do with more than five years of anti-cop rhetoric?

So what have the commies done to fix this dilemma? They defunded the police and gave criminals stay-out-of-jail-free cards. And if you speak up against the Democrats’ crime wave, you’re somehow “racist.”

Woke Democrats have reduced women to “birthing persons” and “menstruating people.” They turned a blind eye to the shocking level of black-on-Asian crime. They continue to insult Hispanic people with the God-awful moniker “Latinx.” Why? Because, unlike raccoons, Democrats just refuse to learn.

“I’m sick of political correctness. What the hell is ‘Latinx?’ I’m a Latina. Don’t ever call me ‘Latinx.’ I’d rather be called a sp*c,” says my Puerto Rican, bisexual, gun-toting, Trump-loving fiancee, Jessica Collazo.

The Democrat party is dying, yet they hang on to “woke” with a Hilter-in-the-bunker-like fervor. They’ve chased away Asians, Hispanics, and even a large number of black voters. But those college-educated white Karens running the Democrat base refuse to learn how to open a cooler. I’m okay with that. More hot dogs for us.

Raccoons Learn From Their Mistakes. Democrats Don't; Watch Them Cling to Wokeness Going Into the Midterms – PJ Media

Thursday, June 30, 2022

Guess Who Leads in the Generic Ballot After the Dobbs Decision?


AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

Remember after the draft majority opinion of Dobbs was leaked, when some people predicted the ruling would help Democrats in November? Those were good times. Unfortunately for them, polls at the time showed that it had virtually no impact. Oops. Oh well.

Nevertheless, now that the final opinion has been released, the same voices are once again predicting that the Dobbs decision will change the trajectory of the 2022 midterm elections.

Well, they’re about to be disappointed. Again. According to a new YouGov/Economist poll conducted after the Dobbs decision was released, 45% of voters say they’d vote for their Republican congressional candidate, compared to 40% who will vote for their Democrat candidate.

Oh, and just like last time, the GOP’s standing improved over the previous generic poll.

Sorry, Dems…you’re still screwed.

BREAKING: SCOTUS Reins in the Power of the EPA


AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib

On Thursday the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that will significantly curtail the power of executive agencies to control entire sectors of the economy through promulgating rules.

While some commentators view this decision narrowly as a determination of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to promulgate regulations to address climate change, in practice, it sets a precedent that will limit the ability of all executive agencies to make regulations that shift entire industries without specific congressional authority to do so.

According to legal expert Jonathan Turley, “it will be much more difficult for President Biden to order sweeping environmental changes without congressional approval” in the wake of this decision.

The case, West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, originated during the Obama administration. It challenged the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, a set of regulations that required all energy producers to transition coal-fired power plants to natural gas. The Obama EPA relied on its powers under the Clean Air Act to make the mandate.

A group of states led by West Virginia and coal industry associations sought a stay on the Clean Power Plan in 2015. The plaintiffs argued the plan exceeded the EPA’s mandate under the Clean Air Act and violated states’ rights to regulate electrical power. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs a stay in January 2016. When the plaintiffs appealed the issue to the Supreme Court, the justices issued the stay, pending the outcome of all litigation.

This stay on implementing regulations was the first granted by SCOTUS before a review by the federal court of appeals. Many SCOTUS watchers felt this ruling signaled that the court might be interested in rolling back Chevron deference or narrowing the power of executive agencies through the major rules doctrine.

Chevron deference is SCOTUS’s legal test to determine when the court should defer to an executive agency’s answer or interpretation of the law when authoring regulation. This deference was appropriate when the agency’s response was reasonable and Congress had not spoken directly to the precise issue in question. Applying the major rules doctrine would require Congress to speak on substantive issues through legislation before an administrative agency could act. The current court used this reasoning twice during COVID, ending the CDC’s eviction moratorium and preventing Biden’s vaccine mandate for private employers.

Other commenters thought it was a sign the court would be willing to prevent agency overreach until litigation settled all legal questions. Regulations can do significant damage while parties argue a case when an administration begs for forgiveness in the courts after knowingly sidestepping Congress. The Obama administration lost more lawsuits with a 9-0 majority at the Supreme Court than any modern president.

The issues in the case remained unresolved when President Trump took office in January of 2017. As part of easing regulations on the energy industry, Trump’s EPA repealed the Clean Power Plan and implemented the Affordable Clean Energy rule. The new rule required coal-fired plants to upgrade their equipment to burn coal more efficiently. On the evening of January 20, 2021, the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the Trump EPA regulation. It said the EPA’s revocation of the Obama plan was invalid based on a misinterpretation of the Clean Air Act. Joe Biden was inaugurated the next day.

Instead of quickly implementing the Obama-era regulation, Biden’s EPA decided to try its hand at writing a new rule. The plaintiffs weren’t waiting to resolve the issue. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency asked SCOTUS to overturn the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on the Trump-era plan. Specifically, it urged SCOTUS to review whether a regulation that is so substantial it affects an entire industry violates the major questions doctrine. It also asked the court to rule on provisions of the Clean Air that may violate the nondelegation clause of the Constitution.

In the decision, the majority found the court had the jurisdiction to decide the case without a new rule from the Biden administration. The plaintiffs’ claim asked SCOTUS to issue what some, including Justice Elena Kagan in the dissent, see as an advisory ruling. The court made an advisory opinion when it ruled in favor of the plaintiffs seeking an injunction against New York’s gathering limits on religious services. When SCOTUS issued the decision, the restrictions no longer applied to the religious organizations that filed the suit. SCOTUS took a similar advisory approach here.

The majority opinion, authored by Chief justice John Roberts, concludes (emphasis added):

Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992). But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d). A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

This wording appears to be a significant blow to the Chevron deference and a nod to the major questions doctrine. It will impact cases that allege executive overreach and may be the first of many steps the court will take to make the legislative branch of government do its job.

BREAKING: SCOTUS Reins in the Power of the EPA – PJ Media

Wednesday, June 29, 2022

Texas-Mexico border chaos: 51 migrants found dead in San Antonio inside 18-wheeler, reports say

 By Louis Casiano , Griff Jenkins , Bill Melugin , Lawrence Richard | Fox News

Police block the scene where a semitrailer with multiple dead bodies were discovered, Monday, June 27, 2022, in San Antonio. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Police block the scene where a semitrailer with multiple dead bodies were discovered, Monday, June 27, 2022, in San Antonio. (AP Photo/Eric Gay) (AP Photo/Eric Gay)

Arrests and deportations of migrants have plummeted under the Biden administration as it faces pressure from states like Texas over immigration policy

At least 51 undocumented migrants were found dead in a tractor-trailer in San Antonio, Texas and more than a dozen were hospitalized, authorities said. 

Two of those taken to a hospital later died, officials said, bringing the total death toll to 48 by Monday night. An updated figure was released Tuesday afternoon. 

Crews were at the 9600 block of Quintana Road where an 18-wheeler containing up to 100 migrants inside was found abandoned, Fox San Antonio reported. The discovery is part of what is believed to be a human smuggling operation. 

"This is nothing short of a horrific human tragedy," San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg said Monday night near the location where the tractor-trailer was found.

Authorities at the scene initially confirmed 46 individuals were found deceased, none of which were children. Officials did not say whether the individuals had migrated from Mexico or elsewhere.

"The plight of migrants seeking refuge is always a humanitarian crisis but tonight we are dealing with a horrific human tragedy," the mayor added. 

Sixteen individuals from the tractor-trailer were transported to the hospital, including 12 adults and four children.

"We hope those responsible for putting these people in such inhumane conditions are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," the mayor said. 

San Antonio Police Department Chief William McManus said a nearby worker notified authorities about the tractor-trailer shortly before 6 p.m. Upon arriving at the scene, officials found dozens of deceased inside the back of the transport vehicle.

"This is now a federal investigation," McManus said. The police chief also said at least three people were in custody but did not specify if the individuals were suspects in the investigation.

All the deceased victims had evidence of heat-related causes of death and the survivors who were transported to the hospital were similarly suffering heat stroke, exhaustion and dehydration, he said.

McManus clarified the tractor-trailer was refrigerated, however, the refrigeration system was not functioning. 

He also said there was no drinkable water found inside the trailer. 

Fox News has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security.

The San Antonio Fire Department similarly described a nightmarish scene.

"We’re not supposed to open up a truck and see stacks of bodies in there," an official said.

Rep. Tony Gonzales, a Republican who represents Texas, tweeted about the incident.

"Today in San Antonio it was 102 degrees. Imagine being abandoned inside an 18-wheeler left to die - 42 people died today - will @AliMayorkas even mention their names?" 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott put the death on President Biden, who has been criticized for not doing enough to secure the southern border. 

"At Least 42 People Found Dead Inside Truck Carrying Migrants In Texas. These deaths are on Biden," Abbott tweeted Monday evening. "They are a result of his deadly open border policies. They show the deadly consequences of his refusal to enforce the law."

Pro-Abortion Demonstrators Unleash Weekend Of Arson, Vandalism, And Insurrection After Dobbs

 By Beth Whitehead | The Federalist

Vandals and insurrectionists attempted to breach the Arizona capitol, torched pregnancy clinics, and shut down freeways.

Left-wing violence predictably erupted over the weekend after the Supreme Court ruled 5-3-1 on Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade. While pro-life advocates celebrated at the Supreme Court building, the weekend opened with a series of attacks, protests, and arson from pro-abortion radicals. Abortionists attacked state capitol buildings, burned pro-life pregnancy clinics, and even stopped freeway traffic, accosting cars that kept driving with sticks — all on the heels of weeks of attacks on pro-life pregnancy clinics, intimidation campaigns outside justices’ houses, and even an assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s life.

The decision, though it eliminates Roe‘s concocted “right” to abortion, does not make abortion illegal as the abortionist narrative spins. However, it’s enabled state legislators to outlaw abortion if they see fit. Any laws restricting abortion on the books are now enforceable, and Utah, Alabama, South Dakota, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kentucky outlawed abortion the day of the decision. Six other states are due to follow with standing abortion bans that have a month to go into effect.

Losing the bulwark of control they’ve had since 1973 is proving a stroke too far for the baby-killing movement, and it didn’t take long for abortionists to make the jump to anarchists. The night of the decision, thousands of abortion supporters attempted to breach the Arizona capitol building, beating the doors and windows. The police deployed tear gas into the crowd and no one breached the building, AZ Central reported. Four were arrested on Saturday but released on Sunday.

While the Department of Homeland Security highlighted concerns over potential targeting of state and federal officials, according to a memo obtained by NBC News, pro-abortion radicals are using a map created by two University of Georgia professors to target pro-life pregnancy clinics. The “Crisis Pregnancy Center Map” gives the very street address of pro-life pregnancy clinics throughout the country, Fox News reported. An anarchist group in Washington state posted a link to the map, encouraging viewers to “find your nearest fake abortion clinic on the Crisis Pregnancy Map.”

In Longmont, Colo., a Christian pregnancy clinic was torched on Saturday morning. Officers arrived on scene around 3:20 a.m. to flames and graffiti messages. “If abortions aren’t safe neither are you,” one message threatened, with an anarchy symbol next to it.

Early Saturday morning in Lynchburg, Va., a pro-life pregnancy center was vandalized and its windows smashed. Four people were visible damaging the building on the security camera.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Younkin condemned the crime in a tweet Saturday evening, saying, “There is no room for this in Virginia, breaking the law is unacceptable. This is not how we find common ground. Virginia State Police stands ready to support local law enforcement as they investigate.”

In Portland, Ore., on Saturday, the night after the ruling, a black-garbed crowd of 100 or more set out on the street at 10 p.m., vandalizing and destroying what lay in their path. A flier announcing the march read, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either,” OregonLive reported. A pregnancy clinic was vandalized and several businesses had their windows smashed in until the demonstrations subsided around 10:45 p.m.

The night of the decision in downtown Los Angeles, a pro-abortion supporter reportedly threw a flame thrower at a police officer during a protest. The officer, one of four to be injured that night, was treated for burns, and his assailant is being charged with attempted murder.

Also in Los Angeles, a group of pro-abortion demonstrators shut down the highway on Friday, stopping cars and beating those that didn’t stop with sticks.

Pro-Aborts Spread Arson, Vandalism, And Insurrection After Dobbs (

Tuesday, June 28, 2022



I tuned in for quite a bit of today’s January 6 committee hearing with “surprise” witness Cassidy Hutchinson, and it was gripping viewing indeed. Many of the things she related in her videotaped deposition (excerpted liberally in her committee room appearance) sounded plausible, such as alleged statements by Trump on January 6. And Hutchinson seemed a credible witness.

But second thoughts ought to grow in the aftermath of her appearance. Most of her direct testimony was about her interactions with chief of staff Mark Meadows for whom she served as an assistant (save this thought). And I did note that in her videotaped deposition she kept referring to a notebook in front of her, suggesting that her answers were prepared ahead of time. I don’t think that’s how depositions are supposed to go, even for congressional committees.

But I was really brought up short when she related the story (heard second-hand) of President Trump attempting to grab the wheel of the presidential SUV when the driver refused to take him to the Capitol after his speech on the Mall, and then trying to choke Secret Service agent Bobby Engel after the driver or Engel supposedly swatted the President’s hand away. Something about this scene defies credibility. Was Trump riding shotgun in the SUV after the speech? Of course not. Surely he was sitting in the back, where reaching for the steering wheel is likely an impossibility. I believe even the presidential SUVs (he didn’t use the usual limo that day) have considerable partitions between the passenger section and the driver’s compartment at the front. Where was agent Engel sitting if Trump tried to choke him?

And why hasn’t this story leaked out before now if it is true (or even if—especially if—it isn’t)? Ditto for her other stories of Trump throwing plates of food on the wall at the White House. We’ve heard plenty of stories of Trump’s temper tantrums—I’ve heard a few first hand from individuals on the receiving end of them—but nothing like this.

This is where the lack of an actual Republican on the January 6 committee comes into play, because any amount of cross-examination would raise these questions in public and require some kind of explanation.

Then there’s this, from NBC News White House correspondent Peter Alexander:

P.S. If Trump was consciously trying to incite a riot, why would he want to be in the middle of that at the Capitol? Not sure this doesn’t undermine the J-6 crusade if you think about it in a calmer frame of mind.  I suspect what Hutchinson’s testimony is really intended to do is break down the resistance of Mark Meadows from testifying to the committee. Meadows is fighting a legal battle against the committee based on the entirely sound principle of executive privilege, and the J-6 committee knows they don’t have much time.

P.S. (2): Let’s see if the young Ms. Hutchinson ends up with a book deal in a few months.

The slippery slope of red flag gun laws

By William Haupt III | The Center Square contributor

"No free man shall ever be barred from using arms to guard public liberty." –  Thomas Jefferson

The gun control debate began in the 1920s in Germany’s Weimar Republic. They mandated the registration of all firearms and the authority to confiscate them "if it was necessary for the pubic good." They convinced gun owners these records would be confidential for the nation's security.

The prime minister said these records would forever be protected from militant groups. Yet in 1933, when Adolf Hitler seized power, he used these "secret gun records" to identify, disarm, and attack and imprison opponents of the regime. It also enabled Hitler to murder 6 million defenseless Jews.

Weimar's ill-conceived gun edict showed little insight and had one major flaw. It's most loquacious oversight was that Werner Best crafted it, a suspected conspirator and future Gestapo henchman.

"How fortunate it is for governments that the people they administer don't think." – Adolf Hitler

In 1938, Hitler signed The Gun Control Act to deprive Jews from owning guns. Since the Jews had registered their guns they were easily disarmed. With no weapons to fight back, they were sent to death camps and burned alive. Hitler relied on gun control to cleanse Germany with his Holocaust.

When France fell to the Nazis in 1940, it was a walk in the park for Hitler since it was illegal to own a gun in France and they couldn't fight back. In reaction to this, days before Pearl Harbor in 1941, Congress no only affirmed our 2nd Amendment rights, it also outlawed federal gun registration.

Although America's military might defends world liberty, gun ownership has been under attack for years. Gun control advocates say the U.S. should mimic the European nations that have strict gun control laws. But it was the well-trained army of U.S. gun owners that led the allied victory in WWII.

In Germany, to purchase a gun, you must pass a government psychiatric evaluation. In Finland, to own a gun you must prove you're a member of an approved gun club and pass a police review. In Italy, one must prove they need a gun and pass a criminal and mental background investigation.

In France, applicants must pass a mental health exam. In the UK and Japan it is a felony to own a handgun. In Red China, anyone caught owning gun powder will be jailed. On the other hand, 75% of all citizens in Switzerland own guns. And they have the lowest gun-related crimes in the world.

Every nation with strict guns laws has been taken over by a tyrannical rogue leader; Adolf Hitler of Germany; Benito Mussolini of Italy; and Hirohito of Japan; or they've been invaded by one. But in the U.S. where it is a constitutional right to own and use guns, we are the defender of world freedom.

"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."– General George Patton

In America, the colonies demanded free speech and gun ownership was protected before ratifying the Constitution. They demanded that those two amendments be added to the Constitution.

James Madison drafted and passed the Bill of Rights during the first U.S. Congress in NY in 1789.

In 1999, Connecticut passed the first "red flag law." Today 18 states have followed. Red flag laws allow law enforcement, with a court order, to seize guns from anyone that a person considers a danger to themselves or others. Almost anyone can file a red flag request for almost any reason.

President Joe Biden has urged Congress to pass additional gun control laws including a red flag law. With a 224 to 202 vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi passed the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order last week. This allows courts to issue extreme risk orders that ban individuals deemed dangerous from buying or owning a gun. But for this to become law, the 2nd amendment must be amended.

This is the most dangerous attack on the 2nd amendment by the federal government in history.

Within the context of red flag laws, anyone may attempt to have someone's firearms seized with the slightest suspicion that a gun owner may pose a danger to them or to themselves. Only after proving their "innocence" before a court can a law-abiding citizen possibly retrieve their property.

A study by the RAND Corporation on states with red flag laws found that there is zero conclusive evidence that red flag laws prevent acts of gun violence. In fact, a report by CNN shows homicides across the U.S. have risen an alarming 6.2% since Biden was elected and after the George Floyd protests, riots and looting.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." – Aldous Huxley

According to NBC, Illinois passed its red flag law in 2018 and gun crimes and homicides escalated throughout the state. In 2021, in the city of Chicago there were 797 homicides and 3,561 shooting incidents despite Illinois' extremely tough gun laws. Obviously "red flag" gun control doesn't work.

Some states allow medical professionals, school officials and coworkers also to petition the courts. Other states only allow law enforcement and relatives to petition the courts to have guns removed from anyone they wish. In red flag states, you are guilty until proven innocent to get your guns back.

"You're guilty until proven innocent. Perception is reality, that's the way that it is." – Chris Webber

The powers of the federal government are clearly defined and enumerated in the Constitution and disarming citizens is not one. In fact, the 2nd Amendment forbids the government from doing so. It specifically designates that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall never be infringed.”

James Hanstein wrote, "Our past are our lessons learned." Our constitutional rights are not just a source of patriotic pride but the lifeblood of democracy. Our founders knew that the right of citizens to bear arms was essential to preserving their liberty. The 2nd Amendment ensures that. We need to remind our Congressmen that it was Hitler's genocide of the Jews that led to the 2nd Great War.

The Senate has now passed the onus of "gun control" on to the states. They expand background checks, and fund school safety programs. They will also incentivize states to pass more red flag laws. Since states have almost "innumerable powers" they will pressure each state to pass stricter gun laws.

All government is local, and all liberty is too. The rubber meets the road in every state legislature. Politicians are addicted to money and easily swayed by federal gratuities. But what happens in our states ends up in DC. As states trade our gun rights for abusive "red flag laws," citizens that do not challenge them don't covet their freedom. They will be crying and moaning when progressives win their campaign to repeal their 2nd amendment.

"To preserve liberty, it is essential the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, how to use them." – Richard Henry Lee



Clarence Thomas vs. the Fictional Progressive Narrative

His writings from the bench frequently bust popular left-wing myths about race and justice.

Jason L. Riley | The Wall Street Journal |
June 22, 2021 

Justice Clarence Thomas at the Supreme Court in Washington, April 23, 2021.


Justice Clarence Thomas served up a twofer last week: a Supreme Court decision, in Terry v. U.S., that’s noteworthy for its judicial restraint as well as for pushing back at another false racial narrative that has gained popularity in this Age of Wokeness.

Justice Thomas has done this before. His concurrence in McDonald v. Chicago, a 2010 case about handgun restrictions, offered a succinct tutorial on gun-control measures put in place after the Civil War to suppress blacks and leave them more vulnerable to domestic terror groups like the Ku Klux Klan. In Box v. Planned Parenthood, a 2019 case that concerned the legality of “selective” abortions based on race and sex, his concurring opinion included a history of the eugenics movement in the U.S. and how it made common cause with abortion-rights activists.

Liberals today are eager to highlight how the filibuster was used in the past to block civil-rights legislation. They don’t want to talk about the racist history of gun control or minimum-wage laws or abortion advocacy, let alone how this history still affects blacks today. Eight decades after Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger established a birth-control clinic in Harlem, Justice Thomas wrote, “there are areas of New York City in which black children are more likely to be aborted than they are to be born alive—and are up to eight times more likely to be aborted than white children in the same area.”

Democratic opposition to the filibuster is based less on principle than on political expediency. The Senate is split evenly, and the filibuster stands in the way of a far-reaching progressive agenda. Part of that agenda involves so-called criminal-justice reform, which to liberals means defunding the police, prosecuting fewer crimes, and reducing the size of the prison population by releasing inmates early.

Activists allege that today’s “mass incarceration” resulted from policies motivated by racism. Justice Thomas’s opinion last week in Terry undercuts that claim by providing a more accurate history of sentencing laws than the fictions being peddled of late by Democrats and progressive activists. The court unanimously rejected a petition, from a convicted crack-cocaine dealer named Tarahrick Terry, to be resentenced under the First Step Act, a 2018 federal law that reduced sentences for certain drug offenders. In his opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the text of the law made this a “straightforward” case. Mr. Terry had been sentenced as a “career criminal” for an offense that fell outside the scope of the First Step Act and thus was ineligible for a sentence reduction.

Justice Thomas’s ruling didn’t stop there. The stiffer sentencing guidelines for crack-cocaine offenses, versus those for powder cocaine, date to the mid-1980s. The thinking in Washington at the time was that because crack was cheaper than powder, more addictive and more closely associated with violent crime, offenders should face tougher penalties. Like everything else these days, such attitudes are viewed almost exclusively through a racial lens, but as Justice Thomas points out, the sentiment at the time transcended both race and party affiliation.

“In response to these concerns, Congress quickly passed a bill with near unanimity,” Justice Thomas writes. “The new law created mandatory-minimum penalties for various drug offenses, and it set much lower trigger thresholds for crack offenses.” The 1986 bill passed the Democrat-controlled House 392-16 and the Republican Senate 97-2. “A majority of the Congressional Black Caucus cosponsored and voted for the bill,” he adds in a footnote. Many black leaders at the time were motivated by two major worries. “First, crack was fueling crime against residents of inner cities, who were predominantly black.” Second, “there were concerns that prosecutors were not taking these kinds of crimes seriously enough because the victims were disproportionately black.”

Various efforts would be made in ensuing decades to determine if Congress had overreached and how to reduce the sentencing disparity between crack and powder offenses. But what drove the initial effort was bipartisan, cross-racial concern for what was going on in poor black communities. And although today’s woke left is at pains to deny it, that effort was led by black lawmakers responding to their constituents, as Justice Thomas’s opinion reminds us.

Current efforts to reduce resources for law enforcement in the name of “social justice” for blacks ignore that blacks have long complained about underpolicing of their communities. In a 1993 Gallup poll, 75% of black respondents said they wanted more cops on the streets, and 82% said that the court system goes too easy on offenders. Blacks today continue to express overwhelming support for the presence of more police in their neighborhoods, which suggests that, unlike the progressive politicians and activists who claim to speak on their behalf, most blacks are more interested in safe communities than they are in the racial composition of the inmate population.