Many blue states considering TAXING high earners right before they move out of the state

Insane!!

“At least 10 states are now floating the idea of an exit tax, not just taxing you to death while you live there, but they’re gonna tax you with a knife in your back when you leave,… pic.twitter.com/HPGckZMplb

— TONY™ (@TONYxTWO) April 12, 2026

1. Neither Tony nor Fox News had the wit or knowledge to point out what should be obvious. They are not reporting adequately by doing so, which requires they explain that…

2. …a tax on leaving a state is unequivocally, undeniably, spectacularly unconstitutional. There is no counter argument.

3. Why, then, are ten states reportedly considering such taxes, which infringe of the right to travel as well as the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Because they are all Democratic Party dominated states, and that party doesn’t believe in the Constitution or the Declaration of Interdependence.

4. I know I’m repeating myself, but this is the party that claimed to be protecting democracy in 2024. No party that really believes in democracy would ever even consider an “exit tax.” The Left unmasks itself with proposals like this.

Why can’t everyone see….

….the ugliness beneath?

I don’t know why I was so dense when I posted this story that it didn’t occur to me what was going on, especially after Hakeem Jeffries weirdly tweeted that Swalwell, as near to the bottom of the ethics barrel as a House member can be (but not alone there) was too disgusting to be a Democratic Governor but not so horrible that he couldn’t stay in Congress. I believe it’s because my brain just won’t process how Machiavellian, corrupt and dishonest the Democratic Party of 2026 (actually 2008 through 2026) has become. Maybe I can’t grasp that because so, so many otherwise good people in my life still embrace this indefensibly organization and its anti-Democracy, anti-“Truth Justice and The American Way” proto-totalitarian drift. Maybe it’s that Cognitive Dissonance Scale. The damn thing is pulling the Democrats up from the depths they deserve because people I have high in positive territory for other reasons—love, trust, loyalty, respect—are chained to the party like a luxury cruise ship to an anchor.

Heck, I don’t know how I missed it, but I did. (Commenter James Flood didn’t, I know) So once again I ask rhetorically, “What’s going on here?” to answer: This…

I find this mordantly amusing, but I wonder how many climate change hysterics will react to it by saying, “SEE???”

The Yale School of the Environment announced this week,

“Scientists have uncovered a “blind spot” in the research on rising seas, revealing that tens of millions of people thought safe from coastal flooding are at risk of inundation. Across much of the world, sea levels are higher than previously assumed and land is sinking faster…

These findings come from two major new studies that are reshaping our understanding of the threats posed by rising tides and sinking land and underlining the imminent risk of inundation facing tens of millions of people in some of the world’s largest megacities, say researchers not involved in the studies.

“The impacts of sea level rise under climate change have been systematically underestimated,” concludes Matt Palmer, a specialist on sea level rise at the U.K. Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Science. “We could see devastating impacts much earlier than predicted — particularly in the Global South.”

“Taken jointly, these two papers paint a considerably more concerning picture than either would in isolation,” says Franck Ghomsi, an oceanographer at the University of Cape Town. “We are seeing an emerging body of research that rewrites the story of coastal vulnerability.”

…Data from tidal gauges shows that actual sea levels worldwide are on average 9.4 to 10.6 inches higher than predicted by models.”

If the author of this piece were under cross examination in a courtroom, the question would be: “Interesting. So you are saying that we should believe those studies now by the same “experts” who have been mistakenly reporting results that they now admit were vastly miscalculated. Is that correct?”

There is also the little matter of confirmation bias, which the “experts” choose to ignore. The climate change industry is committed to this theory, and researchers must have been frustrated and fearful.

“We keep predicting imminent disasters and issuing deadlines that pass without the dire results we promised! People are beginning to think we’re dishonest hacks.What shall we do?”

“What we need is a study that explains why our models have all failed…”

“Brilliant! Let’s do one!”

And so they did.

Of course, maybe this one is accurate and correct. Based on the track record of these “experts,” however, basing policies on its results and spending billions would still be a matter of faith rather than science. Or competence. Or responsible conduct.

The “Wise Latina” is an embarrassment, and it is good that Sonia reminded us of her obnoxious wokism since it has been briefly over-shadowed by Biden’s DEI appointment, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. That embarrassment was recently discussed (again) here.

But Justice Sotomayor recently used an appearance at the University of Kansas School of Law to insult fellow Court member Bret Kavanaugh using the favorite leftist cheap-shot, attacking his “privilege” as an ad hominem approach avoiding a substantive argument regarding the law. Sonia has neither the wit nor legal acumen to debate Kavanaugh on the merits.

Sotomayor was referencing a Supreme Court stay of a partisan judge’s order preventing I.C.E. agents in the Los Angeles area from stopping and questioning individuals suspected of being illegal aliens. Kavanaugh, agreeing with the Court’s stay, wrote in part,

Wow. Just look at this tweet…

So any unethical assholes to write about, so little time.

What do you think: does this creep know how dumb that tweet is? Or is he just counting on the dumb voters who elected him not to be civically literate enough to realize it? We have so many incompetent, irresponsible fools in Congress that it’s hard to keep up with all of them, but this guy is special.

Let’s see:

1. The 25th Amendment is specifically designed for situations where the President of the United States is disabled. The Democratic Party’s delusion that it can be used to remove a President whose policies they don’t like or whose public utterances are annoying is itself unconstitutional.

2. Like so many progressives, Ro wants to criminalize speech. Threatening isn’t a war crime: it’s called negotiation. When Nikita Khrushchev said “We will bury you,” nobody was stupid enough to call it a war crime. But Ro, as I said, is special.

3. Exactly what provision of the Constitution does this moron think prohibits Presidential speech, whether it is threatening or not? Either Rep. Khanna hasn’t read the Constitution, has read it but doesn’t get it, or he’s lying.

4. The argument that threatening to destroy the infrastructure of an enemy is a war crime is being flogged by Democrats now who want to make sure the U.S. loses. If a nation makes a threat only in order to “spread terror” among civilians, that’s a war crime, supposedly (that war crime has never been prosecuted or charged). If the threats are designed to, you know, make the enemy surrender, it’s not a crime. If threats in war are aimed at making the enemy commit a war crime itself (“Kill all the male babies or we destroy your electric plants!”) that’s a “war crime.” If the threat is used to get an enemy to be reasonable and negotiate, it’s copacetic. Mind readers are not admissible in court as expert witnesses.

In any event, neither the United States, nor President Trump, not I, would submit to any international claim that threatening a brutal, dangerous, terrorism-spreading nation like Iran with mass destruction is a “war crime.” A law that is void for vagueness and unenforceable isn’t a law at all. I wonder if Ro knows that.

The anti-American, anti-Trump, anti-military, anti-strength weenies that run the Axis of Unethical Conduct think war itself is a “war crime.” They would love to settle disputes with evil regimes like Iran with a Twister tournament.

Dana Milbank is one of the Washington Post’s most dishonest and untrustworthy partisan hacks, so naturally he rates a “Guest Essay” in the New York Times. This one is called, “How Much Humiliation Can JD Vance Take?”. The thing is filled with the standard issue Axis talking points ( GOP policies to enforce laws against illegal immigrants are “anti-immigrant stances” and are among “other dark elements of the MAGA movement”) but the most notable aspect of this trash is that Milbank found remarkable what is standard management practice in business, government, and in fact any hierarchical organization blessed with competent leadership. He wrote,

“At a closed-door Easter luncheon at the White House, President Trump decided to entertain the crowd by humiliating his understudy. Mr. Trump demanded an update on Iran peace negotiations from Vice President JD Vance. “How’s that moving?” Mr. Trump asked, in a video of the event the White House seemed to have accidentally posted online. “It’s going good, sir,” Mr. Vance replied from the audience. Mr. Trump cut off the rest of his response.“Do you see it happening?” the president asked, about a successful end to the war. “Uh,” the vice president replied. “We’re going to brief it to you.” Then Mr. Trump delivered his punchline. “So, if it doesn’t happen, I’m blaming JD Vance,” he said, to laughter. “If it does happen, I’m taking full credit.”

Milbank seems to think he has a smoking gun example of the VP being “humiliated.” The only one humiliated is Milbank: Somebody tell him.

First of all, Trump was joking, and, as usual, obviously so. The Axis has established a pattern of interpreting Trump’s deliberate self-parodies, trolling and exaggeration for effect as sinister. Morons. Even if much of Trump’s clowning is needlessly polarizing and unpresidential in my view, taking it seriously is a core Trump Derangement symptom.

Primarily, however, a superior’s position that if a subordinate fails, he or she is accountable, but if the subordinate succeeds, the boss gets the credit is routine, classic, absolutely correct and well-understood by anyone who has managed, been managed, been in the military, been active in the business world or, to be blunt, has the minimal life experiences minimally qualifying anyone to be trustworthy as an analyst or commentator.

I was informed that Trump’s declaration was the way of the world in my first post-hiring meeting with the future head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the most gifted leader and manager I have ever encountered. “here’s what you need to understand,” Tom Donohue said. “If you do a good job, I look good, I get the credit, and I’ll take it. If you don’t do a good job, I look bad, and you might suffer for it.” I went through my own career as a manager and leader frequently conveying the same message to my staffs. Part of the job of a subordinate is to make the boss look good.

And may I add: Duh.