As I mentioned in my last retort of Larry’s emotional TDS posts – that while at ChannelCon in Nashville, someone walked up and asked me if I would debate Larry Walsh on a podcast live from the event. I said definitely, all I need to do is see the liberal talking points and know what he will say. I was told he declined and I understand – facts are so destructive to his blogs (reuse of opening for dramatic effect. Larry in your latest piece, “Gerrymandering, Deep in the Heart of Texas,” you show another emotional, TDS-driven chant that recycles mainstream media talking points while ignoring historical facts, Democratic precedents, and the full context of Texas’ redistricting fight. You frame Trump’s support for redrawing Texas’ map as an “authoritarian” power grab to “lock in power,” but your piece is riddled with inaccuracies, selective outrage, and thinly veiled bias masquerading as journalism. It’s clear you’re getting frustrated—with your defensive reply to Riley Flaherty, insisting you’re “against gerrymandering” and complaining about an “out of date” map, shows you’re being called out for these rants that cherry-pick facts to bash Republicans while excusing Democratic sins. I understand that as we learned in college, personal attacks vs factual discussion are common when one uses talking points sans research and balance. Let’s break down your post’s flaws and expose how it ignores the Democratic Party’s long history of gerrymandering, oppression, and exploiting minorities for power.

Inaccuracies and Biased Framing

Your post is a masterclass in selective storytelling, presenting a one-sided narrative that vilifies Trump and Texas Republicans while pretending Democrats are innocent bystanders. Here are the key inaccuracies:

1. Trump “Directing” the DOJ to Challenge Boundaries on DEI Grounds: You claim Trump has “directed” the Justice Department to challenge Texas’ current maps for “unfair consideration of DEI principles,” framing it as a pretext for bias. This is baseless speculation—no credible reports confirm the DOJ is involved in this way. The Texas legislature’s special session, called by Governor Greg Abbott, is a state-led effort responding to population shifts and court challenges, not a federal DEI crusade. Your invention of this detail turns a state political battle into a Trumpian conspiracy, ignoring that the Supreme Court’s Rucho v. Common Causeleft partisan gerrymandering to states, as you note—but you twist it to imply only Republicans abuse it.
   
2. Mid-Decade Redistricting as “Breaking Tradition” for “No Demographic Justification”: You portray Texas’ redraw as unprecedented and unjustified, but mid-decade redistricting isn’t new—Democrats did it in Texas in 2003 under Tom DeLay’s push, flipping seats after the 2000 census. Texas gained two seats in the 2020 census due to growth, but urban shifts have made some districts more competitive. The proposed map aims to adjust for this, not “create five new conservative-leaning districts” out of thin air—it’s redrawing existing ones to reflect population changes, per state law allowing special sessions (Texas Constitution, Art. III). Your claim of “no justification” ignores Texas’ explosive growth in suburbs like Dallas and Houston, where diverse voters are diluting GOP majorities.
   
3. Dems Fled to “Illinois”: You say 50 Democratic representatives fled to Illinois, but reports confirm they went to Washington, D.C., to lobby federal Democrats for intervention . This minor error underscores your sloppy research, but more importantly, you romanticize their quorum-break as heroic while ignoring it’s a repeat of their 2021 tactic to block voting bills—hardly a stand for “democracy” when it halts legislative process.
5. Gerrymandering as Uniquely Republican/Authoritarian: You warn this could “serve as a blueprint for other states” to “entrench partisan advantage,” implying it’s a GOP innovation. This is hypocritical—Democrats have mastered gerrymandering for decades, often under the guise of “fairness.” Your post ignores this history entirely, painting Republicans as the sole villains. Worse, you compare it to “authoritarian regimes,” a TDS-fueled exaggeration that dilutes real threats like the Democratic Party’s weaponization of institutions (e.g., IRS targeting conservatives under Obama, TIGTA Report, 2013).
   

Your attempts at journalism are thinly veiled activism: you cite historical examples like Elbridge Gerry but omit Democratic abuses, use loaded terms like “flex of executive power” without evidence, and end with alarmist rhetoric about “eroding trust.” This isn’t balanced reporting—it’s a partisan hit piece that ignores facts to stoke fear.

Ignoring Democratic Gerrymandering and Historical Oppression

Larry, your frustration in responding to Riley—deflecting with “I’m against gerrymandering” and accusing critics of poor reading—stems from being called out for bias. You ignore the Democratic Party’s egregious history of gerrymandering, which far predates modern GOP efforts and ties directly to their legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and exploiting minorities for power. The party of slavery, opposing the 13th Amendment, and segregation used gerrymandering to oppress black voters post-Reconstruction, drawing districts to dilute African American influence and maintain white Democratic dominance in the South . This wasn’t just “manipulation”—it was systemic racism to preserve power, much like today’s tactics of leveraging illegal immigrants for electoral gain.

Modern examples abound, but you conveniently skip them:

• Maryland: Democrats drew a notoriously gerrymandered map in 2011, creating the “broken-winged pterodactyl” district to flip a GOP seat, resulting in a 7-1 Dem advantage despite statewide competitiveness. A federal court struck it down in 2018 for violating the First Amendment, but Dems redrew it similarly in 2021.
• Illinois: In 2021, Democrats gerrymandered to eliminate two GOP seats, packing Republicans into fewer districts for a 14-3 Dem edge. The map was criticized as racial gerrymandering but upheld.
• New York: Dems attempted a 2022 map that would have given them 22 of 26 seats, but courts struck it down as unconstitutional. They tried again in 2024, drawing lines to protect incumbents.
• California: While using an “independent” commission, Dem-leaning maps have maintained a 42-10 Dem advantage, diluting GOP voices in diverse areas.
  

Democrats stack maps by exploiting illegal immigrants in census apportionment—the 2020 census counted undocumented residents, giving extra House seats to blue states like California (gained none but retained disproportionate power) and New York (lost one but still overrepresented, per Federation for American Immigration Reform, 2021). This “quasi-slavery” tactic depresses wages and exploits migrants for votes, benefiting the liberal elite while oppressing minorities—echoing the party’s history of using black sharecroppers and now undocumented labor to maintain dominance. The DNC’s 2024 platform even pushes for amnesty to lock in these gains, ignoring how it quashes opportunity for citizens.

Your post ignores this because it shatters your narrative. If gerrymandering is “undermining democracy,” why no outrage over Dems’ abuses? Your “both parties do it” disclaimer is lip service—you focus solely on Texas Republicans.

The Bigger Picture

Larry, your TDS bias turns a state-level dispute into a Trumpian apocalypse, ignoring that redistricting fights are bipartisan battles. The Supreme Court’s Rucho decision (2019) left it to states, but Democrats in power abuse it just as much. If you’re truly against gerrymandering, call out all sides—instead, your thinly veiled journalism serves as Democratic propaganda.

For real analysis that doesn’t ignore facts, visit https://knelsonvsi.com—I’ll keep calling out your rants with a grin. (My closing line – repeated for dramatic effect)