As the Supreme Court's term winds down, here are the cases still awaiting its verdict

The Supreme Court's term typically begins in October and concludes by the end of June, but justices are allowed to extend the calendar into July if they choose. However, the Court announced Friday would be the final release day.

By Misty Severi reporting for Just the News

The Supreme Court is expected to issue six rulings on Friday, the last day of its current term, including a monumental case about the authority of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions on presidential orders.

The Supreme Court's term typically begins in October and concludes by the end of June, but justices are allowed to extend the calendar into July if they choose. However, the Court announced Friday would be the final release day. 

If the Supreme Court does not issue a decision on a case by the end of the current term, the justices can order it to be reargued in the next term.

Here is a brief look at the six cases that are still pending in front of the nation's highest court:

Trump v. CASA

The biggest case remaining is on the topic of nationwide injunctions and birthright citizenship. Although the underlying case centers on birthright citizenship, the actual ruling is expected to be a verdict on whether federal judges can issue national injunctions, or whether it needs to be confined to the judge's jurisdiction.

The case comes after three district court judges ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship, meaning the practice of granting automatic citizenship to all U.S.-born babies, violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and blocked it.

Both sides presented their arguments before the high court on May 15, and the justices did not give a clear indication of which way they were leaning, according to the Washington Examiner.

Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton

The Free Speech case stems on whether an appeals court used an appropriate review process when determining whether Texas can require pornography sites to verify the age of their uses before providing access. 

The judges used a stringent constitutional test, known as rational basis review, when reviewing the law, but a trade group challenging the ruling question whether it should have applied the strict scrutiny standard instead, per the SCOTUS Blog. 

Louisiana v. Callais

Another major case in front of the Supreme Court rests on whether a Louisiana congressional map that includes two majority-black districts is constitutional. The Louisiana state legislature initially had just one majority-black district, which a federal court ruled likely violated the Voting Rights Act.

Challengers of the new map argue that it constitutes racial gerrymandering, which is illegal. But the designers of the map argue that race was not the primary motivator behind the changes.

Mahmoud v. Taylor

The last LGBT case to be decided by the court this term rests on arguments from concerned parents that schools requiring their children to participate in instruction at public schools that includes LGBTQ+ themes, violates their First Amendment rights. 

The parents, who are of various faiths, are attempting to keep their children out of instruction involving LGBTQ-themed storybooks.

Kennedy v. Braidwood Management

This case challenges the constitutionality of a task force of independent experts that determine which preventive services insurers are forced to cover. 

People challenging the task force, who object to forcing insurers to provide coverage for a drug that prevents HIV, argue that the task force is so powerful only the president should be allowed to appoint members with the approval of the Senate, rather than the Health and Human Services secretary.

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

The last case on the list centers on whether a telecommunications program is funded by an illegal tax, and whether Congress has delegated its responsibility regarding the program to a federal agency, per USA Today.

Congress is not allowed to delegate its legislative powers under the nondelegation doctrine.

The final rulings are all expected to be released together in one major drop.

Misty Severi is a news reporter for Just The News. You can follow her on X for more coverage.

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/supreme-courts-term-winds-down-here-are-cases-still-awaiting-its-verdict

The War Powers Narrative Is False—And the Constitution Proves It

posted by Charleton Allen at American Thinker 

It wasn’t long after the smoke cleared in Isfahan, Natanz, and Fordow that the second explosion landed—on Capitol Hill. Except this one was pre-planned.

With the precision of a broken clock, Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) preemptively introduced a War Powers resolution on June 16—five full days before the June 21 airstrikes—laying the groundwork for a headline-grabbing repudiation before a single B-2 Spirit had lifted off.

That’s right—before a single B-2 took flight, the legislative branch had already launched its own volley, aimed not at Tehran, but at the commander in chief. The phrase of the hour? “Unconstitutional.”

Except it isn’t. And never was.

The condemnation wasn’t just premature. It was constitutionally illiterate, strategically reckless, and politically performative.

Article II of the Constitution is clear: the president is the commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. Full stop.

Article II, Section 2 vests operational command of the military in the president—not as ceremonial ornamentation, but as clear and foundational authority.

Let’s go further. The president’s authority isn’t grounded in the Constitution alone—it’s supported by statute as well.

The War Powers Act of 1973—ironically, the very law now being weaponized against Trump—explicitly acknowledges this power.

Section 2(c) of the Act, codified as 50 U.S. Code § 1541(c), affirms that the president may introduce U.S. forces into hostilities in response to “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Over the past 46 years, Iran has unrelentingly targeted U.S. forces and interests.

It has proxied the killing of American troops through the IRGC and Hezbollah, kidnapped American citizens, murdered Americans, plotted to assassinate President Trump and others, threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, and engaged in maritime piracy.

Tehran has operated as the chief patron of global terrorism—from Beirut to Baghdad to the Red Sea.

Iran also funds Houthi drone strikes on international shipping lanes and has made the destruction of both America and Israel the ideological touchstone of its regime.

For Tehran, nuclear weapons are not defensive instruments—they are the intended means to rain fire on the Western world and annihilate our civilization.

Whether acquisition was days, weeks, or months away should not matter. The goal has always been the same—and their determination is unwavering.

The national emergency is not hypothetical—it’s kinetic and enduring, spanning presidential administrations of both parties for decades.

President Trump took swift and decisive action to eliminate this threat—for now.

More to the point: Trump’s actions don’t require congressional preclearance of any sort.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war under Article I, Section 8—but that’s a far cry from requiring approval for every individual use of force. And the distinction is deeply rooted in our constitutional tradition.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 69, drew a sharp line between the powers of the president and those of a monarch.

Unlike the British king, who could both “declare war and raise and regulate fleets and armies,” the President would have “supreme command and direct the military and naval forces” once raised.

That is the core of Article II—and the proper response to those misrepresenting it today.

In our system, control of the military doesn’t mean congressional micromanagement.

The Framers established two distinct political branches: Congress to declare war when appropriate and the president to exercise military command as the sole commander in chief.

Each branch has a role. But only one can serve as commander in chief in the moment of decision.

Operational secrecy and unified command often demand action before congressional deliberation can even begin.

This is a design feature of our constitutional system, one that the Founders deliberately embedded, and every president has understood, whether they were Federalists, Jeffersonian Republicans, Democrats, Whigs, or Republicans.

From the founding of the Republic, this precedent has held.

American history is replete with examples of Presidents exercising military power:

• Thomas Jefferson dispatched the U.S. Navy to engage the Barbary pirates in the Mediterranean.
• Woodrow Wilson dispatched General Pershing to Mexico in 1916 and ordered U.S. forces to Russia during the Russian Civil War.
• William McKinley deployed troops to suppress the Boxer Rebellion in China.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered U.S. naval vessels to attack German warships in the Atlantic during the “Undeclared War”—months before Congress declared war in December 1941.
• Ronald Reagan ordered airstrikes against Libya and ordered the invasion of Grenada.
• George H.W. Bush launched the invasion of Panama in 1989.
• Bill Clinton bombed Serbia, initiated Operation Desert Fox in Iraq, and deployed forces to Haiti.
• Barack Obama authorized airstrikes in Libya and oversaw drone campaigns in at least seven countries.
• Joe Biden ordered dozens of strikes in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen—including Tomahawk missile salvos that significantly depleted U.S. munitions stockpiles.

None of these actions involved formal declarations of war or new congressional authorization. Few drew more than muted protest. And none were denounced as “unconstitutional” by the opposition party’s leadership—until now.

And where, exactly, was the declaration of war for Korea? For Vietnam?

When was the last time Congress declared war? 1942—more than 80 years ago.

Now, suddenly, a limited strike on Iranian nuclear sites is the red line?

Spare us.

In 2016 alone, President Obama dropped over 26,000 bombs across seven countries—an astounding average of 72 per day—without a single new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Congress. Some of these strikes occurred in undeclared war zones like Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan—countries never named in the 2001 or 2002 AUMFs.

President Trump’s critics, who invoke the War Powers Resolution, often overlook the plain language of the Act. It does not require congressional approval before limited military action. It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours and to seek authorization only if hostilities persist for more than 60 days.

In this case, President Trump’s strikes were completed in a matter of hours—no prolonged engagement, no ground invasion, no sustained combat—and congressional leadership was promptly notified.

Not a single American was harmed—except, perhaps, the constitutional truth about the separation of powers. For that injury, Democrat leadership—and a handful of Republican outliers, such as Thomas Massie—owe the country an explanation.

To cry “unconstitutional” over a lawful, surgical strike is not just disingenuous—it’s a disservice to our military and citizenry. It undermines morale, misleads the public, and emboldens adversaries who perceive political division as a sign of weakness.

This latest operation was a precise, limited strike—squarely within the president’s constitutional authority and requiring neither a declaration of war nor preauthorization.

It was narrower in scope than operations ordered by Clinton, Obama, or Biden. Yet it achieved more: Tehran’s nuclear ambitions appear to have been kneecapped, and though a ceasefire was briefly in place, Israel has since accused the Iranian regime of violating it.

War powers debates can strengthen the Republic—when conducted in good faith and at the right time.

But reflexive, theatrical, hyper-partisan posturing is not statesmanship.

If congressional leaders truly wish to reassert their authority, they should start by respecting the Constitution and the actual text of the War Powers Act—not hijacking headlines after the commander in chief has done his duty. 

And certainly not with performative impeachment threats or demands that tie the president’s hands while our enemies reload.

The Constitution—including its carefully drawn separation of war powers—is not a suicide pact. And it must not be twisted into one by those seeking political advantage in a dangerous, often unforgiving world.

X22, And we Know, and more- June 26

 

More Students Are Choosing Faith-Based Colleges—Just Don’t Mention the Loans

 

• By Teresa R. Manning   |   25 June 2025   |   Minding the Campus
  
  
  

  On Monday, June 9, the American Council on Education (ACE) hosted an afternoon 
  Commission on Faith-Based Colleges and Universities at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC. The program featured a keynote address by author and Professor Ryan R. Burge, as well as remarks by representatives from religious schools such as Reverend Robert A. Dowd, President of Notre Dame University;  Michael Lindsay, President of Indiana‘s Taylor University and Rabbi Ari  Berman, President of New York City’s Yeshiva University, among others.

  A new documentary, Higher Education: The Power of Faith-Inspired Learning, was also shown, which profiled students from universities such as Taylor and Catholic University in Washington, DC.

  Overall, the event was highly informative and complimentary toward the role and accomplishments of faith-based schools. ACE President Ted Mitchell welcomed the roughly 125 attendees from the higher education, policy, and nonprofit sectors. He explained that while college enrollment is now trending downward, enrollment at religious schools is going up. Professor Burge elaborated that while students generally attend college to secure a better job, they are also now prioritizing purpose, moral clarity, and good values when selecting schools.

  Professor Burge also disabused listeners of certain myths, especially that the college-educated are irreligious. Yes, the category of “nones”—those with no formal religious affiliation—is increasing. But Burge insisted that a majority of college graduates still attend church—you can clearly point to the positive relationship between education and religious attendance.” He also catalogued the numerous benefits of religious practice for students, including greater overall happiness as confirmed by various happiness surveys, more trust in others and greater stability across the board—employment and home life, for example—noting that religious faith also helps those on society’s lowest rung—those with lower incomes or broken homes—the most.

  The documentary was also inspirational as it featured students of strong religious conviction who explained how college aided their spiritual growth and how they valued having similarly motivated classmates. While these schools enroll students from all walks of life—rich and poor, urban and rural—they obviously attract those who prioritize God-centered moral development as well as academics.

  So bright spots do exist in American higher education, and not all college students are woke snowflakes hostile to traditional morality.

  [RELATED: WATCH: What Happened to the Liberal Arts? Plus Religious Revival, College Sports, and UVA’s Viewpoint Diversity Problem]

  That said, the event sidestepped any attempt to address the serious problems associated with college itself and its suitability for so many young people. For example, no one mentioned the crisis of student loan obligations and how average salaries for college graduates are not keeping pace with tuition increases or debt levels. Today, most young people leave college encumbered by these loans, often unable to make ends meet, much less form a family, presumably a vitally important milestone for those of religious faith. Yet college itself and its costs often interfere with or hinder these critical next steps.

  The documentary also featured a student with a four-year degree in theater. As interesting as this program may be, one wonders if four years on campus is really preferable to four years of actual work as a performer?

  Indeed, an event like this might discourage questions about college alternatives even as they deserve to be asked now more than ever. A young person could consider missionary work or volunteering with Habitat for Humanity, for example, to grow spiritually and serve God and their neighbor. A four-year college experience is hardly the only or even the preferred path, even at an authentically religious school.

  Last, surveys on happiness and trust levels are problematic. The respected 20th-century Catholic Bishop Fulton Sheen frequently stressed that happiness itself can never be the goal; in fact, when we aim directly for happiness, it eludes us. Instead, true happiness is always a byproduct— specifically, a byproduct of a good life. Interestingly, the happiest people are often unconsciously so, never thinking of their own happiness since they’re typically focused on others, rather than on themselves and their own feelings.

  Trust also deserves scrutiny, as trusting others is not in itself a virtue. In fact, much of growing up—and much of education—involve learning what and who deserve trust and what and who does not.

  But ACE wanted to get the word out about faith-based schools; it did not set out to address core problems with American higher education. So mission accomplished and job well done.

  I discussed this event in greater detail with Jared Gould, Managing Editor of Minding the Campus, during our latest VAS News Chat, which can be viewed here.

  ---

  Image: Asbury University Administration Building by Amannelle (Wikimedia Commons); in 2024, Asbury reached its highest-ever enrollment—over 2,000 students—according to Christianity Today.
  
  About the author: Teresa R. Manning is Policy Director at the National Association of Scholars, President of the Virginia Association of Scholars and a former law professor at Virginia’s Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

The Democrat Theater Kids Are Playing to an Empty House

posted by Kurt Schlichter at Townhall 

The Democrats have stopped bothering to conduct politics; they prefer to engage in max-cringe performance art, and it’s unclear who their audience is. Maybe it’s each other, since this festival of onanism is designed for them to shamefully pleasure themselves while accomplishing nothing. It sure can’t be for the benefit of normal people. For one thing, normal people aren’t on X looking at senators’ social media feeds. For another thing, normal people have better things to do than listen to the tantrums of tedious government functionaries shilling for the dismal side of those proverbial 80/20 issues. It’s hard to get people upset about deportations when people dig deportations, and the more deporty the better.

Yet they’re out there anyway, whining on videos, whining on TV shows, whining in congressional committees, whining, whining, whining, always whining. But who’s listening? This reminds me of those perennially unemployed actors who rent out a 99-seat non-equity theater for their one-man show, then invite/guilt all their friends to come watch them talk on stage for 90 minutes about how their daddy didn’t love them. You’re not going because you want to. You’re going because it’s a painful duty. And what a painful duty it is to watch these Democrats caper and cavort in their own individual productions of “Donald Trump Lives Inside My Head.”

They all seem to have the same producer and director. It’s always the same style and the same message – some hack Democrat consultant is getting rich, perhaps the same one who made $20 million convincing the party to send Jabba the Lib out to win over young men.

Some unlucky staffer with an iPhone videos the Dem pol as he/she/xe stands there holding one of those little lapel mics in his/her/xir hand like some TikTok influencer sounding off with exactly the same stupid sound bites as every other donkey backbencher. There’s a daily script with the same message. And it’s a stupid message, like that Donald Trump is ripping innocent immigrant families apart because of his inherent meanness. Well, some families should be ripped apart, and if you’re one of the Michoacán Mansons, like the father of the year Maryland Man who dabbled in murder, human trafficking, wife beating, and dirty pictures of little kids, you need to get the hell out of our country. Dropping guys like that off in their Third World hellhole of origin instead of dropping them out of the open door of a helicopter is the moderate solution.

The other cliché du jour is a video clip of the pol bleating in fussy outrage over a failed visit to one of the ICE houses. These dumpy losers show up at some detention center to demand entrance, and the ICE agents – who are almost all working-class minority guys – basically tell them to go pound sand.  At that point, the Democrat stares into the camera and cries about how they’re just trying to do oversight and how this is the worst thing Literal Hitler has done since the last thing Literal Hitler did. They think this is a power move, but all it does is demonstrate a level of impotence unseen since the last Bulwark staffer’s wedding night.

And then there are the videos where some pinko politician decides to either charge at a government official while screaming like a lunatic – probably not a great idea in light of recent events – or get in a tussle with ICE agents as they attempt to haul away some Third World intruder scumbag. And it’s always some obscure politician trying to make a name for himself; when alleged Senator Alex Padilla – or is it Jose? – charged Kristi Noem, most people’s response was, “Who?” Of course, Literal Hitler is literally Hitlerer for protecting government officials and arresting people who interfere with cops. Cue conservatives to head to X to dig up tweet after tweet of the offending Democrat and his reflexive defenders solemnly reciting that no one is above the law.

And there’s my own governor, Gavin Hairstyle, who seems to be spending all his time on Twitter twitting pointlessly about Donald Trump, who, for his part, keeps racking up win after win. Just the other day, the Ninth Circuit – yeah, that Ninth Circuit – disrespected Newsom and his ridiculous legal arguments about who controls the California Army National Guard so completely and decisively that it made Dresden in 1945 look like Disneyland, except with fewer dumpy incel adult losers trying to relive their miserable childhoods. So, what did Gavin do? He put out a tweet claiming victory. His defeat was so comprehensive that he would’ve had to do vastly better to achieve even a Pyrrhic victory, which is the worst kind of victory to have.

Then you get all these Democrats sounding off about the Big Beautiful Bill and how it’s going to help out the billionaires. I don’t know many billionaires who bring me patty melts at the diner and are somehow going to cash in on my tax-free tips. This is so transparently stupid that you wonder who it’s meant to convince. It’s not just that the Dems are spinning. It’s not just that they’re trying to advocate for their point of view. It’s that they’re outright lying. They are saying things that are demonstrably untrue, and it’s not even arguable, while expecting people not to notice.

But, of course, people do notice, and even the dumbest Democrats, even Mazie Hirono and Ted Lieu, must, at some level, understand that if you keep saying things that are obviously false to people, people are going to stop listening to you. Still, having normal people listen to them doesn’t appear to be the point. These little performances appear to be directed at each other, with each of them competing to be the loudest, shrillest, and stupidest voice in the debate. We’re not the audience. Their comrades are. 

But that’s okay. We’re not interested anyway. In fact, if given the choice, we would sooner go see an Amy Schumer and Lena Dunham reboot of “Wild Things.”

🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓

 

Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 

man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 

America Will Be Better Off, And More Self-Reliant, Without Illegal Immigrant Labor

Not relying on illegal immigrant labor means we have to learn to take care of ourselves, much as Americans have for most of our history.

posted by Casey Chalk at The Federalist

Quite a few Americans are worried about the effect of President Trump’s immigration policy on our nation’s economy. “A significant portion of our industry relies on immigrant labor[.] … When there are sudden crackdowns or raids, it slows timelines, drives up costs, and makes it harder to plan ahead,” a former Democrat congressman and building executive told The Washington Post last week. “[F]ewer immigrants could take a hit to the economy, prompting labor shortages and slowing economic growth,” a USA Today op-ed warned earlier this month.

Whether or not that’s true, it’s obvious that a dramatic decline in illegal immigrant labor — something that as yet has not happened — would affect many Americans’ lives and pocketbooks. But is that necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps becoming less reliant on illegal labor would make Americans more self-reliant, more engaged with their communities, and even happier and more fulfilled.

How It Affects Middle-Class Suburban Lifestyles

In Northern Virginia, where I live and grew up, there are thousands of illegal immigrants. A 2019 study estimated that statewide, a quarter of a million residents are illegal. As evidenced by their daily lounging around Home Depot, Lowe’s, and various gas stations, many of them seek employment as day laborers for contractors or in construction, though many others work in agriculture, landscaping, restaurant work, or domestic services. Undoubtedly, illegal immigrants influence the price of how much Virginians spend on various home repairs or maintenance, and even food, given that they work for sub-market wages. 

Of course, the same can be said in cities and communities across the country. Some estimate more than 18 million illegal immigrants in the United States today, depressing wages for lower-income native-born Americans by as much as 7 percent, and, as a recent Federalist article described, running many American-run businesses into the ground. Yet that is a hidden social and economic cost for urban and suburban elites who’ve come to depend on that labor to support a lifestyle they’ve come to expect as normal, perhaps even their right.

A Typical Weekend in Northern Virginia

This was made abundantly clear to me on a recent Saturday morning in Virginia. After an early breakfast, my oldest son and I got to work on the yard. A good part of an oak tree had come down during a recent storm, so my son dragged branches off the lawn and sawed them into pieces for firewood for the winter. I started mowing, which takes about two and a half hours with a push mower (it’s great exercise). While we worked, neighbors casually walked by in pajamas or yoga pants with their dogs. Others jogged by, wearing the latest athletic wear and hydration packs, presumably training for their next half-marathon. 

By the time we finished the yard, it was time for a hurried lunch and then to take my son to baseball practice, where, once again, parents in designer athletic wear lounged on bleachers, sipping coffees and talking about the latest concerts they attended and their summer vacation plans. I, in turn, ran off to the hardware store to purchase what I needed for the next home improvement project. After that was more shuttling of kids to and from weekend activities, directing them to do their chores while my wife cooked dinner, and then getting them to bed. 

Many, perhaps most, of my neighbors do not spend their weekends like my family does. They have Latino landscapers take care of their yards during the week. They are dual-income, which means they have significant discretionary income to spend on eating out, taking Pilates classes, and paying babysitters so they can frequent local concerts or whatever other entertainment they desire. They subject their kids to a merry-go-round of extracurricular and summer activities motivated by a competitiveness of keeping up with the Joneses and securing freedom from childcare. 

In contrast, we homeschool our kids so they don’t have to attend the disaster that has become Fairfax County Public Schools, meaning my wife brings in no income. I work multiple jobs to pay the bills and spend my weekends working in or around the house. Our older kids all have an activity or two, but we also put them to work — indeed, we need their labor to make our household function. And, frankly, my wife and I both prefer it that way. 

Americans Can Find Pride in Self-Reliance

Sometimes I’m envious of my neighbors and their leisure or liberty to spend liberally on whatever they want, wherever they want. But most of the time, I’m grateful for the opportunity to be self-reliant. My kids and I do the landscaping and gardening, and can take pride in it as we gaze out over our deck during dinner. Our kids lack the frenetic lifestyle of many of their peers, but we get constant compliments from other parents about their maturity and comparatively good behavior. They are rarely bored. Whenever we’re not putting them to work, they’re riding their bikes, rampaging through the woods, or conceptualizing some new Lego creation in their playroom. There are no screens or video games.

It’s an interesting paradox: Though our family has more responsibilities for our property and life than most, it feels like we possess a deeper calm and happier rhythm than those who use their abundant free time and money to pursue not the kinds of life-giving leisure described by philosopher Joseph Pieper, but things that only seem to make them more stressed. “Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants,” said the ancient Stoic philosopher Epictetus. Homeschooling, in turn, means my family is all learning together, as my wife and I read books on the same subjects we are teaching our children. 

Not relying on immigrant labor means we have to learn to take care of ourselves, much as Americans have for most of our history. A tight budget means we rarely eat out, but also that we have fun trying new recipes. A life less dependent on illegal immigrants may be one with less entertainment and excitement, but also one in which Americans are freer because they are not reliant on an underclass of laborers. This is republican government as the founders intended, and one that offers a deeper, more fulfilling form of flourishing. 

New York Times: People Who Ignore Media’s Fake Outrage Give Trump Higher Approval Rating

Eddie Scarry reporting for The Federalist 

It was an incredible self-own when the New York Times recently ran the headline, “One Thing Helping Trump’s Approval Rating: Some People Are Not Paying Attention.” An alternate heading could have easily been, “People Who Don’t Read This Paper Infinitely Happier, Study Finds.”

The article from mid-May, by Ruth Igielnik, was based on a Times/Siena College poll that asked respondents whether they approved or not of President Trump’s performance on various issues, including immigration and the economy. It also asked how informed they were on certain so-called “major” events. “Voters who have not heard much about some of the many major news events from the first 100 days of Mr. Trump’s second term have a higher opinion of the job he is doing …,” wrote Igielnik. She added that “little under half of the 42 percent of voters who approved of the job Mr. Trump is doing as president said they had not heard much about at least some of the ups and downs of his administration’s decisions.”

The obvious point is to explain away Trump’s approval numbers, which have remained relatively stable and unremarkable as far as modern presidencies go and in spite of ginned-up hysteria by the media. As of Tuesday, the Real Clear Politics average has the president with a 46.8 percent approval, about two points higher than his record low so far this term, and just under four points lower than his record high.

People must not have heard about all the chaos!

By “Major news events,” Igielnik naturally means fake controversies manufactured by the dying news media, such as the Times. Those would include the Kilmar Abrego Garcia saga, a period of stock market fluctuations, and a foreign student in the U.S. detained by authorities for engaging in disruptive political protests — all of which the media put their backs into with the hopes of turning public opinion against the administration.

It worked to some degree. On the made-up controversies mentioned, respondents who said they had heard about the story gave Trump a lower approval rating than those who said they hadn’t heard or had only heard very little, according to the Times.

But rather than consider that consuming excessively negative (and fake) news would logically lead a person to a more negative view, Igielnik suggested it’s a bigger problem that Trump’s approval numbers aren’t suffering more because a lot of people have obviously tuned her and her peers out after realizing how routinely deceptive their narratives are.

“[T]he blitz of news can be hard to follow even for the most engaged voters,” she wrote. “In his first 100 days, Mr. Trump signed more executive orders than any other modern president, part of a strategy to make changes at such velocity that people could not possibly pay attention to all of them.”

Or maybe people are catching on to the manipulative game the media play. It’s a tried and true tip: If the dying media are talking about “chaos” as it relates to Donald Trump, do yourself a favor and ignore it!

Assume Everything Russia Hoaxer And Biden Laptop Truther Natasha Bertrand Says Is A Lie

Bertrand is a regime mouthpiece who will shamelessly publish anything to smear her political opponents, irrespective of its validity.

Shawn Fleetwood reporting for The Federalist

CNN’s Natasha Bertrand has played a pivotal role in pushing some of the biggest media hoaxes in modern American history. That’s an important fact to keep in mind when reading her latest “bombshell” story about the recent U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.

On Wednesday, the left-wing propagandist co-authored an “exclusive” report alongside CNN’s Katie Bo Lillis and Zachary Cohen. Based on alleged claims from seven anonymous sources, the story cites “an early US intelligence assessment” that purports to show the “US military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months.”

“The analysis of the damage to the sites and the impact of the strikes on Iran’s nuclear ambitions is ongoing, and could change as more intelligence becomes available,” the report reads. “But the early findings are at odds with President Donald Trump’s repeated claims that the strikes ‘completely and totally obliterated’ Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth also said on Sunday that Iran’s nuclear ambitions ‘have been obliterated.'”

The authors went on to regurgitate anonymous claims from these unnamed sources, some of whom contended that “Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed” and that “the centrifuges are largely ‘intact.'” Only paragraphs after noting the White House’s characterization of the “alleged assessment” as “flat-out wrong” do Bertrand and Co. acknowledge, “It is still early for the US to have a comprehensive picture of the impact of the strikes, and none of the sources described how the [Defense Intelligence Agency] assessment compares to the view of other agencies in the intelligence community.”

While time and further investigation will reveal the ultimate impact of America’s strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, Bertrand is one of the last people in media who deserves any semblance of trust to accurately report on the issue.

Americans will recall that Bertrand was at the forefront of pushing the debunked Trump-Russia collusion hoax. Her obsession with promoting the baseless work of Fusion GPS — the opposition research firm responsible for helping compile the infamous Steele dossier — earned her the nickname, “Fusion Natasha.”

After spending years of embarrassing herself hyping such nonsense, Bertrand decided to further tank what little credibility she had by serving as the intelligence community’s useful idiot during the Hunter Biden laptop saga.

After the New York Post dropped a bombshell story on the younger Biden’s laptop and its damaging contents weeks ahead of the 2020 election, Bertrand published a now-infamous letter in the pages of Politico from 51 former intel officials, who falsely claimed the laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” As the Federalist’s Elle Purnell previously noted, “We now know, according to one of its signers, that the letter was crafted to help Joe Biden discredit reporting about the Biden family’s overseas influence-peddling that was sourced to the laptop.”

It’s also worth mentioning that Bertrand and her “reporting” are the subject of a 2019 lawsuit filed by now-FBI Director Kash Patel during his time on the National Security Council in the first Trump administration. As Erielle Azerrad wrote in these pages, Patel claimed that Bertrand and Politico owner Robert Allbritton “’acted in concert’ with Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., with the alleged aim of ‘destroy[ing] Kash’s reputation’ in order to buttress ‘Schiff’s baseless Ukrainian quid pro quo hoax.'”

Unless confirmed otherwise, any piece of “journalism” published with Bertrand’s name attached to it deserves to be taken with a grain of salt, if not ignored entirely. Like many of her fellow defenders of “democracy,” she’s a typical regime mouthpiece who will shamelessly publish and/or say anything to smear her political opponents, irrespective of whether it’s true or not.