Monday, September 1, 2025

The ‘Follow the Science’ Crowd Seldom Does


Sometimes you just have to look at a thing to know it’s nuts. Other times, you have to extrapolate a thing out to its inevitable end to know it’s nuts, but then there it is: it’s nuts.

Lefties have trouble extrapolating. They clearly have trouble with what is real and obvious (i.e., X/X = Female, X/Y = Male), but the things you need only think through just a little bit elude them, too. Have you noticed? They simply don’t extrapolate. Even a little.

They’re often so anti-science, so counter-factual, so self-destructive that it goes beyond simply not following “the science.” They’re not following friggin’ gravity. The simple rules of being. Just being. Being human. On earth. Where there are actions and consequences. They. Just. Don’t. Think. That. Way.

So let’s do it for them. Let’s look at a few things they really haven’t thought through.

X/Y Men & X/X Women & “Gender-affirming care”

How is it “gender-affirming” to cut body parts off? The left is known for calling things Orwellian names, but I think “gender-affirming care” for the willful mutilation of one’s body must be the most Orwellian. They try to get around this by saying “gender” is different from “sex,” but then why chop off body parts if the whole thing is just a “construct”? Can’t you just “construct” your “gender-identity” without a scalpel? Since when does personal affirmation of anything depend on somebody else graduating from medical school?

There’s nothing—nothing—in the great American experiment of Liberty that requires someone else’s labor in order to “affirm” you. That’s the whole point. So this is communistic thinking, in my opinion. If you can’t achieve personal affirmation without somebody taking a scalpel to you, then how healthy is it? I think that question answers itself.

The whole thing is communistic, anti-science gobbledygook.

X/Y Men & X/X Women & Sports

Men are stronger. This is a thing that simply is. It is not arguable. On the whole, in the main, generally speaking, men, as a group, as a sex, are stronger. One can deny it, wish it away, put lipstick on it (or him), and point to exceptions or pretend it isn’t so, all day long, but that does not make it so. Any more than tucking one’s penis between one’s legs gives one a vagina. It doesn’t. All day long. And twice on Sunday.

Science, actual science, tells us there are two and only two sexes: X/X and X/Y. That’s it. You’re born one or the other. Yes, there are mutations and exceptions, but that’s the point: they are mutations and exceptions to the norm, to what makes us human, not an anteater. We can self-identify as an anteater, but that would make us ridiculous and ruin pizza night on Fridays.

Climate change

The “science” says the planet’s climate is not changed by man (anthropogenic climate change), yet there’s Greta Thunberg (when she’s not taking sides with Hamas) out there yelling into a microphone about how disappointed she is in all of us for not corking cow butts or flying in airplanes fueled with fairy dust.

The climate record, taken from deep earth core samples and via other means, tells us very clearly that changes in the climate are cyclical and that the cycles correspond to solar activity, not the internal combustion engine. Earth’s climate record is long, exponentially longer than the advent of the internal combustion engine, which is what most of these loons point to as the beginning of our end times here on this magnificent blue dot.

Earth’s own crust calendar proves them wrong, scientifically.

Self-defense

It’s one thing to want to repeal the Second Amendment, a goal that lefties have been less and less shy about as time has gone on. But to then want to disarm the police or, worse, just wholesale defund the police is…well, it’s suicidal. Somebody has to be more lethal than the bad guy, and asking the man who is about to rape you if he had an awful childhood or sending in a social worker ain’t gonna stop him, no matter how sympathetic you both are.

To find the answer to why women need guns, we need only look near the top of this article: men are stronger than women.

Guns are the great equalizer.

Open borders

It’s the essential paradox: if you don’t protect your borders, you don’t have a country, and if you don’t have a country attractive to foreigners, then guess what? You don’t have a country attractive to us. So what’s the point of open borders? There isn’t much of one, is there? If we just become Mexico El Norte?

Once again, lefties don’t extrapolate.

Abortion

Life begins at conception. This is not arguable. The left can argue all day long about the imaginary “right” to abortion, but it doesn’t change the fact that where there was once life, there isn’t one after an abortion. That life has been extinguished. The rest of their caterwauling is just anti-science noise.

And yet again, we are the follow-the-science crowd, not them.

Conclusion

Whether it’s sex and gender, climate change, self-defense, open borders, or abortion, the left simply doesn’t follow-the-science or extrapolate. Propaganda and mass formation psychosis are, so far, the only credible explanations for this widespread phenomenon. They’re both good (enough) explanations, so they’ll have to do.

In the meantime, we just need to make sure these freaks don’t get anywhere near power ever again, because clearly, they haven’t thought anythingthrough.



Democrats Have Nothing But Trump Hatred To Run on


The term “one-trick pony” applies perfectly to the Democrats. When I was a kid, the Democratic Party stood for something; advocated for things – was “the party of the working class,” or at least they claimed. Now, they barely pay lip service to any policy ideas. The ones they do are still all bad, but they have become a party obsessed with one thing and one thing only: Hating President Donald J. Trump.

When was the last time you saw a Democrat, either elected or a “journalist,” advocate for something? Not against, mind, like your Second Amendment rights, but actually for something? I guess, technically, they advocate FOR higher taxes, but they do so by trying to let tax cuts expire. And open borders, well, they advocate FOR those by simply ignoring existing law by refusing to enforce it.

But when was the last time they campaigned on some ideas?

Hillary Clinton ran on being Hillary Clinton – the “historic” shatterer of “glass ceilings” and the like – but not many ideas. Or her record, for that matter – “Vote for the person most responsible for returning open-air slave markets to Libya!” doesn’t really look great on a bumper sticker.

Joe Biden was older than dirt, senile as hell, and as accomplished as a wadded up Kleenex. But he swore he’d “restore our image in the world” and other meaningless, worthless crap like that. Feel restored yet? Nowhere did he campaign on giving his degenerate family members pardons, at least as far as I can remember.

Kamala Harris swore she would…do something. It was never clear she wanted to do anything. She ran for the nomination in 2020 seemingly out of boredom, but only ended up inflicting that on everyone else. It is difficult to believe that, deep down, she knew why she was running.

Well, they did all have one thing in common: They weren’t Donald Trump. While that sounds stupid and obvious, it is the basis of everything the Democratic Party does these days.

Can you imagine proposing to your husband or wife with, “Marry me, I’m not that last person who broke your heart”? That sounds stupid, but only because it is. And it is what Democrats were doing then and it is what they are doing now.

Their annual meeting, or whatever that thing up in Minnesota last week was, amounted to a full-throated commitment from the party to every left-wing cause that made voters run from them.

It is the basis of their fundraising, every dollar of it. They’re “fighting Donald Trump” or “standing up to Donald Trump” or “will stop MAGA” from doing whatever it is they think MAGA is doing. Honestly it doesn’t matter – they don’t have specifics and their followers don’t need any. It’s as simple at “If Trump is for, I’m against it,” whatever “it” happens to be at any given moment.

“Which failures of the Trump administration do you want Democrats to prioritize?” opened a recent “interview” of supporters from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.” The provided answer options? They were “His disastrous handling of the economy. His abysmal record of breaking promises. His decision to leave crucial international agreements like the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization. His decision to shut down crucial agencies like the Department of Education. His horrendously unqualified judicial nominees. His targeting of independent news media like NPR, PBS, and MSNBC. His threats to voting rights His attempts to roll back so much of President Biden's progress. His attacks on Medicaid and benefits the American people have worked so hard to earn.” 

MSNBC is “independent”? On what planet? 

On the planet where “people have worked so hard to earn” health insurance created for poor people in Medicaid. Do they really think a welfare benefit with zero minimum income level, but with a maximum income level, is something people “earn”? How would you do that? Sit on your ass all day and get fired from a job where you made too much money to qualify?

These people rendered wildly ignorant or just plain stupid by their blind hatred of Donald Trump. But it works, or works well enough still. Half the country starts off from a brain-damaged perspective, anything but hate would only confuse them. Pathetic and sad, but their vote counts just as much as yours does.



Dems, Please Cry More About the New Rules


Making our enemies pay for doing bad things to us is a good thing, a moral thing, a necessary thing, and a hilarious thing. Remember, nobody is above the law, though when we conservatives say it, we say it without the little asterisk that leads to a footnote reading “Unless it’s either a Democrat or a former Republican the Democrats like because he hates Trump.”

The recent ransacking of the opulent house of John Bolton was a terrific example. Bolton, who’s hoping his mustache doesn’t turn state’s evidence against him, famously left the Trump administration and proceeded to badmouth it. A fixture on MSNBC (AKA MS NOW for some reason), the war-dodging warmonger did a celebratory dance when the Democrats tried to frame Donald Trump and rummaged through Melania‘s underwear drawer. Now he’s looking at an indictment and it couldn’t happen to a more tiresome guy.

Look, you don’t need to be ashamed of how satisfying it is to see the tables turned on this turncoat. There’s nothing wrong with taking pleasure in the misery of someone who richly deserves to be miserable. While crying about hypocrisy is the act of the impotent, being a hypocrite is still bad, and it’s still fun to see hypocrites suffer righteous retribution. Trump’s playing for keeps – it’s highly amusing that they’re surprised the guy they tried to bankrupt, imprison for life, and murder won’t let bygones be bygones – so this is just the beginning of the dealing of the pain.

These people make it easy for us by being corrupt. I don’t know if Bolton is guilty of something. Even the NYT concedes he’s in real trouble, and the feds had to demonstrate probable cause to a magistrate or a federal judge to get the warrant, so something is going on. Now, let’s be clear that none of this is about framing people – that’s what Democrats do. This is about applying the same rules to them as they apply to us in terms of gleefully turning law enforcement on political opponents, instead of exercising extreme discretion when considering whether to do so. It is not about making up criminal charges against our enemies. Unilateral disarmament in the face of leftist evil is suicide, but we have a red line we cannot cross. The Ninth Commandment is crystal clear: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” We should have no part in framing people, even though they’ve tried to frame ours. That’s not being weak. That’s obeying our Creator.

Righteous retribution isn’t about bearing false witness, and the convenient thing about our enemies is that they are so utterly corrupt. They’re not careful about being corrupt because they never had to be good at graft. They knew they weren’t going to get looked at. They knew they weren’t going to get prosecuted. They knew they were never going to get held accountable, so they didn’t bother hiding it. This has led them to be arrogant and stupid. If Bolton still has classified material in his house after six years and after already having gone to the grand jury and lucking out by being ignored by Joe Biden’s corrupted DOJ, he deserves to be locked up for felony stupidity in the first degree.

The prosecutions of Letitia James and Adam Schiff, which are totally coming, will be glorious. They’re both particularly obnoxious creatures whose existence was made possible by a rotten establishment and a craven regime media. She ran on a platform of looking to find something, anything, to use to bankrupt Donald Trump. She almost succeeded, but the courts in New York have tossed out the ridiculous money judgment, and the next appeal will likely toss out the other findings. She didn’t have a problem with identifying an opponent and then embarking upon a fishing expedition to try to find a crime where none was apparent. We are not only right to return the favor but morally obligated to do so. That’s the standard. That’s the rule. Nobody is above the law, remember?

There was a time when I was against identifying a political opponent and then seeing if we could find something he’s done that’s illegal to take him out of the picture. That was the Old Rule, and I thought it was a good one. In a free country, politics should be about the issues, not about personalities. If a politician were corrupt enough, he/she/they would make it obvious; you didn’t have to go sifting through paperwork to find something. But people like James and Schiff felt differently. They thought it was a great idea to take their political opponents out of the picture using the justice system, a necessity in their cases because their own policies are such garbage.

So, the New Rule became that we look at our opponents and see if we can find where they’ve broken the law, and if they have, we use the full weight of the government against them. I want to reiterate that I was against this New Rule. I was against all the New Rules that changed the way we conduct politics in America. I even wrote about it 10 years ago right here at Townhall. I’m particularly proud of this prescient part:

“Today in America, we have a liberal president who refuses to recognize the majority sent to Congress as a reaction to his progressive failures, and who uses extra-Constitutional means like executive orders to stifle the voice of his opponents. We have a liberal establishment on a secular jihad against people who dare place their conscience ahead of progressive dogma. And we have two different sets of laws, one for the little people and one for liberals like Lois Lerner, Al Sharpton, and Hillary Clinton, who can blatantly commit federal crimes and walk away scot-free and smirking.

"Today in America, a despised minority that is really no minority is the target of an establishment that considers this minority unworthy of respect, unworthy of rights, and unworthy of having a say in the direction of this country. It’s an establishment that has one law for itself and another for its enemies. It’s an establishment that inflicts an ever-increasing series of petty humiliations on its opponents and considers this all hilarious. That’s a recipe for disaster. You cannot expect to change the status quo for yourself and then expect those you victimize not to play by the new rules you have created. You cannot expect to be able to discard the rule of law in favor of the rule of force and have those you target not respond in kind.”

Yeah, I called it. A decade on, we’re past the “Screw Us” phase and well into the “Screw You” phase. The left protests, feebly, that what they did is totally different than what we’re doing. It’s a credit to modern conservatives that we don’t bother arguing with them because we’ve learned that facts and evidence don’t really matter. Our opponents are concerned with power, so they will do and say whatever gets them the slightest advantage at that moment, even if they were doing and saying exactly the opposite thing 15 minutes ago. And they will do it shamelessly. In fact, it’s not even clear that they understand their own hypocrisy. There’s always an open question of whether they are stupid or whether they think we are stupid enough to believe what they’re saying.

So, for the foreseeable future, we’re going to have to continue with our policy of retribution, using the tools we’ve been given by the people who forged them. Remember, righteous retribution is proper, and it is the foundation of any functioning civilization. Wrongdoing must be punished, or all you’ll have is wrongdoing. The idea that we should somehow hand-wave away what they’ve done, maybe shaking our heads and tsk tsk tsking a bit, but definitely not taking any concrete action, is ridiculous. History bears this out. If you keep taking Schiff, all you’ll ever eat is Schiff sandwiches.

I don’t understand why some conservatives came out against retribution. I was not consulted on this 180° change from what conservatism is. But I know why the bow-tied incel virgin coterie of George Will-channeling femboys charted that course. They’re afraid to fight. Most of them have never been in a fight, at least one that didn’t involve slapping, pinching, and pulling hair. Imposing retribution means conflict, and they’re much happier typing out testosterone-free white papers on how perverted weirdos dressed as women reading sexually charged stories to kindergartners is a blessing of liberty. We’ve all seen what that leads to.

Retribution is just. Wrongdoing should be punished. But there’s also the practical matter that we must show the people who support us that they’re not going to get pushed around, that we’re going to take their side, that we’re going to make anybody who screws with them pay. The Fredocons of the 2000s, whose rule sputtered out when Jeb! begged stone-faced Republicans to “Please clap,” never understood this. If you want to lead, you’ve got to convince the led that you’re going to protect them. Demanding that your followers submit to gentlemanly defeat at the hands of screaming blue-haired barbarians ain’t gonna cut it if you presume to lead real men and women instead of Beltway neuters.

Now, I would be willing to return to the Old Rules. The Old Rules make society more stable and place the emphasis on policy above personality. But we can’t unilaterally return to them. It takes two to tango, and game theory requires us to match our opponents’ moves. Both sides must agree, but both sides are not equally responsible for the present situation. There must be accountability. They changed the rules, so they’re going to pay a price if they want the Old Rules back now that they realize that the New Rules are a jagged little suppository.

First, I’m going to have to require their unequivocal and public concession that it was wrong to change the Old Rules, that the New Rules are a bad idea, and that the Old Rules should be restored. There can be no evasion of responsibility or double-talk about what happened and what needs to happen. They must accept responsibility and admit fault; otherwise, it will be too easy to backslide once they have the power to enforce the New Rules again.

But the second requirement might strike them as harsh, which is too bad. They’ve got to pay for what they did. There’s no free pass. There must be a modicum of suffering that stems from their misbehavior. It’s called accountability, and to a Democrat, that’s the same as garlic to a vampire. Too bad. No pardon. No clemency. We must enforce the New Rules long enough to make it so painful that they’ll fear the consequences should they change the rules again.

After all, we are conservatives. We believe in righteous retribution. And we must have it.



🎭 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. 


Wes Moore’s Bronze Star Falsehood Implodes Under Scrutiny



It looks like another Democrat darling has tripped over his own carefully crafted narrative.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) just had a public meltdown when confronted about a glaring and long-running falsehood: his claim to having received a Bronze Star. For years, Moore casually let the military honor bolster his public image, political resume, and book sales — but now, under scrutiny, he’s suddenly claiming it "wasn't something I even thought about.” That’s a hard pill to swallow, considering the Bronze Star is not just some casual decoration. It’s one of the U.S. military’s most prestigious awards, given for heroic achievement in combat zones. 

Moore defended his claim, saying he’s just “proud to have served,” and insists the Bronze Star was “never a central part” of his story. However, his public record tells a different tale. His biography, speeches, campaign literature, and media appearances all featured the honor — until he got caught.

Moore used the Bronze Star claim to boost credibility, gain media attention, and rise through the ranks of the Democratic establishment. Additionally, in his 2006 application for a White House Fellowship, Moore wrote that he had received a Bronze Star. The governor later explained that his deputy brigade commander, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Fenzel, had encouraged him to include it, believing it had been approved by senior leadership. 

In a 2008 PBS NewsHour interview with Gwen Ifill and a 2010 appearance on The Colbert Report, the Democrat was introduced as a Bronze Star recipient—and he did not correct the record at the time. When asked later why he didn’t correct people, Moore said he was “hopeful” such errors wouldn’t put him on the spot during live national interviews.

In addition, in August 2024, The New York Times revealed the discrepancy in Moore’s record based on a FOIA-obtained application, prompting Moore to call it an “honest mistake” and express regret for not correcting the record sooner. He explained that, in the military, trust in a commanding officer typically suffices, which is why he included the Bronze Star on his application.



Trump on DNI Gabbard: “By the way, she’s coming along, right?”


We watch and read these interviews not to learn details of events, but rather to gauge President Trump’s awareness of the events as contrast by the information management team around him.

Unfortunately, we have yet to see an approved interview where the interviewer has a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter around their questioning. The Daily Caller’s White House Correspondent Reagan Reese sat down for an hour-long interview with President Trump on Friday to repeat the pattern.

[(L-R) President Trump, Communications Director Steven Cheung, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, Daily Caller journalist Reagan Reese] 

[READ THE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT HERE]

We pull the following quote from the transcript and ponder the ramifications against all previous research into the information control dynamic.

When discussing the activity of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump replies: “By the way, she’s coming along, right?”

There are only two people in the orbit of President Trump who are considered a high priority risk by those in the consequential part of the deep state, DNI Tulsi Gabbard and NSA Marco Rubio.

Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino et al, are easily managed by the system around them.  Russiagate presents no threat.

DNI Tulsi Gabbard stands at the gateway to the larger Silo. Her intent is direct and consequential. Spygate is a serious threat.

The supportive positions of CIA Director John Ratcliffe and National Security Advisor Marco Rubio, both with a long-range muscle memory of the power behind the gate, are unknown variables.


Senator Eric Schmitt Discusses “Russiagate” and COVID-19 Weaponization


Former Missouri AG and current Senator from Missouri Eric Schmitt, appears on the Glenn Beck podcast to discuss his perspectives on Russiagate, government weaponization and the background of COVID-19 as he discovered it through lawsuits against the Biden administration.

Senator Schmitt offers a balanced and stable viewpoint as he gives background to his own investigation into how the Biden administration weaponized all the agencies of government to control information and silence dissent. It is an interesting discussion.

At the 23:00 point, Schmitt begins to talk specifically about the information surfacing as a result of DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s efforts. Schmitt is hopeful for a conspiracy charge against the perpetrators of those who abused their office, falsified information, maintained the targeting of Donald Trump and used the power of government to target their political enemies.



Mike Lee Squares Off With Hakeem Jeffries Amid Debate Over Kamala's Secret Service Detail


RedState 

On Friday, we learned that President Donald Trump had authorized the Department of Homeland Security to revoke former Vice President Kamala Harris' Secret Service detail, which had been extended by Joe Biden in the closing days of his presidency for 12 months longer than the typical six months given to departing vice presidents.

“You are hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by Executive Memorandum, beyond those required by law, for the following individual, effective September 1, 2025: Former Vice President Kamala D. Harris,” the Thursday memorandum read.

The same day, we also learned that Harris would be getting protection from the California Highway Patrol in an arrangement made after Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass were said to have been "in discussions" on what to do ahead of Harris' upcoming "107 Days" book tour.

Naturally, the Usual Suspects rushed to jump to conclusions in the aftermath of news of Trump's letter to DHS. Among them was House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who declared Trump's action to be "reckless" and that "These extremists are unfit to govern and dangerous to the American way of life."

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) pushed back, first noting that she got a month longer than former VP Mike Pence got, and then inquiring if Jeffries condemned the House Democrats who tried to get Trump's Secret Service security protection revoked three months before the first assassination attempt:

It was a story that did not get the attention it deserved at the time, but Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), the ranking member on the House Committee on Homeland Security, introduced legislation in April 2024 calling for Secret Service protection to be yanked "for those who have been sentenced to prison following conviction for a Federal or State felony—clarifying that prison authorities would be responsible for the protection of all inmates regardless of previous Secret Service protection."

The bill was titled "Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act or the DISGRACED Former Protectees Act (H.R. 8081)."

Eight of his fellow House Democrats co-sponsored it: Reps. Troy A. Carter Sr. (LA), Barbara Lee (CA), Frederica Wilson (FL), Yvette D. Clarke (NY), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ), Jasmine Crockett (TX), Joyce Beatty (OH), and Steve Cohen (TN).

And as my colleague Becca Lower pointed out in her write-up, there were the deeply troubling things we learned in the aftermath of the July 2024 assassination attempt on Trump:


 Secret Service Reportedly Denied Trump Team's Requests for More Security

Secret Service Resources Diverted From PA Trump Rally to Jill Biden, Troubling Info


Let us also not forget that in July 2023, then-Democrat presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who Democrats feared would take support away from Biden, was denied a Secret Service detail by Biden's DHS "despite the Secret Service determining in June that he was at elevated 'risk for adverse attention.'"

Last but not least, there is this:

I mean, if Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass can find the money to fund Kamala Harris' security, why can't they find the money to fund the things related to the public safety and security of ALL California residents, like Prop 36?



Judge Blocks Flights to Reunite Guatemalan Children With Parents—Even As They Were Boarding the Planes


RedState 

The Trump administration says they were sending illegal alien Guatemalan children back to their home country at the request of their parents and the government of the Central American country. Immigration advocacy groups say the administration was conducting illegal deportation operations in the middle of the night.

Whoever is correct, the planes are grounded for now after a Biden-appointed judge issued a temporary restraining order Sunday—even as kids were already sitting in their seats.

The emergency order by U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan froze a pilot program the administration said would reunite nearly 700 kids with parents or guardians in Guatemala.

By the time the judge intervened, charter buses had already rolled up to planes in Harlingen and El Paso and, in some cases, children were seated on board awaiting departure.

Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign told the court, "These are not removals under the statute. These are repatriations. All of these children have parents or guardians in Guatemala who have requested their return."

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was infuriated by the move, which he says denies the children the opportunity to be reunited with their parents:


DHS Tweets at CNN Over Their Hero Worship of Illegal Alien Criminals

No, That Wood-Chopping Illegal Alien in WA Is Not a 'Firefighter' or 'Victim'


The judge admitted that it was an extraordinary ruling—but we’re getting used to those lately.

Sooknanan conceded her temporary restraining order, which is set to last 14 days, is "extraordinary" but justified it on the grounds that the government had decided to "execute a plan to remove these children" in the "wee hours" of a holiday weekend.

Miller disagreed:

Cleaning up the mess that Biden made was never going to be easy—his dereliction of duty (or purposeful malfeasance) led to millions of illegal aliens flooding our borders. Now the mainstream press and the Democrats cry foul and shriek “cruelty” at any efforts to rectify the situation, when in reality it was they themselves who created this humanitarian disaster.

The job is made that much harder by the never-ending interference of judges who seem to slap on restraining orders on the administration’s efforts on an almost daily basis. Some of the cases may have merit, and that’s why we have checks and balances, but when a huge number of the decisions coming down from the lower courts seem to go one way only, one can’t help but have questions. 



EU chief von der Leyen's plane hit by suspected Russian GPS jamming

 

The navigation system of a plane carrying Ursula von der Leyen was disrupted due to suspected Russian interference, the European Commission said.

A spokesperson said the "GPS jamming" happened while the Commission president was about to arrive in southern Bulgaria on Sunday, but she still landed safely.

They added: "We have received information from the Bulgarian authorities that they suspect that this was due to blatant interference by Russia." 

 

 

The Financial Times, citing unnamed officials, reported that von der Leyen had to land at Plovdiv Airport using paper maps.

The European Commission said "threats and intimidation are a regular component of Russia's hostile actions" and that the incident would reinforce its commitment to "ramp up our defence capabilities and support for Ukraine".

The Bulgarian government confirmed that during the flight, "the satellite signal transmitting information to the plane's GPS navigation system was neutralised".

The statement continued: "To ensure the flight's safety, air control services immediately offered an alternative landing method using terrestrial navigation tools."  

 

 

 

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told the FT that its information was "incorrect".  

 

 

Bulgaria's Air Traffic Services Authority told the paper that there had been a "notable increase" in navigation jamming since January 2022.

Experts have have previously warned that Russia was causing disruption to satellite navigation systems - affecting thousands of civilian flights.

Cyrille Rosay, a senior cybersecurity expert at the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), told the BBC that such cases had worsened since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Moscow has regularly denied scrambling the satellite-based systems, which are used to determine a plane's location.

Von der Leyen was visiting Bulgaria as part of a tour of eastern EU states to discuss defence readiness.

A Commission spokesperson said she had "seen first hand the every day threats from Russia and its proxies" during the tour.  

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9d07z1439zo