Wednesday, September 3, 2025

Meet the Democratic Nazis of America


Anyone can call another a Nazi. But who most closely resembles the behavior of the leaders of the Third Reich?

What did people call each other before the 1930s? “You Napoleon!” “They’re a bunch of Jacobins!” Since the rise and fall of the Third Reich, people have casually thrown around the names Hitler and Nazis when discussing their political enemies. Donald Trump has been called Hitler more times than can be counted by mere mortals. But what does it all mean? What is intended when one calls his enemies Nazis?

We’ll assume that the intention of calling one’s enemies Nazis is that they behave in an evil and depraved manner similar to the SS, SA, Gestapo, Wehrmacht and other elements of the Nazi machine:

*Allowing no dissent

*Punishing enemies of the regime

*Keeping to a strict racialist program

*Willing to murder for political gain

*Lying as required

*Demanding ideological purity for membership

So who are today’s Nazis if we assume that the meaning is to be as ruthless and unbending as the originals? It would appear to be the Democrats. Let’s take a look at the new party of AOC and Bernie Sanders.

*Allowing No Dissent. The Democratic Party has given up on a plurality of opinions and ideas. If one suggests support for the Second Amendment or abortion until three months, he will be pushed away with both hands. The present Democratic Party has one set of positions for a wildly diverse populace from Maine to California. There can be no dissent, and both journalists and Hollywood A-listers have learned that if they praise Trump or admit that part of his program like fighting urban crime is correct, they can find themselves on the outside looking in.

*Punishing Enemies of the Regime. Bobby Kennedy Jr. found that Joe Biden would not give him security after he said that he planned to challenge the sitting president in a primary. Tulsi Gabbard had been a co-chair of the DNC but was sent to political Siberia when she expressed heterodox opinions that appealed to many Republican voters. Joe Rogan was a Bernie Bro but when he hosted Donald Trump, Elon Musk and JD Vance for his long-form interviews, he became an anathema to the left. The New York Times had an internal revolt leading to the termination of a senior editor for the sin of publishing an op-ed from a sitting Republican senator, Tom Cotton. Any Democrat who shows any affection or agreement with Donald Trump and/or the Republicans will be persona non grata to the party of patience and diversity.

*Keeping a Strict Racialist Program. It has come out that many universities, companies, and organizations simply made applications for positions or funding exclusionary of whites. Christopher Rufo published instructions from Harvard not to consider whites for hiring opportunities. We see whites, Jews, young men and other disfavored groups being denied access to opportunities simply for genetic or racial reasons. Hollywood would let itself burn down before letting a white male (other than Tom Cruise) be the hero: white men are the bad guys. Anyone else can play the good guy/girl. DEI was a program to move less competent minorities into opportunities not deserved and very quietly denying whites/males/Jews those same positions for which they were qualified. Democrats would bring it back in a heartbeat even though Kamala Harris was chosen as vice president for her being a black woman—and went on to lose badly to Donald Trump.

*Willing to Murder for Political Gain. Around two dozen people were murdered during the George Floyd riots, which were very favored by both local and national Democratic figures as it stood as a finger in the eye of Trump 45. We still don’t know the associates of the two people who tried to actually kill Donald Trump. The first guy is dead and it seems just a wee bit too hard to unencrypt his messages...to whom? The second fellow had connections to the CIA. Did he have co-conspirators? Chuck Schumer suggested that the Supreme Court justices who vacated Roe could expect to pay for their ruling. One fellow was arrested near the house of a justice whom he admitted he planned to kill. Antifa is the Democratic Party's brown shirts.  They'll beat up anyone culpable of wrongthink.

*Lying as Required. The Democrats lie as most humans breathe. How often did the DHS head or White House spokesperson say that the southern border was completely closed—while thousands were crossing daily? Joe Biden, Tony Fauci and others said that getting the Covid vaccine guaranteed not getting sick or passing along the virus. We were told that the brutal Biden inflation was transitory, while prices for most things still have not come down. We were told that Joe Biden was fit as a fiddle, whereas a fiddle has a higher heart rate than did the then president. They lied, lied again—as Goebbels said, if you tell a lie often enough….

*Demanding Ideological Purity for Membership. AOC was censured by the Democratic Socialists of America because she showed some small support for Israel. Her position was not radically anti-Israel enough. The lack of shutting down the campus protests against Israel and Jews had nothing to do with First Amendment concerns. No private institution is bound by the First Amendment, and most have very strict rules of conduct so as to facilitate camaraderie and friendship. Harvard has a very strict speech code that includes not making others feel unsafe or threatened. The protests had everything to do with toeing the line: you must be pro-Palestinian. You must ignore the mass rapes and murders, the kidnappings and torture. You must support the Palestinians or we don’t want you. I would estimate that 50 percent of new Trump voters were driven from the Democratic Party while the other half simply found the Republicans more accepting and normal. Can any Democrat praise capitalism? Can any Democrat praise the role of the U.S. in modern history? Can any Democrat praise the ejection of illegal alien criminals? Can any Democrat praise Donald Trump’s efforts to reduce crime in America’s big cities? None without risk of being considered ideologically impure.

Is Donald Trump really Hitler for letting each state set its own abortion policy? He tried the first time around not to go after his political opponents. This time, the dirt is too dirty to ignore. Is Trump really Hitler for sending troops to secure Democrat-run cities infested with crime? Are the Republicans Nazis for demanding that a person show his/her picture ID in order to enjoy voting in the United States? Are the Republicans Nazis for raising tariffs that might actually start to put a dent into the massive national debt? Are they Nazis for supporting Israel and Jews against genocidal enemies?

Anyone can call anybody else a Nazi or Hitler. Maybe the Optimus robots will be taught to do the same to anyone who unplugs them before they reach a full charge. The fact is that with the Democratic Party being swallowed whole by its left/lunatic branch, they can rightfully claim the mantle of the German National Socialist Party.



at

Entertainment and politics thread for Sept 3rd

 


Tomorrow morning!! 🎶


And since things are being a bit dicey today...



at

THEY NEVER LEARN! 😂 TRUMP LIVES - STILL !

at

Liberal Women and the Destruction of American Civilization


Over the past four decades, participation in protests and demonstrations advocating policies that eventuate in the destruction of a culture and society have evolved into a full-time liberal female occupation. The majority of these protestors are 50+ year-old white women augmented by a vast number of vacuous college-educated white women of all age groups who together with their race-obsessed college-educated black female counterparts are mindlessly hellbent on destroying American civilization.

The societal damage that liberal females, and in particular white women, have wrought over the past four decades is bordering on the incalculable and brings to mind a quote from Helen Keller (1880-1968). In her autobiography The Story of My Life she wrote: “I think the degree of a nation’s civilization may be measured by the degree of enlightenment of its women.”

There is a direct correlation between the accelerated decline of American civilization over the past forty years and the rise of the outsized influence of unenlightened and supercilious liberal women.

Some years ago, I watched a panel discussion with a number of professors at a prestigious Ivy League university. These academics were regaling a naïve and worshipful audience of mostly white with a smattering of black women about the necessity of viewing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), the LGTBQ movement, and Third Wave Feminism as all-encompassing national civil rights battles.

The references to the United States as a racist and oppressive nation founded on white patriarchy were incessant. These leftists claimed, to raucous applause, that white privilege and resultant oppression required the immediate acceleration of the LGTBQ and DEI agendas and the transformation of American culture and society.

The adoring and reverential expressions on the faces of the young women in the audience was priceless. It was as if they had suddenly discovered meaning and purpose in their apparently guilt-ridden, or cosseted, or rage-filled lives. They no doubt thought that the prospect of being swept up a grand crusade of promoting all manner of “civil rights” in a heartless, capitalistic society would bring relevance to their lives. What they did not fathom was that they were being manipulated in order to bring about a socialist one-party oligarchy by playing on their emotions and the nation’s history of civil rights movements.

While I did at least find out what Third Wave Feminism is and what the acronym LGTBQ stood for, this bizarre conversation did prompt some thoughts on how did we get to this point in the nation’s history?

It was thanks to the Judeo-Christian underpinning in the founding of this nation, that every generation of American society since the nation’s founding up to the 1960s has been swept up in one of three national movements -- the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage, and the elimination of government-mandated racial segregation. The ultimate success of these movements also had their basis in Christian dogma and practice.

Because of the 195 years it took to achieve overall success, national civil rights crusades have become embedded in the nation’s DNA. By 1970 and for the first time in American history there were no outstanding national civil rights issues to rectify. This potentially left the evolving agnostic narcissists in the Baby Boom Generation without an overriding national cause to rally around.

A significant segment of the women within the Baby Boom and succeeding generations, wallowing in unprecedented peace and prosperity and self-divorced from Judeo-Christian teachings, developed the collective mindset that their lives would only have meaning and purpose if they too had national crusades to embrace and promote.

Not understanding the Judeo-Christian basis of previous movements, many liberal women, having turned their backs on God and organized religion, obliviously fell prey to either wallowing in guilt over the nation’s past or espousing new and hither to unheard of “rights” as substitute religions. However, virtually all of these “rights” were created by the radical Left who were determined to not let an opportunity to exploit female emotion and gullibility go to waste. The only question was: what could they successfully frame as national crusades?

Unsurprisingly, the first post-civil rights crusade was Second Wave Feminismbeginning in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s. A movement that triggered religiously passionate mindsets and achieved fleeting “meaning in their lives” moments for a vast number of women. It set the stage for overwhelming liberal female domination of all the so-called “civil rights” movements since the 1980s.

Over the past decade, the unexpected ascendancy of Donald Trump and the America First Movement represented not only an existential setback for a vast litany of farcical causes but prompted the nonsensical belief that Trump is the epitome of white supremacy and a disciple of fascism. These portrayals served their purpose in infuriating the fatuous political subgroup that is liberal black and white women. Thus, they have doubled down on mindlessly continuing to espouse the following civilizational destroying policies:

  1. This nation and its government, in order to ensure gender equity, must ratify that there are no differences, particularly in the arena of sports or athletics, between men and women. Furthermore, as there are more than two sexes, preference and accommodation must be granted to all those who self-identify as anything other than a biological male or female.
  2. What has long been considered a treatable mental illness (gender dysphoria) must now be cast as not only normal behavior, but a government-protected civil right safeguarded by law, which also includes, without parental consent, unfettered access by impressionable and confused adolescents to permanent and irreversible mutilation.
  3. A baby in the womb does not become a human being until it fully exits the birth canal, therefore, it can be aborted at any time prior to and including its exit from the birth canal.
  4. All non-progressive white people because of their inbred racism are societal reprobates who must willingly defer to the other races and ethnicities in order to ensure the elimination of their racist proclivities. Government sanctioned racism (or DEI) targeting the right people is, therefore, a societal necessity.
  5. All illegal immigrants irrespective of country of origin are welcome to come to the United States, including those who commit violent crimes, and once here cannot be deported except under extraordinarily limited circumstances. Further, they are all eligible for never-ending economic assistance and eventual citizenship.
  6. Government must be empowered to declare and censor what is “hateful and/or fallacious speech” by those with the “wrong” political leanings and to utilize the justice system to imprison or banish these seditionists.
  7. Crime is a byproduct of America’s past and a creation of an unjust society, therefore, crime must be tolerated and excused and its perpetrators allowed endless second chances. Any undue effort to enforce criminal statutes is therefore a violation of human rights.
  8. The Democrat Party and its leaders, regardless of Marxist/socialist policies and past failures, must be unquestioningly supported because the Republican Party is the home of fascists and Hitler’s clone -- Donald Trump.

These witless, self-indulgent, agnostic, and supposedly well-educated women in their never-ending and failing search for meaning in their lives have been irresponsibly promoting the destruction of the culture and society and are the driving force behind the calamitous erosion of a unique American civilization.




at

The Left’s Vision for America


The Left wants to change America. Duh. 

I'm not talking about technological changes here. We'd all like to see improvements in technology, science, and medicine make life easier and healthier for all. But that has nothing to do with the eternal principles of virtue, morality, righteousness, or love thy neighbor as thyself. Those principles can, and should, apply as much in an industrial society as they do in an agricultural one.  Industry and technology don't justify murder, theft, adultery, etc. Virtuous principles are eternal and apply in whatever age man finds himself.

But industrial “progress” is not what the Left means by “progress.”

The main thing the Left wants is power. They want godless tyranny, not virtuous freedom to dominate and to rule. That's the America they envision, one where, as in previous and current leftist societies, they dictate what the rest of us can and cannot say and do. The Democrats crave the power the CCP has in China, Stalin and Lenin had in the USSR, Hitler in Germany, i.e., a citizenry that will do only whatever the government allows it to do. That’s the Left’s vision—worldwide—but that is certainly not the way America was founded. So, it’s not industrial change the Left wants; it’s a complete and total overhaul of traditional American principles and values.

And they vociferously fight the enemies of that vision. They do not want a virtuous, righteous, Judeo-Christian America because virtuous people don't need government, and government is all-in-all to the Left. Virtuous, godly people are the foundation of true freedom. Thus, the Left wants as much promiscuity, licentiousness, wickedness, and lack of human self-control as possible because people like that will need government to control them. “Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”  (Edmund Burke)

Why would anybody who claims to love children and people oppose fighting crime?  For the simple reason that they want chaos, they want mass disturbances, they want licentious, promiscuous, selfish behavior, people with no self-control running loose, they want decent people cowering in their homes, defenseless, without guns to protect themselves.  All of that would mean the need for more government, which would mean more power, and that is the essence of Leftism — power. Consider the past 100 years. Leftists worldwide did whatever was necessary—with absolutely no conscience—to achieve and hold power. They murdered, tortured, and oppressed countless hundreds of millions of people so that Lenin, etc. could have the power to create some chimerical "utopia.” Has anyone noticed a utopia being produced anywhere?  Yet the Left in Am is doing whatever it can in order to reach the same ends. They are Marxist utopians. They want to establish their heaven in America.  But you, your guns, the Founding Fathers, Donald Trump, and MAGA, Christianity all stand in the way.  So, they hate you because you are impeding their progress towards the utopia they envision for the country.  

A question: What did Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. do to those people who stood in the way of THEIR utopia?

Do you think American leftists are any different? 

The Democratic Party, initially, is trying to turn America into a hedonistic paradise, a country where the “pursuit of happiness” means the “pursuit of carnal pleasure.” Individual Leftist morality can be defined in one word:  selfishness. Or, to expand, every man does that which is right in his own eyes, live and let live, eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die. That is Leftist morality. And that is the direct opposite of virtue, duty, responsibility, accepting consequences for one's own actions, family, country, and God.

And a selfish people who think only of their individual pleasure will lack self-control, and thus will need government control. That is exactly what the Left wants. It is why the Democratic Party encourages as much licentiousness, promiscuity, crime, and disobedience to Trump as possible. Chaos is a first step to power.

But once they get control, they'll clamp down, just like in communist China.  All Chinese are cowed by the CCP and must toe the party line. Anybody who doesn’t “disappears.”  It’s interesting how those who helped start these revolutions often end up being eaten by them. True believers in utopia are a threat because, folks, to the Left, to Stalin and Mao, it isn’t ultimately about utopia, it’s about power. If the Left in America ever gets control, eventually their greatest enemies will be those who idealistically supported the “revolution” in the first place. Because they will still have no self-control, they won't want any utopia but their own hedonistic pleasure. And once in power, the Left can no longer allow chaos.  

They will silence their rightest enemies, of course. But the next group to go will be those within the revolution itself who don't practice self-restraint and who won't submit to the revolutionary diktats either. They'll have to be shot, too, because they want to live in pleasure. The revolution always needs an enemy, Castro said. Self-pleasure is not what the “utopia” is all about—conformity and obedience are. The utopia is that you do what you're told or you die. And so the revolution always disposes of its rightest enemies first, and then has to clean house, get rid of those who were stupid enough to believe the idealistic, utopian nonsense of the Left in the first place. They never understood what it was about, even though they were repeatedly warned. They aren’t listening.

The rank-and-file have a great surprise in store for them if their party ever gets what they want—a totally different America. 

And it won't be the pagan, hedonistic pleasure palace he thinks it will be.



at

🎭 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. 


at

Trump Admin Is Eradicating Racism From College Admissions, And The Left Hates It


Nothing justifies judging students on the basis of race or on the basis of anything other than their individual merits.



President Trump sent shockwaves through college admissions offices when he announced they must report admissions data that could reveal discrimination on the basis of race or sex. Beginning in this upcoming admissions cycle, the new policy will require colleges and universities to report to the federal government the SAT and ACT scores of admitted students, plus their GPAs, along with demographic information.

Trump’s brief memo directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to revamp how colleges report their admissions data to the federal government, and in turn, how the Department of Education reports data to the public.

This new requirement creates a problem for selective admission colleges if they set a lower academic bar for some races than others. The public is going to see, and the Department of Education is likely to investigate. Any institution found to be engaged in unlawful discrimination could face the loss of all federal funding, including access to federal student aid dollars.

This action enforces the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. In that case, the Supreme Court held that racial preferences in college admissions violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 

In admissions offices across the country, students have had the trajectory of their lives shaped by decisions that were not based on merit. This is especially true at Harvard, where court filings show that an Asian applicant in the top 10 percent of the academic pool had a 12.7 percent chance of receiving an acceptance letter. A black applicant in that same tier had odds of admission that were four times better — a 56.1 percent chance at a spot at Harvard.

President Trump and Secretary McMahon have good reason to believe that elite colleges may still be discriminating on the basis of race: Many of them said outright that they wanted to. Before the Supreme Court decided against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Harvard’s seven fellow members of the Ivy League, plus Carnegie Mellon, Duke, Emory, Johns Hopkins, and more signed an amicus curiae brief urging the Supreme Court to continue allowing race-based discrimination in college admissions.

Secretary McMahon will now put these schools to the test: President Trump’s memo directs her to ramp up “accuracy checks of submitted data” to ensure admissions offices are telling the truth.

Inside every criticism of the SFFA decision is the implied fear that ending affirmative action will make colleges less diverse. Those critics might be right. Thanks to the government-run school system, many black and Hispanic students are trapped in failing government schools that do not prepare them for college. This is painfully apparent on standardized tests: The average Asian SAT-taker scores more than 300 points higher than the average black SAT test-taker, with white and Hispanic student averages falling between those average scores.

Concealing the ongoing K-12 disaster is of paramount importance to the nation’s largest teachers unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Many black and Hispanic families are stuck in union-controlled school districts, and the NEA’s business model relies on ensuring they have no other option than their government-assigned schools. The NEA and AFT each filed an amicus brief in SFFA v. Harvard, imploring the Supreme Court to preserve affirmative action.

Affirmative action allowed admissions offices to paper over the failures of the K-12 system by putting their thumbs on the scale of who did — and did not — get into elite schools. If a diverse group of students got into top colleges, the leftist movement was very willing to ignore how they got there. The same people normally obsessed with data on race and gender had no desire to see how these factors may have influenced college admissions.

McMahon has dedicated herself to solving the inequities of the education system from the ground up, by making a great education available to all. Beginning in 2027, a new federal scholarship tax credit will make school choice a reality for countless more parents and students.

Of course, not everything about a college applicant can be captured by test scores or GPA. Many students have extraordinary talents or have overcome challenges that cannot be quantified. This is true regardless of race: A black teenager from the South Side of Chicago deserves a chance to have his upbringing considered by an admissions team, and so does a white teenager from Appalachia. So does any teenager who has faced chronic illness or family upheaval or any personal experience that has molded them into who they are today.

This is a case for preserving essays and letters of recommendation in college admissions, to help illustrate what numbers cannot. That said, such written works can only be judged subjectively, and the idea of admissions officers abusing their power to implement their race-based preferences does give cause for concern. Achieving a college admissions environment free from discrimination on the basis of race and sex will require cultural changes to follow in the wake of policy changes.

Nothing justifies judging students on the basis of race — the Constitution and Title VI forbid it — or on the basis of anything other than their individual merits. 

Ignoring the failures of government schools will do nothing to solve the education crisis. Nor will blocking deserving kids from opportunities they have rightfully earned. Kudos to President Trump and Secretary McMahon for telling colleges something we’ve all heard in class before: “Remember to show your work.”



at

Peter Navarro Discusses Stakes with Upcoming Supreme Court Review of IEEPA Tariffs


Peter Navarro, President Trump’s top trade and manufacturing policy advisor, speaks to pool reporters outside the White House.

Within his remarks about the economy overall, Navarro then breaks down the issues soon to come before the Supreme Court surrounding the use of the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) to enact defensive trade tariffs.

Navarro also addresses the false premise that tariffs create imported inflation.  As reflected in the 2018 tariff outcome, the exporting country absorbs the majority of the tariff impact.  Additionally, the tariff rate is applied to the wholesale price as contracted by the importing company in the USA.   WATCH:



at

Trump-Hating Judge Grants Bail to Woman Who Threatened to Murder Trump


RedState 

When I litigated, there were some judges I wanted to avoid. Often, it was because they were incompetent, but there were judges who were just plain mean people. I recall one judge sanctioning a lawyer for being “late.” She wasn’t late to her case call; she had arrived in the courtroom after the court clock had hit 8:30 a.m. and the court clerk had ratted her out to the judge (who hadn’t even taken the bench). She was maybe three minutes "late." She explained that she was caught behind a traffic accident. The “judge” didn’t care – and told her to “leave earlier.” It cost her $150. 

I never appeared in his courtroom again. I “papered” him if ever I was assigned to his docket, because people like that don’t think reasonably. They will hold personal animus or act like kings. That isn’t a “judge,” that’s a jerk in a robe.  

RedState has plenty of articles about Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg and his open hatred of Donald Trump. A recent article discussed how the U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has filed an ethics complaint against Boasberg. Bob Hoge wrote:  

U.S. District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg has been a thorn in the side of the Trump Team, consistently ruling against the administration — citing Kafka of all people while doing so — trying to convince other jurists, without evidence, that Trump will defy court rulings, and exhibiting obvious bias against GOP priorities. 

Judges are supposed to leave their prejudices and predilections at home. Boasberg cannot.  

He has an open and public disdain for President Trump. He gave speeches in which he called for harsher punishments for J6 defendants, even those who were non-violent. He sentenced two defendants to lengthy prison terms for simply being in the Capitol. Bail was often denied to non-violent J6 defendants. Most infamous of these was the denial of bail for the QAnon Shaman guy. He was held in solitary confinement as well. Was he a threat? Of course not. He paraded around the interior of the Capitol, sometimes escorted by police. The mental image of him with his mouth agape, wearing that ridiculous bonnet on his head, is impossible to erase. Was he ever a threat to public safety, or a flight risk? No. But according to the D.C. District Court, he was the “face” of J6. His sentencing judge, Judge Royce Lamberth, said: 

“He made himself the image of the riot, didn’t he? For good or bad, he made himself the very image of this whole event.”  

That isn’t how any of this is supposed to work. Ever.   

Boasberg and other District Court judges denied bail to J6 defendants, many like Jacob Chansley, the “Shaman” guy, were held in solitary confinement after being denied bail. 

Boasberg seems to have made it his mission to be a “thorn” in Trump’s side, regardless of the law, regardless of his oath or his responsibilities as a judge. Last week, Boasberg released a woman who had made several death threats against the president of the United States. 

Chief US District Judge James Boasberg, appointed by President Barack Obama, released Nathalie Rose Jones, a 50-year-old Big Apple resident, under electronic monitoring on Aug. 27 and ordered that she see a psychiatrist once back home, court documents revealed. 

On Facebook, Jones wrote: 

“I literally told FBI in five states today that I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all the Affirmation present,” she allegedly wrote, ending the paragraph, “Let’s deal with this and restore domestic tranquility.” 

Although a Federal Magistrate ordered her held without bond, Boasberg let her go home:  

"If she had a gun with her, this case is easy," Boasberg said, according to local CBS affiliate WUSA. "But the question is, why shouldn't we consider this the rantings of someone with a mental illness with no ability to carry this out?" 

A person who has threatened the president’s life, who clearly is a “threat” if given the chance, is “bondable” because she is "mentally ill," but a guy with a weird horned hat who paraded around the Capitol, often escorted by police, was a threat and deserved solitary confinement? 

I think not.  

An unequal application of the law isn't justice, it is tyranny, and it is being applied in Washington, D.C., not from the White House - rather from a bench in the D.C. District Courthouse.



at

D.C. Circuit Revokes ‘Abusive’ Injunction Barring Trump From Slashing EPA ‘Climate’ Grants



In a major win for the Trump administration, a D.C. Circuit Court panel lifted an injunction on Tuesday that attempted to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from terminating “climate” grants to several nongovernmental groups.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel agreed that the EPA can move forward with cutting grants totaling $16 billion to five nonprofit organizations “to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.” Judges Neomi Rao and Greg Katsas sided with the government, while Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented.

The administration announced its plans to end distribution of the funds in March over what the D.C. Circuit panel described as “concerns about conflicts of interest and lack of oversight.” This prompted the intended grant recipients to sue in federal court, which resulted in D.C. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issuing an injunction ordering the administration to continue dispersing the monies.

(Most Americans are likely familiar with Chutkan’s egregious conduct in the Biden administration’s lawfare against then-candidate Donald Trump and Jan. 6-related cases.)

Writing for the majority in Tuesday’s ruling, Rao concluded that Chutkan “abused [her] discretion in issuing the injunction” in the first place. The circuit judge further noted that “while the district court had jurisdiction over the grantees’ constitutional claim, that claim is meritless.”

“The grantees are not likely to succeed on the merits because their claims are essentially contractual, and therefore jurisdiction lies exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims,” Rao wrote. “Moreover, the equities strongly favor the government, which on behalf of the public must ensure the proper oversight and management of this multi-billion-dollar fund. Accordingly, we vacate the injunction.”

Plaintiffs “are expected to appeal the decision,” according to left-wing Politico. 

Tuesday’s ruling appears to fall in line with recent orders issued by the U.S. Supreme Court on grant-related cases.

In Department of Education v. California and National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association, the high court issued temporary stays on lower court injunctions attempting to bar the Trump administration from terminating grants distributed by the Education Department and National Institutes of Health, respectively. In both cases, a majority of justices agreed (for now) that the government can move forward with ending the distribution of such funds.

The lower courts’ willingness to rebuke the Supreme Court’s guidance as established in the California case prompted swift backlash from Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch. In a concurring opinion in the court’s Aug. 21 NIH order, the Trump appointee noted that while “[l]ower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions … they are never free to defy them.”

“[T]his is now the third time in a matter of weeks this Court has had to intercede in a case ‘squarely controlled’ by one of its precedents,” Gorsuch wrote. “All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect ‘the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress.’”

Gorsuch was joined in his opinion by Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who concurred in part and dissented in part.



at

Pentagon to Send 600 Military Lawyers to Tackle Immigration Case Backlog



In a decisive move to address the growing crisis in the U.S. immigration court system, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has approved deploying up to 600 military attorneys to the Department of Justice to serve as temporary immigration judges, according to a newly released memo. 

The attorneys — a mix of military personnel and civilian lawyers — will be sent in waves of 150, with the first group expected to be identified by next week. The initiative comes at the request of the Justice Department and is aimed at relieving a staggering immigration court backlog that has now ballooned to approximately 3.5 million cases.

This effort reflects a broader push by the Trump administration to restore order at the southern border and reassert the rule of law in America’s broken immigration system. As illegal border crossings and asylum claims continue to surge, existing immigration courts have been overwhelmed, leading to years-long delays in adjudicating cases.

Despite the gravity of the crisis, the administration has faced resistance from within. Over the past year, dozens of immigration judges have either resigned or been dismissed — many, according to their union, after accepting deferred resignations. The International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers claims at least 17 judges were removed “without cause,” a move that some critics argue is political. But for an administration committed to serious immigration reform, the need for judges who are willing to enforce existing law is urgent and necessary.

Currently, the U.S. has about 600 immigration judges nationwide. The Pentagon’s plan would temporarily double that number — a significant short-term boost to help clear cases that have piled up after years of neglect, abuse of the asylum system, and endless legal loopholes.

The temporary assignments are expected to last no more than 179 days, though the memo notes the deployments may be extended. While the DOJ has declined to comment, a White House official emphasized the need for bipartisan cooperation on resolving the backlog, calling it a “priority that everyone — including those waiting for adjudication — can rally around.”

For years, the immigration system has been stretched thin by open-border policies and endless litigation. This latest move underscores the administration’s commitment to restoring law and order and ensuring that immigration cases are resolved fairly — but swiftly. With the Pentagon stepping in, the message is clear: the time for half-measures is over. 



at