Fat Loser Generals Can Get Bent

Townhall 

I was one of those many, many retired officers who thought it was great when Pete Hegseth walked in and told an assembly of hundreds of generals and admirals that they suck and are fat, and they needed to unsuck and get unfat. Well, he was a little more polite than that, but not much. Of course, when their subordinates screw up in a massive way like these generals and admirals have over the last three decades, these generals and admirals would not have sugarcoated it. There would be no talk of feelings, no hugging. They would nuke their delinquent subordinates until they glowed. Some of the flag officers— the ones with a future in a military devoted to winning wars— appreciated this refreshing dose of toxic masculinity, but far too many of them channeled Margaret Dumont and are now scrambling to the press like little weasels to leak the anonymous equivalent of, “Oh, well, I never!”

It’s embarrassing: “Pete Hegseth was mean to us, and we aren’t going to be friends with him anymore! We’re totally gonna write a whole page on him in the slam book!”

No, really. The Washington Times got the scoop from these feminine cowards who donned the camouflage of anonymity to slag their boss instead of pulling their stars from their epaulets and slamming them on his desk. Nobody resigns anymore; they just gossip and talk smack behind people’s backs. It’s like Mean Girls with a camo color palette: The aggression is passive, and these generals and admirals have won the same number of wars as Regina, Karen, and Gretchen. The big difference is that what these flag officers can’t make happen is not “fetch” but “victory.”

Let’s review some of the achievements of the generals and admirals who are mad because Pete Hegseth doesn’t appreciate their awesome awesomeness:

• No unequivocal victories in wars in over 30 years.
• The Afghanistan rout and the utterly unnecessary death of 13 service members, plus the maiming of many more.
• A Pentagon more concerned with promoting social pathologies than promoting hard-core warfighters.
• The decline of the Navy in terms of numbers, focus, and seamanship, including ships regularly ramming into each other.
• Flat-out discrimination against people of pallor who have penises. 
• DEI idiocy that took away training focus and undermined morale and unit cohesion.
• The utter betrayal of our troops over COVID, including the dismissal of thousands of service members who refused to take a vaccine that everybody now concedes doesn’t do what it promised to do.
• Recruiting numbers in the toilet because the normal young people who usually make up our military accurately sensed that they were despised and would be betrayed by their leadership.
• A veteran community so disgusted by what happened to their beloved military that they began advising young people against enlisting. 

Yeah, that’s quite a résumé. Very impressive. Never have so many been so arrogant with so few accomplishments and so many unmitigated failures.

As reported by the Washington Times, they’re very upset with Pete Hegseth because he doesn’t meet their exacting standards:

“Multiple high-ranking officers point to his September 30 speech at Marine Corps Base Quantico as a turning point, calling it a 'massive waste of time' and ‘embarrassing.’ Critics say the former Fox News host operates with a ‘junior officer’s mentality,’ fixating on issues like facial hair standards and press access rather than broader strategic concerns.”

That’s just one paragraph, but it shows why their puny play to indict our Secretary of War is really an indictment of themselves. “Multiple high-ranking officers” participated in this whisper campaign against their boss? It goes without saying that if their own subordinate officers showed this kind of disgusting disloyalty, they would call in a napalm strike on these quislings and be right to do so. But apparently, these vital and important norms that must be protected at all costs don’t apply to the vital and important norms advocates.

That they consider a superior personally explaining the commander’s intent to his subordinates a waste of time, or even “embarrassing,” is troubling to say the least. I wasn’t trained to command by memorandum or Zoom; I was trained to command by commanding, and the people who trained me were the guys who won Desert Storm. Yes, you can actually unequivocally win a war, which these generals and admirals don’t appear to understand. They’re more concerned with their hurt feelz.

Oh, and this “junior officer mentality” business—talk about revealing. Of course, Pete Hegseth was a major, a field-grade officer, which is not a junior officer, but these three- and four-star generals aren’t really connected to actual soldiers. Nor are they connected to basic concepts like discipline, which I guess is now to be disregarded as merely something junior officers are concerned with.

No.

Discipline is the foundation of everything the military does. We have standards, including things like no facial hair and not having your belly pouring over your belt like Niagara Falls, for a reason. An undisciplined force is a force that will fail in battle, but battle is not what these generals and admirals are concerned about. They are more concerned with their own personal power and prestige and with grasping the next rung on the ladder. This is why we lose.

During my infrequent visits to a local Space Force base, I was disturbed to see a lot of spacemen waddling about, looking like camouflage beach balls. Don’t even get me started on the hair. That is indiscipline. But the weekend before last, I visited Camp Pendleton, where the Marines were – by the way, if an artillery shell had blown up prematurely over I-5, I probably would’ve noticed and snapped a photo of it since it allegedly happened right by where I and hundreds of others with cameras were. (That said, I await the results of the investigation.) Well, those Marines were not fat. Their hair did not look like a squirrel’s nest. They were not unshaven. No, they looked like a bunch of guys who wanted to go out and stack bodies. It warmed my heart; there goes my junior officer mentality again.

Maybe Pete Hegseth would spend more time on “broader strategic concerns” if he didn’t have to fix all the foundational foul-ups by these whiny flag officers.

Wait, there’s more:

“Current officers describe an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty, with talent ‘bleeding’ from the services through firings, early retirements, and resignations. They claim promotions and removals often happen for ‘unknown reasons’ based on ‘favoritism’ rather than merit, contradicting Hegseth’s stated goal of a meritocracy. His inner circle has dramatically shrunk, with sources saying he now relies primarily on spokesman Sean Parnell, his wife, and his brother rather than utilizing Pentagon expertise.”

An atmosphere of fear and uncertainty? Good. People who suck should be afraid and uncertain. In civilian life, we call this “accountability.” See, we expect success rather than perfect attendance out here in the real world. It’s about time the Pentagon adopted this innovative management technique. As for talent “bleeding” from the services, what’s the name of the talented potential Patton who’s been punted by Pete Hegseth? All I see getting tossed are a bunch of leakers, half-steppers, and DEI cheerleaders. It’s hilarious to watch the same clowns pining for meritocracy when it was they who eagerly promoted the notion that promotion should be based on where your great-great-grandfather came from and your genital status. Good for Pete for trashing that garbage paradigm.

And as for his “inner circle shrinking” and foregoing “Pentagon expertise (sic),” why the hell would he trust the same people who are sticking him in the back in the press? But, of course, Secretary Hegseth is not alone. There are a lot of good people in the American military who want to be part of a war-fighting organization instead of a gender-freak clusterfark.

Further, there are tens of millions of vets who are ecstatic about Pete Hegseth making America’s military great again. And, of course, he’s got the support of President Donald J. Trump, who, to the great consternation of these pompous perfumed princes, is our commander-in-chief. Pete is not alone; we’ve got his back, and if his enemies had superior combat power, they wouldn’t have to shamefully slink to the nearest reporter with their anonymous gossip to nibble at his ankle like a Parris Island sand flea.

Pete Hegseth showed strong, decisive leadership at that September 30 conclave with the generals, just as he has shown strong, decisive leadership since taking over as SecWar. Hell, he showed more personal leadership during that visit to Camp Pendleton, when I watched him wrangle his 37 children into sitting still on a helicopter ride, than I’ve seen over the last couple of decades from all of these back-biting, be-medaled, bitter buffoons with stars on their shoulders.

Sure, there are still a bunch of timeservers inside the Pentagon who want to go back to the old days of managed decline and unearned prestige. They need to check their watches and see what time it is. There’s been a change of command, with a new command climate. If you can’t stand the Hegseth heat, get out of the Pentagon.

Podcast and entertainment thread for Oct 24

 

Zzzzzzzzz.

CANADA VERSUS USA TRADE WAR

 

There's no doubt in most Canadian minds that the Doug Ford Ontario ads using MAGA icon Reagan were poorly timed and poorly thought-out along with context truncated.

.

There are long standing issues between neighbours that predate Trump. 

Aluminum

Lumber

Steel

.

Here's the state of affairs:

 

The United States does not produce enough primary aluminum to meet its own needs. The domestic primary aluminum industry is insufficient to cover the country's demand, resulting in a significant reliance on imports, primarily from Canada.

In 2024, the U.S. produced approximately 680,000 tonnes of primary aluminum, operating at only 50% of its 1.36 million tonne capacity, while importing over 4.8 million tonnes of crude and semi-manufactured aluminum products.

Canada supplies about 60% of the primary aluminum used by the U.S. and 58% of all aluminum imports, making it a crucial supplier.

The U.S. industry has declined from having over 30 smelters in 1980 to only four operating smelters today, with three smelters closing or curtailing operations since 2018.

This decline is largely due to the high cost of electricity, which accounts for up to 40-50% of production costs, making U.S. smelters less competitive compared to Canadian facilities that use low-cost hydroelectric power.

While the U.S. has a strong secondary (recycled) aluminum industry, which produced 3.3 million tonnes in 2023, this is not enough to offset the shortfall in primary production.

The U.S. is therefore a net importer of aluminum, with its domestic production capacity unable to meet the demands of sectors like automotive, infrastructure, and clean energy.

........

The United States does not currently produce enough softwood lumber to meet its own domestic demand. In 2024, the U.S. produced approximately 72% of its lumber domestically, meaning it still relies on imports for the remaining 28%.

Canada is the primary source, supplying 28.1 million cubic meters of lumber in 2024, which accounts for 84.3% of all softwood lumber imports into the U.S..

While U.S. production capacity has increased significantly since 2016, with the addition of eight billion board feet of capacity and the production of 30 billion additional board feet of softwood lumber, the U.S. still falls short of fully meeting its needs without Canadian imports.

Industry analysis indicates that the U.S. lacks the existing capacity to fill the gap left by Canadian supply in the short term, as Canada currently supplies about 12.0 billion board feet of softwood lumber to the U.S. market, and the U.S. is still short by over 3.2 billion board feet of operable capacity to meet current demand levels.

Although the U.S. can supply up to 95% of its own lumber needs according to the U.S. Lumber Coalition, this still leaves a significant shortfall that requires Canadian imports.
.
You got to hand it the the US Lumber Coalition... they want a closed market so there's no price competition

 .........

The United States does not produce enough steel to meet its own domestic needs. The country imports a significant portion of its steel, with about 20% of the steel used in the U.S. in 2023 being imported according to Census Bureau data.

While the U.S. is the third-largest producer of steel globally, behind China and Japan, its production capacity is insufficient to cover total domestic consumption.

This reliance on imports makes U.S. industries vulnerable to global supply chain disruptions, particularly during trade disputes and tariff conflicts.

Although the U.S. produces 75% of its own steel needs, the remaining 25% must be imported, and the domestic industry faces challenges such as outdated infrastructure, high production costs, and competition from foreign producers.
.
Wouldn't you rather have Canadian steel with better quality than from China?

 There's gong to be a deal but personalities are burning bridges.

by  Ross Vaughan 

.

From publicly available research.

The Left’s Reductio ad Hitlerum Obsession with ICE Raids

American  Thinker 

Whenever the Trump administration ramps up immigration enforcement, it is only a matter of time before some lunatic, anti-borders politician decides that the U.S. has suddenly found itself an oompah band and is three beer steins away from becoming Nazi Germany.

Just in the last few months, Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker accused the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of engaging in “Nazi” tactics and “Gestapo-style abductions;” and former Minnesota governor Tim Walz referred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as “Donald Trump’s modern Gestapo.”

Meanwhile, during President Trump’s first term, Congressional Representative  Alexandria Ocasio Cortez regularly compared ICE detention centers to “concentration camps.”

This tactic is fairly common among historically illiterate buffoons like Pritzker, Walz and Ocasio Cortez.

In fact, it’s so common it actually has a name: the reductio ad Hitlerum – a term coined by Leo Strauss, a German-Jewish professor of political science at the University of Chicago.

The reductio ad Hitlerum is a species of logical fallacy, known as a “fallacy of irrelevance” wherein the horrors of the Nazi genocide are invoked in an attempt to establish guilt by association and foreclose reasonable debate.

It works something like this: The Gestapo arrested innocent Jews in targeted raids. Therefore, because ICE uses targeted raids to apprehend immigration law breakers, ICE’s motives must be the same as those of the Gestapo.

Needless to say, the mere fact that Subject A appears to share one or more superficial attributes with the indisputably wicked Subject B does not, ipso facto, mean that Subject A is also indubitably vile.

And, according to Suffolk University School of Law professor Gabriel H. Teninbaum, drawing such an inference makes about as much sense as concluding that, “Hitler was a vegetarian, as was Gandhi. Therefore, Gandhi, like Hitler, was evil.”

But the so-called “Nazi card” relies on political partisans to abandon logic in favor of emotion. The party invoking the Nazi label is asking his supporters to abandon reasoned analysis and to instead focus on their personal disagreement with whatever is being condemned.

In essence, it is a way of saying, “It doesn’t matter whether X is objectively good, bad or indifferent. It upsets us, therefore we have deemed it evil.”

Inevitably, however, the party playing the Nazi card fails to understand how the Third Reich actually worked.

The security organs of the Nazi party, the Gestapo, the Schupo, the SS and the SD existed solely to inflict terror upon the enemies of the Third Reich, including dissidents, Jews, the Roma, homosexuals and the physically and mentally disabled.

Rather than engaging in anything modern observers would recognize as law enforcement, the Gestapo and its counterparts ruthlessly set about exterminating their targets.

At the conclusion of World War II, 13 million entirely innocent Jews, Poles, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and homosexuals lay dead at the hands of the Gestapo and other units like it.

The operations in which ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are currently engaged bear absolutely no resemblance to the actions of the Gestapo and its counterpart agencies.

Far from being engaged in “Gestapo-style abductions” predicated upon dictatorial fiat, DHS is enforcing longstanding laws that were duly enacted by a popularly elected legislature. And those laws are being enforced under the supervision of an independent judiciary and a free press that has the unfettered ability to criticize any actions taken by DHS.

Moreover, unless one is a clinical idiot, there is a distinct and obvious difference between a Jew condemned to death in Dachau and a Honduran illegal alien who is returned to his life as a taxi driver or grocer in Tegucigalpa.

In the Third Reich, the German government rounded up its own citizens and, without due process, condemned them to death.

In the United States today, foreign nationals, whose very presence here is a violation of the law, are temporarily detained in humane conditions, while they are given a hearing before an immigration judge, prior to being returned home at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.

Annihilation at Auschwitz and repatriation to Rio de Janeiro are not, in any way, comparable actions.

And that brings us to the fundamental problem with the playing the Nazi card. It is a scoundrel’s last refuge. A party to an argument typically resorts to the reductio ad Hitlerum when that party is unable to support its arguments with facts and logic.

Anti-borders immigration policies that prioritize the interests of illegal aliens over American citizens are becoming increasingly unpopular on their own merits. Such policies, and those who advocate for them, are even less popular when the best argument for them is to accuse anyone who thinks differently of being a Nazi.

The last presidential election showed that Americans want practical, fair solutions that respect national sovereignty and the rule of law. Continuing to dismiss these concerns with inflammatory rhetoric only deepens division and further undermines the case for less immigration enforcement.

Why Birthright Citizenship Should Not Extend to Illegal Immigrants

Townhall 

The debate over birthright citizenship is one of the most misunderstood constitutional questions in American law. Many claim that the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental status. That interpretation, however, overlooks the framers’ intent, the context of the amendment’s adoption, and more than a century of legal precedent.

The issue is not whether the Constitution protects the children of illegal immigrants. They are, as the Supreme Court held in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) and reaffirmed in Plyler v. Doe (1982). The question is whether the Citizenship Clause itself extends citizenship to children of parents who were never legally part of the American system. On that point, both the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment weigh strongly against automatic citizenship.

The clause is specific: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…” 

The critical phrase—“subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—has never meant simple physical presence. When the amendment was ratified, children of Native Americans under tribal authority were excluded, despite being born within U.S. borders. Children of foreign diplomats and enemy occupiers were also excluded. The common factor was allegiance. Jurisdiction meant full and lawful subjection to U.S. authority, not mere location.

Illegal immigrants do not meet that standard. Their very presence is unlawful, and their allegiance remains to their country or origin. Just as foreign diplomats in Washington remain under their governments’ jurisdiction, illegal immigrants are not constitutionally “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They may be prosecuted or deported, but they are not members of the political community the framers envisioned.

Supreme Court precedent reinforces this understanding. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), Justice Horace Gray held that a child born to Chinese parents lawfully residing in the United States was a citizen. He emphasizedthat “[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” 

The word “domiciled” is decisive. Wong’s parents were legal residents with long-standing ties to the United States—not people whose entry violated immigration law.

Earlier, in The Slaughter-House Cases (1873), Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase explained that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” was not meant to cover everyone born on U.S. soil without qualification. The Court stated that the amendment excluded “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

The framers themselves drew the same line. Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who authored the Citizenship Clause, said it would not include children of “foreigners, aliens, [or] families of ambassadors.” 

The amendment was meant to secure the citizenship of freed slaves, not create an incentive for illegal migration. If mass illegal immigration had existed in 1868, the framers would have excluded it by the same principle that excluded diplomats, tribal members, and hostile armies: lack of lawful allegiance.

The Court has also drawn a clear line between equal protection and citizenship. In Plyler v. Doe, the justices held that states could not deny education to children of illegal immigrants, but they confined the ruling to equal protection. Equal protection guarantees access to legal safeguards—it does not transform unlawful presence into lawful allegiance or citizenship.

Congress has the power to address this issue. The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly gives Congress authority to enforce its provisions through legislation. Historically, Native Americans were excluded from the Citizenship Clause but remained protected under the Equal Protection Clause. That distinction shows that equal protection under the law does not equate to citizenship. 

Congress ultimately granted citizenship to Native Americans through the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Likewise, Congress can clarify the jurisdiction standard today in line with the amendment’s original meaning.

Roughly 250,000 children of illegal immigrants are born in the United States each year. This practice incentivizes unlawful entry and fuels industries such as birth tourism, where foreign nationals come solely to deliver children on U.S. soil. 

Meanwhile, lawful immigrants wait years, pay fees, and comply with strict procedures to obtain the same rights. Granting citizenship automatically to children of illegal immigrants erodes respect for the law and diminishes the value of legal immigration.

The Fourteenth Amendment was written to protect freed slaves and ensure their citizenship could never again be denied. It was not intended as a blanket reward for unlawful entry. Citizenship is the highest civic recognition a nation can grant. It should rest on lawful allegiance—not on geography combined with violation of immigration law.

🎭 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. 

Michael Wolff Launches Lawsuit Against Melania Trump After Refusal to Retract Epstein Comments

Townhall 

Author Michael Wolff has filed a lawsuit against First Lady Melania Trump after she issued legal threats when he refused to retract statements linking her to convicted and controversial sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He's also accused both the First Lady and President Trump of "threatening those who speak against them." 

Michael Wolff on suing Melania Trump: “To be perfectly honest, I’d like nothing better than to get Donald Trump and Melania Trump under oath and actually find out all of the details of their relationship with Epstein.” pic.twitter.com/iwPlXlpucl

— Marco Foster (@MarcoFoster_) October 22, 2025

The Daily Beast originally published an interview with Wolff in early 2025, which it then promptly took down in July, stating that it had failed to meet editorial standards. Melania Trump’s attorney later issued a legal challenge, taking issue with what they described as “the headline and framing” of the podcast episode

Wolff, in opposition to the legal threat issued by the First Lady, argued that President Trump and his wife sought to punish their foes by trying "to silence their speech, to intimidate their critics generally, and to extract unjustified payments and North Korean-style confessions and apologies." He also claimed that the legal threats "are designed to create a climate of fear in the nation so that people cannot freely or confidently exercise their First Amendment rights."

Wolff's lawsuit was filed on the deadline issued by Trump's lawyers to retract his statements.

In the podcast episode, Wolff said that "[Melania] was very involved in this Epstein relationship. There is this model thing, and she’s introduced by a model agent, both of whom Trump and Epstein are involved with. She’s introduced to Trump that way, Epstein knows her well."

Nicholas Clemens, a spokesperson for the Office of the First Lady, stated in a press release immediately following Melania's legal challenge, "First Lady Melania Trump is proud to continue standing up to those who spread malicious and defamatory falsehoods as they desperately try to get undeserved attention and money from their unlawful conduct."

Schiff Isn't Going to Like This: Todd Blanche Pours Cold Water Over New Report About DOJ Case

RedState 

As we reported back in July, a criminal referral was made from the Federal Housing Finance Agency to the Department of Justice on Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA). The referral raised questions of alleged mortgage fraud. 

Schiff freaked out over that. In a video almost five minutes long made after the referral, Schiff ranted, claiming he was being targeted by President Donald Trump.

So what's happening with the case?

MSNBC's Ken Dilanian spread a report about Schiff on Thursday, and it didn't sound good. 

He claimed: 

The federal prosecutor in charge of investigating whether Sen. Adam Schiff should be charged with mortgage fraud recently told her bosses in Washington she did not think the case was strong enough to move forward, two sources familiar with the matter told MSNBC.

A third person familiar with the matter said the case is continuing to be investigated.

Kelly Hayes, the U.S. Attorney in Maryland, met in recent days with Todd Blanche, the deputy Attorney General, to update him on the Schiff case, the three people said.

Hayes, an experienced federal prosecutor, told Blanche she did not think the case against Schiff was strong, two people said. The two said Ed Martin, a controversial senior Justice Department official, is pressing to keep the case alive.

That, of course, went everywhere on the left, because that fits their narrative. 

Dilanian later clarified that MSNBC split with NBC, and cited "former colleagues" at NBC on the report.

Dilanian also spread this statement from Schiff's lawyer and former U.S. Attorney, Preet Bharara:

“It seems pretty clear that a team of career prosecutors have thoroughly reviewed the politically-motivated allegations against Senator Schiff and found they are unsupported by any evidence and are baseless. The transparently vindictive effort to pursue the Senator has no merit, and if there is any justice left in the Justice Department, this should be the end of the matter.”

But there was a small problem with this story, according to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. The meeting "never happened," he said. He completely obliterated the story. 

"Can you ask your two 'sources' for more info?" Blanche clapped back. "I’m genuinely curious. Excited to hear more about this made-up meeting! Also, unequivocally: U.S. Attorney Hayes has told me no such thing."

Whoops, so much for that story. And even in the NBC story, they note the case is ongoing, according to their sources. 

So if the left thought they had something here and Schiff thought he could use it, Blanche squashed that, but good. 

Nancy Pelosi Just Made a Serious Threat Against ICE Agents

Townhall 

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) joined with California Democratic Rep. Kevin Mullin (CA-15) in a statement threatening ICE agents with arrest if they conduct immigration enforcement actions in the Bay Area.

“Reports of a planned mass immigration raid in the Bay Area are an appalling abuse of law enforcement power,” the statement read. “Broad sweeps that target families and terrorize law-abiding residents betray our nation’s values and waste resources that should focus on real threats to public safety.”

“It is important to note that California law protects communities and prevents federal agents from taking certain actions here that we have witnessed in other states. While the President may enjoy absolute immunity courtesy of his rogue Supreme Court, those who operate under his orders do not. Our state and local authorities may arrest federal agents if they break California law — and if they are convicted, the President cannot pardon them.

“The people of San Francisco will continue to stand with the patriotic immigrants who are the constant reinvigoration of America. We will not be intimidated by politically motivated fear tactics.”

San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins may have been the one to come up with the idea, according to The New York Times. 

Ms. Jenkins said in an interview on Wednesday that she came up with the strategy after seeing federal agents repeatedly roughing up people in Los Angeles and Chicago.

If federal agents came to her city and did the same, District Attorney Jenkins decided, she would treat them like anybody else breaking the law and would seek to prosecute them.

Hit people with batons? Beat them up? Not on her watch, she said.

“I had lead time to think about what authority I have and what I can do,” she said. “This is something I felt very strongly about, and I had my office research it.”

District Attorney Jenkins said she had communicated with the San Francisco Police Department about arresting federal agents for “clear, excessive use of force” and that the agency was on board with the concept. A spokesman for the department did not return a request for comment on Wednesday.

District Attorney Jenkins said she did not envision police officers handcuffing federal agents in full view on city streets. Instead, she said, local law enforcement could review camera footage of beatings, if they occur, and try to identify the agent involved. Then, she said, she would ask a judge to sign a warrant for the agent’s arrest and seek to prosecute the agent in court.

“For me, this is about San Francisco and what I need to do for San Francisco,” she said.

Immigration authorities are set to stage an enforcement surge in the San Francisco Bay Area starting this week. Over 100 agents will be involved in the operation as part of President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Federal agents are expected to arrive in the area on Thursday. Local police arresting federal agents for excessive force would be an unprecedented move that could escalate tensions between state authorities and the White House. It’s not clear whether this is mere saber-rattling on Pelosi’s part, but if this scenario were to play out, it would likely prompt more action from the Trump administration — and the matter could end up in court.

Democrat State Rep. Goes on Wild Rant, Says Dems Need to 'Wipe Out Every Republican'—and Worse

RedState 

To be sure, conservative writers could work all day, seven days a week, covering the latest idiotic — yet totally predictable — ridiculous bilge spewed by the Left about the evils of President Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and conservatism in general.

However, that would be boring — both for writers and readers alike.

Yet, sometimes Democrat political figures go off the rails on rants that not only defy human decency, but also, as we've clearly seen, their bitter diatribes can lead the deranged among us to take matters into their own hands. This article is about one diatribe. 

So how's this for starters?

Texas Democrat state Rep. Jolanda Jones told CNN — who else? — on Wednesday that her party should “wipe out” every Republican, and clearly suggested Democrats should slash their [Republicans'] necks. Yeah.

At issue for Ms. Jones was the Democrats losing Black voters — which was crystal clear in the 2024 presidential election. But rather than speak intelligently — or whatever passes for intelligently among today's Democrats — about issues that continue to lead both Black and Hispanic voters away from the Democrat Party and toward the Republican Party, Jones went off on a disturbing diatribe, in thinly-veiled rhetoric, about how Democrats need to "fight harder."

Check it out:

I’m from the hood, okay? So when a bully comes, like, if there are no rules, you literally have to figure it out. So, Donald Trump has changed things, and people trying to do what’s always been done is not going to work. And I think that’s why Democrats are losing Black people; that’s why they’re losing poor people, because poor people, all they want is for us to fight.

Yeah, no, they don't — not the way Jones framed "fighting harder," that is. She continued (emphasis, mine):

So if you hit me in my face, I’m not going to punch you back in your face, I’m going to go across your neck, because we can go back and forth fighting each other’s faces. You’ve got to hit hard enough where they won’t come back.

And so, yeah, for the same way I went to New York and spoke with Governor Kathy Hochul, and said if they’re going to try to wipe us out in Texas, we need to wipe out every Republican in New York, in California, in Illinois, so no one can make me feel bad about fighting for the people that I represent.

Again, call it whatever you want, but as we saw all too clearly with the brutal public assassination of Turning Point USA co-founder and CEO Charlie Kirk, unstable people can be led to take unstable actions when triggered (no pun intended) by dangerous rhetoric.

Jones continued, digging her hole even deeper:

If you grew up in the hood like me, that’s the fastest way, literally, to be killed. … My brother was murdered, my aunt was murdered, my cousin was murdered, My dad blew his brains out. 

So, I come from a different world where everything isn’t so pretty like the Democrats want. Sometimes s**t is ugly. And you’ve got to be able to fight ugly.

With due respect to Ms. Jones, most Americans didn't "grow up in the hood" — in the sense that most rational people don't have a "kill or be killed" mentality. That's to say, of course, unless our lives or the lives of our loved ones are threatened with imminent violence.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line, which is two-fold, is clear:

First, Democrat politicians still don't get it. They continue to be unable to process, much less understand, why they were thoroughly trounced in the 2024 general election — including in multiple down-ballot races — and I doubt that they ever will.

Second, the Left's radical rhetoric continues to make much of America far more unstable than Donald Trump ever could have if he wanted to. The problem (for the LEFT, that is) is that Trump "only" wants to make America great again, and in many respects, he continues to do just that.