Monday, December 8, 2025

Threatening to Prosecute Your Opponents When They Give Up Power Is a Bad Idea


All the Democrats out there announcing that as soon as they get power, they're going to use the full weight of government to prosecute anybody who had anything to do with the Donald Trump administration reminds me of a historical analogue. They won't recognize it because most of them don't believe that history started until 1619, or maybe when Barack Obama got elected, and anything occurring before then was just dead white men doing dead white men stuff that doesn't matter. But you know, it totally matters whether they like it or not.

So, there was once this guy, and he was a future dead white man, but go with me on this anyway. His name was Julius Caesar – you may have heard of him, or you may have gone to public school and one of our prestigious colleges, and therefore, you don't know who he was. Well, he was a Roman nobleman without much money to start, but he was smart and a very good general, and he accumulated a lot of power, both political and military. In doing so, he made many enemies, especially among the establishment. Anyway, he decided he was going to go to Gaul – that's France, before all they did was make cheese and surrender – to conquer it. As a proconsul, a kind of governor/general, he had what was called "imperium" – the power to rule – and a bunch of legions to go with it. And boy, did those legionnaires ever conquer. They did not use their words. They used their swords. It was all very manly. And they didn't have any Twitter lawyers telling them they were committing war crimes by winning. We have much to learn from the Romans, and no wonder real men think of them several times a day.

Anyway, as their commander, Caesar got very, very rich and very, very powerful. So far, so good. Well, his enemies back in Rome began to get nervous because he was a political threat to them, so they began to demand that he put down his imperium and return to Rome. Now, one of the many nice things about being a proconsul is that a proconsul is immune to prosecution. But as soon as Caesar gave up his imperium, well, it was open season on him in the courts his enemies controlled, and they made no bones about it. They were going to prosecute him and either impoverish and exile him or outright kill him.

A proconsul had to lay down his imperium before he re-entered Italy, which meant giving up his legions. The border of Italy was a small creek called the Rubicon – you may have heard of it, again, if you didn't go to public school or one of our prestigious colleges. So, Julius Caesar had a choice. Either put down his imperium and come back to Rome to get completely screwed, or come back to Rome with his legions to do the screwing. Guess what he did? He crossed the Rubicon, there was a civil war that he won, and the rest is history.

So, there's a historical precedent about why it's a really bad idea to tell your heavily armed opponent that as soon as he gives up power, you're going to clap him in irons. But that's what's happening now. They have made it clear that once we give up power, should we lose the 2028 election, they're going to do everything they can to make sure that we don't ever get it back. Again, this is not speculation. We know this because they say so. We also know because they tried it before.

Sure, the pardon power – which they hate and will seek to undermine – will allow Trump to protect some of his people with blanket pardons, but how effective will that be? Should they pack the Supreme Court – again, something far outside the norms that they have promised to do because the existence of Trump relieves them from complying with any norms, rules, laws, or other guardrails – it is easy to see a future SCOTUS simply negating Trump's pardons because it's Trump. Regardless, pardons won't protect our people against being framed for something not covered by a blanket pardon. We saw that being framed is one of their go-to moves. They're essentially going to outlaw us having power. They try to do that under Joe Biden, but his being an eggplant and his minions not being competent communists, they failed to do that effectively. They tried. Oh, did they try. But they didn't quite pull it off. Don't expect them to make the same mistake this time. This time they're playing for keeps.

You might scoff, but there's precedent for this going on right in front of you today. Over in England, the grossly unpopular leftist regime has outlawed free speech and is about to ban the right to jury trials in order to maintain power. Helping them are other people in the establishment, including Tories, who desperately want to stop the Reform Party from having any kind of say, even though polls show these upstarts have a plurality of support. Look at Germany, that bastion of freedom. Again, the AfD, the party with the plurality of support, has been effectively locked out of any power despite the way that the government is designed for proportional representation to let every freakish political minority have a say. Ditto France.

Basically, the leftist establishments across the globe are attempting to hold onto power by excluding citizens who reject their corruption, failure, and embrace of perversions under the excuse that these populists – note that Julius Caesar was a populist leader of his era – are so outside the mainstream that they have no right to participate in their own governance. Now, in garbage countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the rest, that's easy to do. Their people are weak, soft, stupid, and love their Eurovision Song Contest, and also gave up their guns. We haven't given up our guns. That's very, very important because our government does not retain a monopoly on violence. The people do.

So, do I think this is all going to evolve into a civil war? I've written about that before, and my new book – "Panama Red," the ninth Kelly Turnbull adventure – takes place in a future where America has agreed to split into red and blue countries sitting uncomfortably next to each other. Is secession possible? I used to think it was far-fetched that the United States might tear itself apart, but the more I see the Left totally embracing the complete hatred of normal people as its core policy, I'm beginning to think that maybe we aren't going to be able to stay together. Do you want to share your country with people who think it's cool to mutilate kids to please their Munchausen mommies, to import Third World sociopaths to feed at our welfare troughs, and to hassle, oppress, and discriminate against the people who founded, feed, fuel, and defend this country? Hell no.

Maybe we will break apart. It's becoming hard to justify remaining in a country with people who despise us, as well as exploit us. But that's not good. I saw what happened when a country's people turned on each other after I had to go to Kosovo to help pick up the pieces of their civil war. Let me give you a spoiler here. It's very, very bad.

But these threats to immediately prosecute Republicans, not for committing crimes but for embracing policies that the Left doesn't like, can't be ignored. This isn't justice. They don't even make a case for it being justice. It's pure power. The problem with pure power is that, as their own team in the form of Chairman Mao used to say, power comes out of the barrel of a gun. At the end of the day, if you want to rule by power, you'd better have most of the guns. As citizens, we do. That's why they placed their hope into weaponizing our armed forces against us – remember Grandpa Badfinger babbling about using F-16s to bomb patriotic Americans? Why do you think the Left is so desperate to prevent Pete Hegseth from finishing his work turning the Pentagon from a petri dish of bizarre social pathologies back into a military organization? The Left tried to shape the officer corps through the power of DEI and selecting for the socialist-inclined – you need to understand that active-duty senior officers are not usually conservative in the sense that we're conservative, but are often big-government socialists who believe in telling the people what they want rather than listening to them. This is why they're terrified of Pete Hegseth. He's promoting warfighters instead of civil war fighters, guys the Left could rely on to be there to help when the color revolution comes. Do you think for one minute Mark Milley wouldn't have turned the Army on us for being uppity?

Yeah, I know, that's crazy talk, which is crazy, and stop being crazy, you crazy guy. But then again, I'm not the one out there threatening to prosecute anybody who participates in any policy that the Democrats don't like. I'm just the guy who notices. Luckily, the Trump administration has noticed too, and it's not playing along. It's not giving in. It's not backing down. Nor should we as citizens play along, give in, or back down. Our enemies are evil, but they're also stupid, and they don't understand human nature, nor do they know history. They somehow think that they can intimidate us and shame us into submission, into giving up our right to participate in our own governance and allowing them to rule over us in perpetuity. That's not going to happen. That's not in the cards. They're playing a very dangerous game.

Now, Julius Caesar was famously kind to his enemies. He showed mercy to most of the people who opposed him during the Roman Civil War he fought and won. Of course, it was the same people he showed mercy to who ended up stabbing him to death. That's another lesson of history, but one that we need to learn. And when we learn it, it's not going to go well for the enemies who force us to protect ourselves from the oppression they promise to impose upon us.

But there's hope. It's not too late to not repeat history. I'm just not optimistic that the Left is not so dumb and malicious that it will stumble into a catastrophe.



Florida designates CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood as Foreign Terrorist Organizations

 

The move comes after Texas labeled the groups as foreign terrorist organizations last month, which forbids both organizations and their affiliates from purchasing or acquiring land in Texas and allows increased enforcement against the groups.

By Misty Severi| 8 December 2925 | Just the News

Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Monday that his state has formally designated the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations as foreign terrorist organizations, following a similar move by Texas. 

Texas became the first state to label the groups as foreign terrorist organizations last month, which forbids both organizations and their affiliates from purchasing or acquiring land in Texas and allows increased enforcement against the groups.

DeSantis said the new designation is in effect "immediately." 

"Florida is designating the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as foreign terrorist organizations," he wrote on X. "Florida agencies are hereby directed to undertake all lawful measures to prevent unlawful activities by these organizations, including denying privileges or resources to anyone providing material support."

Neither group has been formally declared a terrorist organization by the federal government. 

CAIR is considered one of the largest Muslim Civil Rights advocacy groups in the country.

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

Entertainment thread for Dec 8

 


🍷🍷💖

Europe Is Dying


European civilization is dying.  The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy makes this clear.  It has squandered its post-WWII economic and military assistance from the United States by investing in centralized, socialist bureaucracies and expansive welfare States.  By chasing the “climate change” con as a means for European governments to justify total control over the drivers of economic growth, European nations have forsaken cheap energy exploration, private entrepreneurship, and technological innovation.  By depending upon the United States to defend its territorial interests, European nations have destroyed their military capabilities.  

In an effort to “juice” their economies with cheap labor and artificial demographic growth, European nations have opened their borders to tens of millions of foreign immigrants.  The natural result is that foreign cultures have steadily eroded and replaced millennia-old European cultures without much resistance.  The Trump administration believes Europe could be effectively “erased” within twenty years.

When living things die, they tend to lash out.  Europe is no exception.  Its political elites have decided to pretend that everything is okay and that the continent remains the life-force of the entire world.  In order to buttress this delusion, European governments have embraced censorship and State-approved propaganda on a scale as obscene as anything that might occur in communist China.  Controlling the “narrative” and silencing dissent are the last gasps of every civilization on its deathbed.

Every day some new horror story emerges from the United Kingdom in which an ordinary citizen is treated as a terrorist for merely expressing an opinion or defending a personal belief.  A recent example involves thirty-four-year-old mother of four Elizabeth Kinney.  It appears Kinney and a former friend were texting about a male acquaintance who had allegedly caused Kinney harm, and she called that man a “faggot.”  The former friend reported Kinney to the authorities because the “abusive and homophobic text messages” caused her “alarm and distress.”  

While Kinney was naked and in a bathtub, eleven police officers forced their way into her home and arrested her.  Kinney burst into tears as male officers denied her any privacy, and a female officer informed her that she was being arrested for “malicious communications and hate crime.”  “The Crown place this offense in the highest category of its type due to the effect related to sexual orientation and the greater harm because it had moderate impact,” prosecutors insisted.  Kinney faced ten years in prison, but her attorney begged for leniency.  She has been ordered to perform seventy-two hours of community service, attend ten days of rehabilitation, and pay a fine of several hundred pounds.

All rights are property rights.  The “lesson” that British authorities are trying to “teach” Kinney and other citizens is this: You do not own the thoughts in your head.  You do not own the words you express.  You do not own the private messages that you text to other private citizens.  When your thoughts, words, and texts violate officially approved government “narratives” and ideologies, you will be punished.  Freedom of speech and freedom of conscience do not exist under any government willing to use force to control how citizens think, speak, and text.

In Kinney’s case, British authorities have no problem re-traumatizing a woman who had already been physically abused by sending a dozen cops into her home and forcing her to be naked, vulnerable, and afraid in front of male officers.  Instead, the Crown is upset that Kinney used a gay slur to describe someone not even directly participating in her text conversation with another woman.  When the State is more concerned about insults to men who have allegedly harmed women than the privacy and dignity of women who have allegedly been harmed, the government is complicit in the abuse of its citizens.  

There are only a handful of reasons this kind of European totalitarianism hasn’t similarly consumed the United States: (1) America’s First Amendment, (2) Americans’ more resilient love for personal liberty and hostility toward overreaching government, and (3) the Democrats’ inability to flood the 2024 election with enough fraudulent mail-in ballots to pull off back-to-back steals.  Democrats have been criminalizing “hate speech” for decades.  The Biden administration actively censored Americans’ online speech and attempted to erect a permanent “Disinformation Governance Board” within the Department of Homeland Security.  

Europe’s totalitarian assaults on free speech are therefore an ongoing national security threat to the United States.  “Protecting” people from “hate speech” has always been a government-contrived Trojan horse for censoring dissent and controlling the flow of information.

Right now Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is whining about random Americans calling him a “retard” after President Trump labeled the governor “seriously retarded” in a Thanksgiving post on Truth Social.  If Americans don’t vigilantly defend the First Amendment’s protections for free speech, then a future Democrat president will no doubt follow Europe’s example by sending well-armed law enforcement officers to Mar-a-Lago to arrest President Trump for hurting Tim Walz’s feelings.  It’s not as if the FBI hasn’t raided Trump’s home with lethal force before.

Europe’s descent into tyranny must be resisted, but a firewall preventing Europe’s tyranny from spreading beyond the ruin of its own continent is essential.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants the authority to block all online content that the government deems “false information.”  Additionally, he wants to establish a news media certification system that would give the State the power to create a veritable “ministry of truth.”  

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and his political operatives have apparently been using an elaborate web of taxpayer-funded initiatives, billionaire-funded NGOs, and covert propaganda campaigns to target and cripple conservative news outlets in the United States.  The prime minister’s chief of staff has been accused of running a “shadowy astroturf organization” meant to censor conservatives, punish freedom of expression, and eliminate dissent.  Among the U.K. operation’s various objectives, its key mission has allegedly been to “Kill Musk’s Twitter.”

The European Union is so committed to destroying free speech on Elon Musk’s “X” that it has fined the social media platform hundreds of millions of dollars for violating the European Union’s new Digital Services Act.  The DSA empowers European bureaucrats and aristocrats to control most online information and allows the EU to elevate its preferred “narratives” over the opinions of common citizens.  

European governments are so afraid of Americans’ free speech that they are doing everything in their power to censor, fine, and criminally punish American citizens.  As Secretary of State Marco Rubio states plainly in a recent post on “X,” “The European Commission’s $140 million fine isn’t just an attack on @X, it’s an attack on all American tech platforms and the American people by foreign governments.  The days of censoring Americans online are over.”

Censoring dissent is a sign of political weakness.  It is a telltale sign of Europe’s looming demise.  Any civilization so vulnerable that it cannot withstand opposing points of view certainly cannot withstand anything more pointed or explosive than uncomfortable words.  Governments that fear the private thoughts of the people know that their days are numbered.

Americans should support those in Europe who still believe in freedom and personal liberty.  We should ally ourselves with the millions who wish to live their lives free from government’s choking grip.  We should not continue supporting the governments doing the choking.  We share no common cause with tyrants.  To liberate the oppressed, Americans must allow European totalitarianism to destroy itself.



Democrats Want You and Your Kid Dead


I would have never thought I’d live in a time where the question really needed to be asked about which side one of our major political parties is on when it comes to stopping lethal drugs from being smuggled into the country. Maybe Democrats were never all that excited about stopping drugs – a lot of their kids really love cocaine, for example – but they used to at least pretend it was a bad thing. Not anymore. If you or someone you love dies at the hands of drug dealers, drugs, illegal aliens or any combination of those things, you can count on Democrats not giving a single damn about any of it.

It's an odd position to be in for a politician, choosing drug runners and people with no business being in the country over the people who can actually vote for them, but so many people are dumb to the point that they will still vote for them, so it doesn’t really matter.

I wouldn’t care if normal people weren’t impacted by their indifference and callousness, but real people’s children and families end up being hurt by the actions of Democrats. How many children have died because they were given an aspirin laced with some synthetic drug? How many Democrats care?

Unless it’s their kid, there isn’t a Democrat who gives a damn, and even if it were their kid, it is unlikely they’d care – individuals are disposable to Democrats. Well, individual Americans, anyway. Illegal aliens are those whom Democrats favor.

The only drug user Democrats care about is Hunter Biden. And while he’s allegedly stopped using, they’ve stopped caring about the people they campaign for, pretending to be “compassionate” about.

Democrats would rather visit illegal alien drug and human smugglers in prison or protest outside their holding facility than any American impacted by illegal alien crime.

Meet the Press personality Kristen Welker spent an awful lot of time Sunday whining to Senator Tom Cotton that drug traffickers might have been scared and trying to signal for help after their drug boat was hit. Never once did she express concern for the lives of Americans. Her kids are unlikely to come into contact with laced drugs – rich kids have more access to pure, uncut drugs; laced narcotics are for the dirty poor. The left sees more as feral animals than human beings. If they die, so what? They’d probably die some other stupid way, anyway.

These leftists do not care. You do not matter to them. Hell, their own kids don’t matter to them – just look at Jamie Raskin. They’re gross sociopaths, or “garbage,” as President Trump pointed out about Somalis.

Do any of them add value to the country? Is the world a better place because Adam Schiff is in it? Hell, is his house better because he’s there? Is your family protected in any way by Ilhan Omar? Is there a single Democrat you get even the remote feeling is interested in prioritizing actual Americans over people they call “residents” or “new Americans”?

The obvious answer is no, the ONLY answer is no.

Why would Democrats act this way, care about these people over those who chose them to serve? Because there are some people, honestly, so stupid that they will vote for Democrats, no matter what. Every major Democrat-controlled city is riddled with violence, yet the morons who live there keep electing more Democrats. I understand the thought that you get what you pay for, and if you vote for Democrats and the illegal aliens whom Democrats favor end up harming you or someone you care about…tough. I get that, I really do – karma is a Rashida Tlaib.

But they don’t just impact Democrats. Real Americans are harmed by the indifference of Democrats. If it were only their families being robbed, beaten, or killed, it would be one thing, but normal people pay the price for the left’s evil.

Maybe Democrats don’t want you and your kids dead, but they clearly do not care if anyone ends up that way. They’re good, they’re insulated, their degenerate offspring are insulated from their bad actions on crime the same way their billionaire masters are insulated from the consequences of the economic policies they advocate. They’re gross people, they’re bad people; never let them forget 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. 


The Downfall of America's Cities: An Epidemic of Unprovoked Violence


Yes, I'm still an odd one to be writing about the state of America's urban areas. If you've been reading my work at all for the past couple of years, you know I grew up in a rural setting in Iowa and am a happy rural dweller myself now. I have little time for cities, despite having lived in them for four decades. I find them unpleasant; crowded, noisy, and, to be honest, they stink. I like the clean country air of Alaska's Susitna Valley, and if that means I have to put up with dark, below-zero mornings, that's fine.

With that being true, why am I still worried about America's cities? Because our cities are the beating hearts of our nation. Much of the country's economic activity happens there. Urban areas contain a lot of the country's industry and academia. What's more, our cities used to be the pride of the nation, but that's not so much the case anymore. Open-air drug use, huge homeless encampments, and rampant crime, including rioting against federal immigration officers, are taking their toll.

Case in point: There seems to be an epidemic of unprovoked violence in our nation's cities. Here are a few examples, just from 2025:

  • January 1, New Orleans, LA: A terrorist goblin rammed a rented F-150 into a crowd on Bourbon Street, killing 14 and injuring 57.
  • January 1, Las Vegas, NV: An active-duty US Army soldier detonated an explosive device inside a Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. Seven people were injured.
  • July 28, New York, NY: A gunman walked into the Park Avenue office building that is home to Blackstone and the NFL and opened fire. Four random individuals were hit before the gunman turned the weapon on himself.
  • August 27, Minneapolis, MN: The Annunciation Catholic Church was targeted by a shooter who killed two children and injured 21 others. The shooter was identified as a "transgender woman."
  • November 17, Chicago, IL: A man set a woman on fire on a Blue Line train in a seemingly random attack. The woman survived with severe injuries.

And of course, there is the unprovoked and horrific attack on Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte, NC, commuter train. On Saturday, we learned of another stabbing attack on the Charlotte light commuter rail system, again completely unprovoked, this time by an illegal alien.

Why is this happening?

There are a number of reasons, and these five examples are illustrative.

The New Orleans attack was an act of Islamic terrorism. Between the Biden administration's open-border policies and their refusal to enforce immigration law, along with lax or even non-existent vetting of "asylum seekers," we have imported millions of people from Muslim-majority nations. Many of them see America's modern lifestyle, our tolerance for a variety of religions and lifestyles, as intolerable, and seek to end it by any means necessary. In so doing, they would reduce our nation to be much like the ones they left, which makes one wonder why they came here in the first place - unless it's to do precisely that. And, our major cities have been rolling out the welcome mat for such people.

The Las Vegas attack appears to have been a political statement, carried out by a person with what, in hindsight, appear to be serious mental health issues, as evidenced by his claims that the United States and China were in possession of gravitic drive systems. It's unclear why the Biden-era Pentagon kept him on active duty.

The New York attack appears to have been carried out because of the perp's anger towards the NFL, for reasons unknown. We do know that the attacker traveled from Las Vegas to New York to carry out the attack. 

The Annunciation Catholic Church attack is another example of an uncontrolled mental illness resulting in tragedy. A "transgender" perp, with a long history of expressed hatred, was somehow out walking around.

Finally, the Chicago arson attack was carried out by a serial criminal,  50-year-old Lawrence Reed, who had been arrested at least 72 times over a period of 30 years, and yet was still walking around loose.

The common threads? Anger, hate, and a revolving-door system that rotates captured goblins right back out onto the streets. In other words, incompetent municipal leadership and ineffective, "woke" justice systems.

Some of this may be simply due to overcrowding. People are not, by nature, hive animals. Forcing millions of people into packed urban areas causes a range of mental pathologies, including lashing out in violence. But the overarching issue is decades of urban decay, caused by feckless, self-seeking municipal leaders and leftist politicians and officials who place ideology over facts. This can't be blamed solely on overcrowding; Tokyo is crowded on a scale unimaginable to most American urban dwellers, and Tokyo is pleasant, clean, and safe.

Fish rot from the head. The problem our cities have with sudden, unprovoked, violent attacks is just such a case. The individual motivations may differ in any given incident, but the root cause always comes down to urban governments: Governments who welcome unknown, unvetted aliens; governments who shelter the mentally ill; governments who return criminals to the streets 20, 30, 40 times with no consequences for the actions that got them arrested in the first place. These governments are the same ones that allow massive homeless encampments that are havens for crime and drug use, and which make excuses for the offending goblins when yet another street takeover or riot breaks out.

That's the problem that must be addressed, if we are to stave off the utter and final collapse of many of our major cities. If that collapse comes, it won't be followed by any sudden urban renaissance; the people of those areas will have to walk a long, bitter path of ashes before any semblance of structure returns to what were once some of the world's greatest cities.



This Media Outlet Just Sued the Pentagon Over its New Policy



The New York Times has filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon over its new press access policy. The lawsuit alleges that the new rules violate the First Amendment by censoring and punishing reporters who report negatively on the Defense Department’s policies.

The Pentagon adopted the new policy in the fall. The new rules require reporters to sign a 21-page set of rules to keep their credentials, allowing them access to the building. Under these rules, called the Pentagon Facilities Alternative Credentials (PFACs), reporters must acknowledge that they can be treated as “security threats” and lose their access if they report information that the Defense Department does not approve for public release. 

The Pentagon claims this policy is aimed at preventing leaks. However, news outlets argue that it is actually about controlling how they cover the Defense Department and deterring officials from speaking to the press.

The lawsuit was filed against the Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell. It argues that the new policy violates the First Amendment by empowering Pentagon officials with broad authority to revoke press credentials without fair standards.

The plaintiffs argue that the rules target journalists who publish negative stories about the Defense Department and “seeks to restrict journalists’ ability to do what journalists have always done—ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements.”

They also claim the policy violates the Fifth Amendment by giving officials “unbridled discretion” to label reporters as security risks and remove their credentials.

The new rules are not actually aimed at protecting national security, according to the lawsuit. Instead, it is intended to weed out reporters the Pentagon deems hostile and to favor friendlier journalists. They quote officials who said they want a “next generation of the Pentagon press corps” who would “circumvent the lies of the mainstream media and get real news to the American people.”

They noted that some officials attacked critics as “activists who masquerade as journalists” and “propagandists” who “stopped telling the truth.”

The plaintiffs are requesting that the court halt enforcement of the rules and restore access to those who refused to sign. 



New Dangers Emerge From Media's Selective Coverage of Drug Boat Attacks


The current controversy over President Trump’s lethal attacks on Venezuelan drug boats, especially one that allegedly targeted survivors in the water, has underlined the problems and perils of being a conscientious news consumer in an information age stricken by partisan media.

Who do you believe? And how do citizens find the truth among competing narratives, some of them dramatically compelling but fabricated or intentionally incomplete? Or do we simply roll the dice and choose a narrative that suits us?

False, incomplete, or fabricated news has become an extremely complex — and I would argue dangerous — situation with real-life political consequences looming in just 11 months in crucial midterm elections. Voters then will pass judgment on most members of Congress as surrogates for Trump’s presidency and his opposition, basing their ballot choices on some faulty information. 

With only two modern exceptions (1998 and 2002), the party of an incumbent president loses congressional seats in midterms. 

The loss of only a handful of Republican seats in the House or Senate, or both, would create a political gridlock for Trump’s final two years with minimal legislative progress and threats of more shutdowns and divisions over renewed impeachment attempts.

The confusing complexities of the Washington scene became clear in the past week. Democrats have been floundering since their decisive defeats in 2024 following the expensive paralysis of Joe Biden’s term, the extended cover-up of his mental incapacity, and then the stunningly inept, content-free Kamala Harris campaign.

Lacking effective leadership and new ideas, Democrats simply reverted to their anti-everything Trump mantra. That flawed thinking has failed to torpedo his political career for 10 years, so maybe more of it might.

This put them in the position of opposing such popular things as deporting criminal illegal immigrants, supporting local police, and combating illegal drugs. If this seems strangely silly, you’re right.

Recently, six Democrats released a video urging members of the military to defy illegal orders. This was shared widely by sympathetic media.

However, it began to crumble when the seditious six were unable to provide examples of illegal orders that should be defied.

Just then, as if by some media miracle, the Washington Post turned the narrative back to Trump with a sensational account that seemed to suggest a war crime. 

In an article published last week, based on anonymous sources, the Post reported that during the first military attack on an alleged Venezuelan drug boat on Sept. 2, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth had told the military commander to leave no survivors.

So, according to the Post, when real-time video showed two survivors clinging to wreckage, the operation commander sent another missile to eliminate them. 

The Post claimed to have two sources for this expose. Neither was identified. Such anonymous charges were a familiar characteristic of news coverage during Trump's first term, which he blamed on members of a so-called Deep State opposed to his reforms threatening their political fiefdoms. 

One of the Post's sources was quoted, “The order was to kill everybody.”

Of course, this report immediately and conveniently diverted the topic of fierce public conversation away from the inept Democrat video. The usual sources decried such unnecessary killing, alleging war crimes and the need for prosecution, all conveniently fitting a comfortable anti-Trump agenda.

Conveniently forgotten were Barack Obama’s more than 530 drone attacks executed on alleged terrorist targets in foreign lands, killing hundreds of civilian non-combatants during his presidency.

My RedState colleagues have provided fulsome coverage of this controversy herehere, and here.

Both Hegseth and the administration denied such serious allegations. And, in fact, when two men survived a subsequent attack on another high-speed boat, they were rescued by the U.S. and returned to shore.

On Twitter, Hegseth said:

As usual, the fake news is delivering more fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland. 

As we’ve said from the beginning, and in every statement, these highly effective strikes are specifically intended to be “lethal, kinetic strikes.” 

The declared intent is to stop lethal drugs, destroy narco-boats, and kill the narco-terrorists who are poisoning the American people. Every trafficker we kill is affiliated with a Designated Terrorist Organization.

But then media competition kicked in, which is a good thing and can help keep fabricators honest. We just haven't had much of that in this Trump era, when most mainstream outlets adopted groupthink about topics such as Russiagate and Hunter Biden's laptop. 

However, many Americans likely missed the corrective coverage if they weren't combing the Internet for further context and details. In an article carrying four bylines, the New York Times countered the Post's account, saying it had talked separately with five sources, who were not identified. And they reported that Hegseth had given no such order:

Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs.

But each official said Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things.

And then, revealing how quickly Congress can react if the opportunity for publicity is keen, hearings began on the Hill.

In those closed hearings, Adm. Mitch Bradley, the incident commander, testified that no such kill-everyone order was ever given, and added context that the survivors appeared to be attempting to continue their mission and communicate with other suspected drug boats in the vicinity.

But here’s the problem for news consumers who vote. They have a life to live. People in the news business follow the ins and outs, the twists, omissions, and outright errors of competitors and themselves.

But it takes a very conscientious citizen to devote the time to cross-check several sources on important events, a new news consumption habit that's become necessary with so many sources providing varying accounts. 

Many people tend to get their news episodically. They walk through the living room and hear a piece of the initial sensational report. They’re cooking and catch a White House denial of something. Or their car radio lands on a talk station for a portion of one participant’s outspoken take on the affair.

At one time in modern history, only a handful of trusted information sources existed. Now, there are literally thousands online, all seeking consumer clicks, but not all accurate, honest, or worthy of trust. They produce a cacophony of information that requires thinking, judgment, and patience. 

It's like driving in a snowstorm with your high beams on. So much coming at you all at once. This information blizzard of typically negative news and conflict has even prompted many people to simply drop out of active news tracking.

It comes down to which pieces of information overload you happen to hear or read and which ones you’re inclined to believe. That seems like a rather haphazard process for a nation to make momentous decisions about political leadership.

But maybe that’s the way it’s always been in our nearly 250 years of national existence, even when the volume of information was much smaller. Maybe it’ll all continue to work out. Maybe.