Unless you live in New Hampshire, you’ve probably never heard of Chris Pappas. He’s the Representative from the state’s first Congressional District, he’s a committed leftist and sure seems like a j*****s. The bowl-cut pudge is looking for a promotion to the Senate, putting the question to the voters of the Granite State whether or not they choose to “live free” or if they choose to “die”?
Pappas is a giant nobody in the House, with a list of legislative accomplishments that would save all existing trees should someone decide to print it out. In Democratic Party circles, accomplishing nothing is a resume enhancement.
The Pappas campaign is trying to gain political mileage out of the fact that he, in a Democrat-heavy district, beat Karoline Leavitt in 2022. Yes, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who ran for the House a couple of years before taking her current gig. You’d think defeating this then-unknown as an incumbent in a Democrat district was his greatest accomplishment in life, and maybe he’s just pathetic enough for it to be.
Pappas has sent out 10 fundraising emails with some version of “I’m sorry about Karoline Leavitt” in the subject line alone. What is he “sorry” about? That she exists, like he thinks he is responsible for that and her current job – maybe he doesn’t think women are qualified to be Press Secretary, or maybe he just doesn’t think conservative women are?
Last week, Pappas sent out a fundraising email under that very subject line that was 10 total paragraphs, all of which were short. In it, he wrote “Karoline Leavitt” 6 times. Not “Karoline” or “Ms Leavitt,” but the whole “Karoline Leavitt.” Stalkers mention the names of the people they’re obsessed with less frequently.
More than being a weirdo who acts like Karoline dumped him at the prom, and he never got over it, his obsession with her is a major indicator of the fact that he has nothing else to run on. Who campaigns for a new office by mentioning his opponent from 2 elections ago as some kind of accomplishment?
Of course, Pappas isn’t a jilted ex of Leavitt’s, as he’s a gay man. That seems to be his other “accomplishment,” or something.
If how you have sex is a defining characteristic about you, you are a boring person with nothing to offer the world beyond potential victimhood – which is actually enough in the Democrat world.
Pappas, seemingly trying to insult almost half his potential voters, wrote, “A few years ago, Karoline Leavitt ran against me for Congress here in New Hampshire. Her campaign was steeped in extreme MAGA rhetoric and zero connection to the actual issues Granite Staters face every day.”
Having been born rich, with a net worth of up to $7 million, what does Chris know about “actual issues Granite Staters face every day”? Probably not much.
“Unfortunately,” the misogynist Pappas continues, “that race turned into a national audition. Now the same talking points and spin that New Hampshire voters dismissed are being used daily from the White House briefing room. So if you’re wondering how the rest of the country ended up having to listen to Karoline Leavitt, it’s because New Hampshire proved something important first: Her extreme ideas don’t hold up when you put them in front of real voters.”
How dare “the rest of the country” have to “listen to Karoline Leavitt”? How dare she have a job? How dare she have opinions a gay Democrat disapproves of? Does this woman not know her place, asks a man who doesn’t seem to like or respect women.
So many Democrats are just j*******s– complete jerks who have no concept of how to talk with average Americans and no understanding of why they would want to in the first place. They hate normal people; they hate people who will not obey or conform. They hate people who simply wish to be left alone to live their lives and raise their children how they see fit.
In short, people like Chris Pappas hate you and everyone you know. It’s not just Chris Pappas; it’s every Democrat. They all need to lose; they all need to go. He’s as good a place as any to start.
It’s remarkable how the real world always illustrates the Founders’ wisdom, graphically and undeniably. Take the current situation in Iran. It’s a country with a great history, full of intelligent people run by a bunch of backward, semi-human savages with a ridiculous apocalyptic theology that is so brutal it killed 30,000 or so of its own people a few months ago just to stay in power. And now it’s still in power, at least over its own people, despite the United States and Israel righteously devastating its conventional military capabilities. You can sync its navy, shoot down its Air Force, and smash its missiles; the power on the ground requires contending power on the ground. Our glorious alliance with Israel - suck on that podcast dorks – cannot kill every goat molester with an AK-47 and a conviction that the more he murders, the more virgins he gets. That job belongs to the people of Iran, and unfortunately, they don’t have the tools to do it. They are disarmed, and therefore, they are serfs, not citizens, much like the English and Australians. In Iran, the answer to the problem of securing freedom and justice is the same as it is here in America and everywhere else:
Guns are freedom. Guns are liberty. Guns are the last bulwark – a real one, not one that enjoys watching the pool boy cavort with his wife – of freedom. Of course, it’s not actually guns that secure freedom. It’s violence. Some dumb people will tell you violence never solves anything. The only people who can tell you violence never solves anything are people for whom the problem of violence has been solved by other people who know what the hell they’re talking about and who use violence to solve the problem of violence. You know, like in America. Only in a place like America can people be so safe and secure and prosperous – something secured by men with guns – that they can belittle and be right those who do the dirty work of doing so. It’s particularly galling that those who benefit from freedom use their freedom to trash the way those who give it to them do so.
And who gives people freedom in America? Well, technically, it’s God who gives Americans their freedom. The right to be free was endowed by our Creator and is not granted at the whim and will of mere mortals in government or elsewhere. But having a right doesn’t mean anything unless you can defend that right, unless you can protect that right from people who would take it away from you. The people of Iran have a God-given right to be free and look at them. They live or die at the whim of a bunch of psychotic primitives who pack heat and have ensured that they can’t. Freedom without firepower is just words.
In America, we are free because We the People maintain the ability to use violence against those who would suppress us. Yeah, the government has cops and an Army. That’s about 2 million or 3 million people who can be put on the street to suppress us, should the government choose to do so. But it’s outnumbered by about 30 to one by Americans with a rifle in their closet. A lot of dumb people will tell you that normal people can’t stand up against a military that is turned against the people, even with privately owned firearms. Hollywood is famous for trying to run down the idea of armed citizens protecting themselves, their families, their communities, and their culture with firearms. But, even putting aside the fact that a significant part of the military is never going to turn on its brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and friends in order to impose the will of some dictator, there’s no way to get past the tactical problem posed by being outnumbered 30 to 1 by members of a culture that, in its genes, loves to fight.
If you give the government a monopoly on violence, you give the government a monopoly on power. And that’s exactly the opposite of what our Founders wanted and what our Creator directed. That’s because violence is power. Violence underlies every human relationship. Oh, that doesn’t mean we regularly go out there and beat the crap out of each other. Manifestations of violence are not particularly common here. Some people may have never gotten in a fistfight – sadly, those seem to be senior members of the Republican Party – and others may not have thrown fists since junior high. But the reality is that our system is based on violence. In theory, if you do a bad thing, people with guns will come and stop you or arrest you. And while this doesn’t necessarily apply to degenerates in blue cities, where scumbags are allowed to wreak havoc, while citizens protecting themselves are mercilessly prosecuted, it does apply in general. And it applies in the macro. When all hell breaks loose, Americans have the ultimate veto on government overreach by breaking out their AR15s - I’ve written about how that works in practice. It’s ugly, but no one ever said freedom was free.
And that’s why Democrats hate our AR15s, because it limits their power. The first thing that CIA fraud Abigail Spanberger did in taking office was work to disenfranchise 50% of Virginians. The second thing she did was work to take away their guns. If you don’t see how those two things are linked, you’re either not looking or you support it.
The people of Iran don’t have guns, and therefore, they can’t fight. The people in Iran can’t be free because they can’t fight. A people who can’t fight can’t be free. That may not be how the unmarried cat lady third-grade teacher who forces her kids to celebrate Kwanzaa wants reality to be, but that’s how reality is. If we don’t have our guns, we don’t have our freedom, and the Democrats don’t want us to have freedom. They’re currently giving a tongue bath to Hassan Piker, a guy who says Hamas is great, that the most terrible thing to happen in the last half-century is the fall of the Soviet Union, and that we deserved 9/11. Mainstream Democrats – there are no moderate ones now – are all over him and his bizarre, communist ideology. Think about that guy in power. Think of that guy with no check on his power. Can you think of any reason why he and his pals wouldn’t happily slaughter you to maintain their power? The dude just told you he thought we deserved planes flying into our buildings. If you want to put yourself at his mercy, go for it, but count the rest of us out.
The undeniable fact is that fanatics will slaughter anyone in their path to keep it, but they can’t slaughter you if you can fight back. We’ve seen what it looks like in Iran when a people can’t fight back. It’s a bloody mess. But the best way to avoid that bloody mess is to deter it. The only way to deter it is to guarantee that the killers will be lying dead themselves, and the only way to guarantee that is to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.
Our Founder understood this undeniable reality. The only people who don’t are either stupid or think you are.
Hollywood Baffled By Success Of Movie Made To Entertain People
Babylon Bee
HOLLYWOOD — Studio executives have been utterly baffled by the massive success of a movie made to entertain people.
Defying all industry expectations, a movie designed to be enjoyed by the audience has fared remarkably well in theaters, leaving producers dumbfounded.
"Why are people going to see a movie that's fun to watch?" pondered studio producer Alvin Montelongo. "It boggles the mind. The audience is going home and telling people that it was an enjoyable experience, and then more people are going. I can't understand it."
Several executives watched the film in an effort to understand its success, but came away more puzzled than before. "No sex, no gruesome violence, no nihilism, nothing. What the heck is happening here?" asked the executives. "It doesn't even have a scene where someone explains what you're supposed to believe. We were just entertained. I cannot fathom how this movie was approved, much less how it became a blockbuster."
At publishing time, Hollywood producers had met to try to figure out why a film that was not made to entertain people had somehow flopped.
A New York man is accused of climbing a fence and stealing an FBI patrol car on April 10, 2026.
Stephen Gullotti, age 59, of Albany, New York, was charged on Monday by criminal complaint for stealing and converting to his own use an FBI patrol car in the parking lot of the FBI’s Albany Field Office.
Court documents say that Gullotti climbed the fence surrounding a FBI Albany office in the late evening of April 9, 2026. While on FBI property, Gullotti got into an unlocked FBI GMC truck in the parking lot and drove it around the secure parking lot, moving between parking spots and attempted to leave the premises at about 4:54 a.m. in the morning on April 10. Gullotti was later apprehended by security officers and detained.
First Assistant United States Attorney Sarcone stated: “Gullotti’s alleged unauthorized jaunt through a secure federal lot was a brazen display of judgment that ended exactly where one might expect: in handcuffs. While the perpetrator managed to gain access to the FBI’s parking lot, he was unable to enter the building and is now facing a federal charge. This case serves as a blunt reminder that those who attempt to disrupt federal operations or violate the security of our law enforcement partners will be met with immediate and decisive action.”
The charge filed against Gullotti carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, and a term of supervised release of up to three years.
A defendant’s sentence is imposed by a judge based on the particular statute(s) the defendant is convicted of violating, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other factors.
FBI Special Agent in Charge Craig L. Tremaroli stated: “As alleged in the complaint, Mr. Gullotti illegally gained access to the FBI Albany parking lot but was not able to enter our building. While this incident is troubling, it proves our building and information are safe thanks to our security protocols. Let this be clear: we have zero tolerance for those who attempt to compromise the safety and integrity of our workspaces. We would like to thank our partners at Albany PD for their swift assistance with this investigation and our colleagues at the Northern District of New York for recognizing the severity of the allegations concerning Mr. Gullotti and charging him federally.”
The charges in the complaint are merely accusations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
First Assistant United States Attorney John A. Sarcone III and Craig L. Tremaroli, Special Agent in Charge of the Albany Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), made the announcement.
The FBI and the Albany Police Department are investigating the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Alexander Wentworth-Ping and Nicholas Walter are prosecuting the case.
An Iranian national who became a lawful permanent resident of the U.S. in 2016 was arrested on Saturday night at Los Angeles International Airport for trafficking arms on behalf of the government of Iran.
Shamim Mafi, 44, of Woodland Hills, is charged with a violation of 50 U.S.C. § 1705 for brokering the sale of drones, bombs, bomb fuses, and millions of rounds of ammunition manufactured by Iran and sold to Sudan.
If convicted, she faces a statutory maximum sentence of 20 years in federal prison.
She is expected to make her initial appearance on Monday afternoon in U.S. District Court in downtown L.A.
Left: Pat Buchanan speaks during a press conference in Falls Church, Va., October 25, 1999. Right: Joe Kent attends a House Homeland Security hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., December 11, 2025.(Elizabeth Frantz/Reuters)
In his letter of resignation as director of the National Counterterrorism Center, sent to President Donald Trump on March 17, Joe Kent declared that “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” The rationale for Operation Epic Fury, he wrote, was cooked up by “high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media” who “deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran.” This “echo chamber,” Kent continued, “was used to deceive” the president just as it had been employed two decades earlier “to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war.” Kent told the president that he had “lost my beloved wife Shannon” — a U.S. Navy intelligence chief killed in a 2019 ISIS suicide bombing in Syria — “in a war manufactured by Israel.”
Kent is hardly the first person to blame the Jewish state and its American supporters for personal or national misfortunes, and he won’t be the last. His variant of antisemitic incitement — that Jews start wars for their own material benefit — has a long and ignominious history. In 1919, Henry Ford told a group of friends sitting around a campfire that the Jews caused the Great War; this idea and others like it featured prominently in the weekly newspaper he went on to publish, the Dearborn Independent. More than 20 years later, Charles Lindbergh infamously said that “the three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.” When an inebriated Mel Gibson was pulled over for speeding in Malibu and arrested on a drunk-driving charge, he demanded to know whether the officer was of the Hebraic persuasion and then flat-out declared that “the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.”
With his allegation of Jewish warmongering designed to drag the United States into a Middle Eastern war, the figure whom Kent most resembles is Pat Buchanan, the political commentator who worked in the Nixon and Reagan administrations. “There are only two groups that are beating the drums . . . for war in the Middle East,” Buchanan said in an August 1990 appearance on the political TV talk show The McLaughlin Group, as the United States assembled a global coalition to reverse Iraq’s usurpation of Kuwait: “the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States.” Later, in his syndicated column, Buchanan identified four prominent members of that choir: New York Timescolumnist A. M. Rosenthal, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Continuing with the portentous surname theme, Buchanan in a subsequent column contrasted these Jewish cheerleaders for war with the poor Gentiles who would actually have to fight it, “kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales, and Leroy Brown.”
Buchanan was widely denounced for these comments, most prominently by William F. Buckley Jr. in these pages. Though Buchanan furiously denied the charge of antisemitism, he went on to prove his critics right by publishing a series of books of revisionist history that soft-pedaled Hitler. Three and a half decades later, Buchanan’s message has found new adherents, with an array of commentators across the spectrum parroting a former senior government official’s claims of Jewish perfidy at the highest echelons of American power.
Buchanan was right that the Gulf War was fought, in part, to advance the interests of a foreign country. But that country wasn’t Israel. It was Kuwait, which Saddam Hussein had annexed as Iraq’s 19th province. It was Kuwaiti (and possibly Saudi) independence — and the larger goal of preserving the international order — that Americans were fighting and dying for, while Israel endured Scud missile attacks from Iraq and, at the behest of Washington, refrained from responding. And while Buchanan tried to portray those in favor of military action against Iraq as limited to Israel and its American supporters (a constituency that included, as he put it, the “Israeli-occupied territory” of Capitol Hill), at the time he made these statements over 70 percent of Americans backed the use of force. Forty-two nations — not only most of Europe but non-Western countries including Egypt, Syria, Turkey, and Pakistan — ultimately joined the Washington-led coalition against Saddam. The run-up to the First Gulf War was a model of international coalition-building yet to be repeated.
George H. W. Bush didn’t need convincing from anyone that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the world order, and the notion that Donald J. Trump, of all people, was unduly pressured into bombing Iran is even more absurd. One does not need to be an especially keen observer of the American political scene or a psychiatrist to recognize that the 47th president of the United States is not the type of person who goes against his own will. This obduracy applies to matters of international importance and personal pique, whether refusing to back down on tariffs or on the demolition of the East Wing. Intelligent people must have advised Trump not to broadcast the cockamamie idea of annexing Greenland. He didn’t care.
Rather than confront the disturbing possibility that the man they have supported unconditionally doesn’t agree with them, much less listen to them, the isolationists on the right have undertaken a hunt for scapegoats. In this fantasy, someone, or some entity, other than the commander in chief must be to blame for taking the nation to war. It’s a coping mechanism reminiscent of the adage spoken by Russian peasants suffering under the yoke of a cruel and decrepit monarchy: “If the tsar only knew!”
Take the podcaster Megyn Kelly. Last summer, when Trump bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities, she was exultant: “This required massive balls. The guy’s got a very steely spine and zero F’s to give. He can’t be pushed around; he can’t be scared.” Fast-forward nine months to Operation Epic Fury: “We need to know exactly who talked him into it, and what representations were made to convince the president that this was a good idea. Who? Who specifically?” She rattled off a list of names that began with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If the president only knew!
A day after quitting his job, Kent appeared on Tucker Carlson’s podcast, where he revealed himself to be even more of a conspiratorial crackpot than was apparent in his resignation letter. As Carlson sat in exaggerated shock, Kent told a disturbing story in which Charlie Kirk stopped him in a West Wing hallway to “very loudly” tell him, “Joe, stop us from getting into a war with Iran.” Three months later, the youth activist was assassinated, and while Kent did not explicitly accuse Israel of the crime, he made clear where his suspicions lay. Seeking to explore “foreign ties” to the alleged killer Tyler Robinson, Kent claimed that the FBI prevented him from doing so. (Some of Kirk’s friends worry that such musings about a government cover-up could prejudice the jury in Robinson’s upcoming murder trial.) Kent also insinuated that the Israelis may have been involved in the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, Pa., as a demonstration of their ability to kill him if he does not carry out their orders.
Another way in which right-wing critics of the war have been pinning the blame on Israel is by claiming that Trump’s base opposes it. “The attack on Iran is so wildly inconsistent with the wishes of his own base, so diametrically opposed to their reading of the national interest, that it is likely to mark the end of Trumpism as a project,” predicted Christopher Caldwell in TheSpectator. What power could have overcome the special bond between the president and his most devoted followers? Caldwell doesn’t explicitly say, preferring to ventriloquize through what he describes as a sort of MAGA group consciousness. “For a growing part of Trump’s own base,” he writes, “while Iran remains the bigger threat to America’s global position, Israel is the bigger threat to America’s democracy.” Yet polling has shown as close to total support for Operation Epic Fury among self-described MAGA voters as one is likely to find in a free country.
Oddly, for people who claim to adore the man, the right-wing isolationists blaming Israel for the war have clearly not listened to Trump all that much. Aside from his enthusiasm for tariffs, there is no issue on which Trump has been more consistent during his five-decade career in public life than opposition to the Islamic Republic. In a 1980 television interview, Trump endorsed putting troops on the ground to rescue the hostages held at the American embassy in Tehran. Seven years later, talking to ABC’s Barbara Walters, he made the same sort of imperialist noises that he does today, threatening to “take” the country’s oil. In his 2015 presidential-campaign announcement, Trump promised that he would “stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons,” a vow that became a constant refrain over the ensuing decade. Figures like Kent, Carlson, and the other influencers can’t seriously claim to have been betrayed by Trump. They either weren’t listening or pretended to hear something else.
Many of the right-wing podcasters and online conspiracy theorists spinning tales of Israeli skullduggery are too young to remember the Iran hostage crisis of 1979–81, a national trauma that had a profound effect on Trump. The era of the late ’70s through the ’80s shaped his views on everything from international affairs and economics to architecture and media relations. Just as Trump still acts like the New York tabloid fixture he was circa 1986, he has always been wary of the Islamic Republic and its leaders — and rightly so. The same cannot be said of his critics on the right, who are often too cowardly to criticize him by name and who see Israel, not Iran, as the main agent of destabilization in the Middle East.
To understand the intellectual caliber of Kent and his promoters, just consider the fact that Kent has said, with a straight face, that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons because the (now dead) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa against it, a fiction long peddled by the regime’s fellow travelers in the West. At one point during his interview with Carlson, prefacing a claim that the ayatollah was “moderating” Iran’s nuclear program, Kent said that he was “no fan of the former supreme leader.” Christopher Hitchens once noted a similar impulse among critics of the Iraq War who would rush to acknowledge that Saddam was a “bad guy” before sermonizing about how George W. Bush was the real threat to international peace and security. The rhetorical throat-clearing, Hitchens said, was a “dead giveaway” that “someone didn’t know what they were talking about.”
Compare the domestic political debate surrounding the Iran conflict with the 2011 American-led NATO intervention in Libya. During the early stages of the uprising against Moammar Qaddafi, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron started pressuring Barack Obama to intervene against the Tyrant of Tripoli. The famously conflict-averse Obama was skeptical, viewing the unrest in Libya as primarily a European problem. It was Sarkozy who first declared that Qaddafi “must go,” and when Obama finally came around to supporting military strikes, he did so by, in the confusing words of an administration official, “leading from behind.” While Obama later blamed the Europeans for the “mess” and “sh** show” Libya had become, one did not see the sort of wild accusations of deception, venality, and blackmail that swirl around the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu.
There is one striking difference between the Buchanan and Kent episodes. When Buchanan made his accusations about Jewish dual loyalty, he found very few allies on the left. Today, many prominent progressives have been receptive to Kent’s message, which they point to as yet further confirmation of Israel’s pernicious hold on the United States. Portraying Trump as the cat’s-paw of a foreign power isn’t much of a stretch for Democrats, considering how long they touted the theory that Vladimir Putin was blackmailing him with a video involving prostitutes at the Moscow Ritz. But the claim that Netanyahu is Trump’s puppet master presents a problem for the left, as it contradicts another narrative they’ve spent the past decade propagating: that the twice-elected president is a dictator. If it’s true that Trump is an autocrat, how could the leader of a country of 10 million people force him to do something as serious as launch a major war in the Middle East? Is Trump an authoritarian in every arena of presidential responsibility save the one in which the Jewish state has an interest?
It says something about their growing hatred of Israel that the one issue for which some liberals are willing to absolve Trump of full responsibility is the war against Iran. That, they’re blaming on the Jews. In a joint statement, four Democrats running for a Chicago-area congressional seat criticized Trump for dragging the United States “into an unnecessary and illegal regime change war fully backed by AIPAC” — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, an American lobbying group like any other. Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, a purported moderate and likely 2028 presidential candidate, asked, “So Netanyahu now decides when we go to war?” Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas alleged that “Israel put U.S. forces in harm’s way.”
The belief that secret, sinister forces from afar are in control of one’s country is a feature of the third world. To see such mental habits grow among American citizens, left and right, is a depressing development, one that does not bode well for our politics or our society.
The issue of our missing or killed scientists is growing more concerning still. While, at first, many wrote these concerns off as just another conspiracy theory, it's looking now like it may be more than that. On Sunday, the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Republican Representative James Comer (KY-01) appeared on the Fox & Friends weekend show to express his growing concern.
Rep. Comer said:
We're very concerned about this. This is a national security concern. This would suggest that something sinister may be happening. So we want to see what we can do and hopefully with our bully pulpit, we can maybe bring attention to this, and have anyone that knows of any information out there, have them contact Congress so we can help determine what's going on here, and prevent this from happening in the future.
"We've put a notice out to the Department of War, to the FBI, to NASA, to the Department of Energy, that we want to know everything that they know about what happened with these scientists, because those four agencies were predominantly the agencies that those 11 individuals were affiliated with. And we want to try to piece this together."
Comer plans to bring the leaders of these offices before Congress, but said he sent the letters first to allow them time to ensure their testimony would not compromise any potentially classified investigations.
The key here is the national security aspect. The people who have been killed or disappeared would all seem to be some of our foremost experts in their fields, which include physics, most notably astrophysics and planetary science, aerospace engineering, nuclear physics and fusion energy, nuclear weapons, and advanced materials research. These are people working on the cutting edge. Any unfriendly power, and there are a number of possible culprits, might seek to remove these people from the board, or to capture them to further their own research. It's a safe bet that's what Rep. Comer is concerned about.
Last Thursday, RedState's own Jennifer Van Laar brought us a comprehensive list of the deceased and missing scientists. Jennifer writes:
Almost all of the scientists involved either worked directly for the U.S. government or on government-funded programs related to nuclear energy, aerospace, or UFOs, working at places like Los Alamos National Laboratory, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and California Institute of Technology (Caltech).
This is becoming a matter of very real concern; there's an awful lot of smoke here for there not to be a fire in there somewhere.
The Trump administration is looking into reports that at least 10 American scientists, many of whom were researching UFOs or nuclear power, have either died or mysteriously disappeared since mid-2023.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Wednesday that she hadn’t spoken to the other officials about the growing deaths, but the White House would look into the troubling pattern.
Sometimes patterns aren't really there. Our brains are, after all, in large part big pattern-recognition systems, which is why we see dragons in the clouds on summer afternoons. But this is starting to grow worrisome. It's looking more and more like something suspicious is going on, that someone or someones are working at taking some of these top scientists out of the picture. Is it aliens? Almost certainly not. If something is going on, the trouble almost certainly lies much closer to home, and remember, we just had four years of wide-open borders and non-enforcement of immigration law, during which time any number of people from any number of unfriendly nations may have entered the United States.
There has been some movement in the Trump administration's investigation into the infamous Russia collusion affair. A new Trump ally has been appointed to lead the investigation into the origins of the claims against President Trump.
The Justice Department is turning to former Trump attorney Joeseph (sic) diGenova to spearhead a probe into ex-CIA Director John Brennan and others over the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, as the department reshuffles leadership of the sprawling inquiry.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has tapped diGenova to serve as counsel overseeing the matter, according to a New York Times report, putting a former Trump attorney in a key role in the high-profile probe. A federal grand jury seated in Miami has been impaneled since late last year.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
The non-reply isn't surprising, since this is an ongoing investigation by the DOJ.
This isn't Mr. DiGenova's first involvement in this.
DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who represented Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, has repeatedly accused Brennan of misconduct tied to the origins of the Russia probe—allegations that have not resulted in criminal charges.
He also said in a 2018 appearance on Fox News that Brennan colluded with the FBI and DOJ to frame Trump.
The former CIA Director, John Brennan, has repeatedly denied any involvement in fomenting any hoax, but even as this new appointment is taking place, federal investigators are dropping subpoenas hot and heavy on all Obama administration officials who may have been involved.
The origins of the Russia investigation have been the subject of ongoing scrutiny by Trump allies, who have argued that intelligence and law enforcement officials improperly launched the probe.
DiGenova’s appointment follows the ouster of Maria Medetis Long, a national security prosecutor in the South Florida U.S. attorney’s office. She had been overseeing the inquiry, including a false statements probe related to Brennan and broader conspiracy-related investigations.
As the investigation continues, federal investigators have issued subpoenas seeking information related to intelligence assessments of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
As of this writing there have been no arrests or indictments in the Russia collusion hoax investigation. There have been criminal referrals:
Attorney General Pam Bondi directed her staff Monday to act on the criminal referral from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard related to the alleged conspiracy to tie President Donald Trump to Russia, and the Department of Justice is now opening a grand jury investigation into the matter, Fox News Digital has learned.
Bondi personally ordered an unnamed federal prosecutor to initiate legal proceedings and the prosecutor is expected to present department evidence to a grand jury, which would allow the department to secure a potential indictment, according to a letter from Bondi reviewed by Fox News Digital and a source familiar with the investigation.
So far, though, no arrests, no indictments in this latest round. We should remember that, during the investigation by Special Counsel John Durham, there were three prosecutions: FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty to altering an email used in a FISA application, Michael Sussmann, an attorney who had worked on the campaigns of Bill Clinton, was charged with making false statements but was acquitted, and Igor Danchenko, the primary source of the infamous Steele dossier, was likewise acquitted on the false statement charge.
Relying on higher courts to correct the abusive actions of rogue judges is not an effective long-term strategy for Republicans.
The Trump administration scored a major legal victory against a rogue judge earlier this week. But the win raises a far greater issue that most Republicans would like to sweep under the rug.
The victory in question happened on Tuesday, when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals terminated contempt proceedings launched by Chief District Judge James Boasberg against government officials involved in the deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members. In her scathing opinion, Judge Neomi Rao excoriated the Obama-appointed Boasberg for his “clear abuse of discretion” and assuming an “improper jurisdiction antagonistic to the Executive Branch.”
While the ruling was undoubtedly a win for the president and his immigration agenda, it raises an important question Republicans don’t want voters asking. That is, why have they continued to allow Boasberg to abuse his authority with zero consequences up to this point?
After all, it’s not a new phenomenon that the anti-Trump Boasberg boasts a trackrecord of egregious conduct on the bench. Not just in his handling of cases involving the Trump administration, but in matters pertaining to Democrat lawfare against Trump and other Republicans.
It was Boasberg who played a key role in Jack Smith’s Arctic Frost probe, which ultimately became his elector lawfare campaign against the then-former president and his allies. As The Federalist previously reported, the Obama appointee signed off on efforts by Smith’s team to seize the phone records of GOP members of Congress and not inform them of such subpoenas.
Federalist Senior Legal Correspondent Margot Cleveland observed in her recent testimony before a Senate subcommittee that Smith’s team “apparently” didn’t inform Boasberg of who they were targeting with the subpoenas. She noted, however, that despite this purported stance, Boasberg has thus far declined to order Smith and his team to “show cause for why they should not be held in contempt for concealing that members of Congress were the subpoena targets.”
“This fact should not be ignored — if you are to believe Smith and the Administrative Office of the Courts’ testimony that Judge Boasberg did not know your identities, then it makes absolutely no sense that Boasberg would not enter a show cause order to hold Smith accountable for violating your rights, given Judge Boasberg’s nearly year-long crusade to hold a member of the Trump Administration in contempt,” Cleveland told the senators.
And yet, despite this trail of abuse on the bench, Republicans have done virtually nothing to punish Boasberg. In fact, when opportunities have arisen to do so, many elected GOPers have sided with Democrats to oppose them.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, introduced a bill amendment in January that sought to slash the budgets of the D.C. District Court (where Boasberg is based) and Court of Appeals by 20 percent. The measure would also have ensured that “[n]one of the funds made available” by the bill would “be obligated or expended for the salary and expenses” for Boasberg’s staff and that of Maryland District Judge Deborah Boardman, who gave a lenient sentence to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s attempted assassin — seemingly based on her affinity for “trans” ideology.
But rather than advance the measure, 46 House Republicans joined Democrats in defeating it.
The House GOP has also sat on articles of impeachment against Boasberg filed by Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas. Speaker Mike Johnson did not respond to The Federalist’s prior comment request on whether the House would initiate such proceedings against the Obama appointee.
Relying on higher courts to correct the abusive actions of rogue judges is not an excuse for Republicans to abdicate their responsibility to judicial oversight. Nor is it an effective long-term strategy that will prevent partisan actors like Boasberg from acting out in the future.
Only by exercising their constitutional authority over the federal courts can Republicans rein in the judicial activism subverting American governance. Until they find the courage to do so, the country will continue to be ruled by unelected lawyers in black robes.
