Fight Night at 1600: The Outrage Industry Meets the Octagon

Townhall 

UFC Freedom 250 lands on the South Lawn of the White House this Sunday. A 92-foot steel structure called 'The Claw' frames the octagon. Up to 85,000 free tickets are going to the public, timed to the nation's 250th anniversary and the president's 80th birthday. Somewhere in the permanent Washington grievance machine, a small army of professionals is absolutely losing their minds.

I've watched combat sports most of my life. I trained in Tae Kwon Do, Brazilian jiu-jitsu, Muay Thai, and judo. I coached football and rugby. I know what it takes to step into a ring or onto a field. I also know what it looks like when people who've never done either explain why physical courage is somehow offensive. What we're witnessing this week is the latter.

A federal lawsuit filed on Saturday by something called the Public Integrity Project seeks to halt the event on behalf of two Virginia residents claiming "aesthetic harms." Their lawyer called it "a private, commercial, corrupt use of our most sacred national monuments for private gain." The UFC isn't charging admission. The tickets are free. The White House correctly described the lawsuit as "obstructionist, baseless, and dilatory." That's three words. I'd have used all three. But do carry on.

Here's some historical context the Outrage Industrial Complex would prefer you skip. Teddy Roosevelt installed the first tennis court on the South Lawnand held boxing matches inside the White House itself, until a sparring session in 1905 cost him the sight in his left eye. Eisenhower put in a putting green. George H.W. Bush added a horseshoe pit. Nixon bowled. Obama converted the tennis court to a basketball court in 2009 and celebrated his 50th birthday there with LeBron James, Chris Paul, and Magic Johnson. Nobody filed a lawsuit over the free throw lines.

Biden, for his part, hosted a Pride Month event in June 2023 during which transgender activist Rose Montoya went topless on the South Lawn - an incident the White House itself called "inappropriate and disrespectful." The following year, Biden issued a 600-word formal proclamation for Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter Sunday 2024 and a two-sentence statement for Easter. The same people now filing injunctions about an octagon thought the people's house was just fine for all of that. Every president uses the White House as a reflection of his values. Trump's values include two trained athletes stepping into a cage and settling things honestly. I can think of worse traditions.

Trump's relationship with Dana White isn't a recent political convenience. It goes back to around 2000, when the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City was one of the few venues in the country willing to host UFC events, when the sport was still considered too raw for polite company. Trump didn't need the MMA crowd then. He just liked the fights. That's what an actual friendship looks like, as opposed to the kind that disappears when the polling numbers shift.

The sport they're so outraged by reaches an estimated 700 million fans worldwide, with a fanbase 40% female and with deep roots in Brazil, Russia, and Asia Pacific - every demographic the left claims to champion. The fighters who make it to that level came up through years of preparation and discipline, not entitlement. Thomas Sowell spent a career explaining that outcomes track behavior, not grievance. The octagon proves it every weekend.

The predictable counterargument is that the White House grounds are too sacred for spectacle. Fine. I'll accept that framing the moment the same people apply it consistently. They didn't apply it to drag brunches, Pride Month light shows on the North Portico, or Karine Jean-Pierre's daily press briefings. The same columnists who praised Obama for hosting championship athletes on the South Lawn are appalled that Trump is hosting championship fighters. The sport is different. The crowd is different. Selective sanctimony isn't principle. It's Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Trump loves the fights. He loves big events. He loves the people who show up for them. He's hosting this one for the public, free of charge, on his country's 250th birthday. The reflex to litigate that - to find the procedural angle, to protect 'our most sacred monuments' from MMA while ignoring what actually happened on this same lawn two summers ago - isn't principle. It's hatred wearing a press release.

The issue isn't a cage on the South Lawn. The issue is a political class that has decided its highest calling is preventing this president from doing anything - hosting fights, securing the border, auditing federal agencies - that might produce genuine enthusiasm from actual Americans. They're not protecting the White House. They're protecting their monopoly by defining what's acceptable inside it.

At the Sorbonne in Paris in April 1910, Roosevelt told the audience that the credit belongs to the man in the arena - the one whose face is marked by dust and sweat and blood - not the critic in the stands. On Sunday night, the arena comes to the White House. The critics will be in court. I know what I will be watching.

Podcast thread for June 10

 

'sighs'.

Do Democrats want a Summer of Love II?

American Thinker 

The 2020 Summer of Love caused multiple deaths, far more injuries, and $2 billion in property damage, mostly in blue cities. “Protesters,” actually leftist terrorists, knew better than to try that in a small—red--town, as Jason Aldean eventually sang. 

Graphic: X Post

Flush with their success torching cities Democrat politicians wanted torched, a small group of Antifa dimwits took their street theater to the annual Sturgis, SD motorcycle rally. One of them was stupid enough to kick a parked motorcycle. While the police surrounded the Antifa terrorists and hustled them out of town, the terrified terrorists suddenly realized they were surrounded by thousands of bikers who would have been delighted to turn them into greasy spots on the pavement. They were equally suddenly fond of the police. Fortunately for them, folks who travel to Sturgis for the Rally are very polite and support the police. Antifa has not attempted a repeat performance.

However, at The New York Post, Noah Rothman reports Democrats, who are absolutely not the party of violence—ask them, they’ll tell you—appear to be planning “Summer of Love II,” which promises to be bigger and more destructive than the original. 

In a video message to constituents last week, Sen. Andy Kim agonized over the “chaos in the streets that ICE has unleashed” on the city of Newark, NJ. The Garden State Democrat pledged to “do everything I can to try to stop this chaos.”

What nonsense. If anything, the senator and his fellow Democrats have done everything in their power to inflame passions and drive violent agitators onto those very streets — putting the safety of civilians and law enforcement alike in jeopardy.

Classic Democrat projection. Accuse others of what you’re doing. All Kim need do is keep the terrorists off the streets—immediate arrests, rapid prosecutions, and long sentences would help--and ICE agents would go quietly about their business at the Delaney facility. No chaos, no injuries, no arrests.

The drug-induced suicide of George Floyd was the excuse for the first SoL. Here’s one for this summer:

“It’s a concentration camp, and they are disappearing people,” said one deranged union organizer of the Newark-based Delaney Hall detention facility, where the Trump administration is housing immigration deportation targets. Absurd though that claim is, it mirrors assertions from Democratic lawmakers that the conditions in that facility are “inhumane,” even though they insist they’ve been barred from witnessing them. 

But Democrats have not been denied access to the facility. 

And in their more sincere moments, they concede that detainees mostly complain that “there is no movement” of their cases through the courts. That’s a far cry from the activists’ allegations that detainees are being denied proper nutrition and medical care. But the capital “C” version of this conspiracy theory has proven sufficiently radicalizing.

They have sincere moments? They do have these:

Mounted police on horseback charged into the crowd, briefly dispersing the demonstration before it regrouped down the block. There, rioters set plywood, trash, tires, and plastic traffic drums alight. 

As Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche proved with some graphic photo evidence that officers were beaten and even bitten by the rioters. 

We’ve known for some time that leftist political violence is anything but a local, grassroots phenomenon. “Protests” like the Newark attack are manned by out-of-state professional terrorists, and are lavishly financed and organized by national NGOs and other private organizations and wealthy individuals. The DOJ has not yet gone after these insurrectionists, but it appears they’re working on it. Rothman concludes:

The events unfolding on the streets of Newark today, and what may come next, will be hauntingly familiar to readers of “Blood & Progress” [Rothman’s new book]. Democrats have made a fetish of violence, seeing in it an excessive but useful manifestation of political enthusiasm, even as they tell themselves the left doesn’t have a violence problem. 

In a broader sense, the SoL and a potential SoL II are the Cloward-Piven Strategy. Invented in 1966 by two radical academics, the basic idea is to create chaos, to so overwhelm existing, constitutional systems, that Americans will accept lunatic leftist “solutions” they would never consider under less chaotic conditions. Looting, rioting, assault, destruction of property, even murder and political assassination, are part of that strategy, which we see all around us. Convince Americans the police can’t or won’t do their jobs, the courts are corrupt and failing, Congress won't legislate, government is unwilling or unable to protect Normal Americans, and they just might go Democrat.

Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for Normal Americans, should Democrats go too far in going too far, Normal Americans won’t go Democrat. They’ll go Sturgis, only this time, without the police to protect them. The police will probably join in.

🎭 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. 

FISA (702) is NOT President Trump’s Problem to Solve

Conservative Treehouse 

After reading the umpteenth article [example here] from congressional voices talking about what President Trump needs to do in order for the legislative branch to reauthorize FISA (702), it’s worth reminding everyone how we accept goofy just because goofy has become the norm.

The FISA (702) issue belongs entirely to the legislative branch. It is their work product. It is their enacted law, albeit with an expiration date.  The executive branch has nothing to do with the law.  If congress doesn’t reauthorize a law they have enacted, that’s on the legislative branch – not the executive branch.

The legislative branch enacted a law; it could be unconstitutional and has never been tested in the Supreme Court.  However, it is their law.  If the same legislative branch allows the law to expire, that’s entirely their choice.  The executive branch can do nothing to reauthorize a law that is entirely in the purview of the legislative branch.

President Trump should not accept the legislative branch dysfunction as if it is his problem to solve.  It’s not his monkey.

Somehow the baseline of responsibility has been permitted to shift from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch, and the media are apparently clueless about how the separation of powers actually functions.  Even if the Executive Branch wanted to reauthorize it, they can’t.

Somewhere in our modern discussions of things, we have lost sight of the roles and responsibilities within government.

As to the argument of whether or not to reauthorize it, personally I hope congress lets the FISA (702) legislation expire.  However, that’s a distinctly moot point when overlaid against who has responsibility for it.

It’s time to teach civics again, and our nation would be well served if the people around President Trump simply reminded the media and by extension the American people, that FISA is a congressional responsibility.  If they don’t want to reauthorize the law they enacted, then fine; but the issue is all theirs.

The problem of FISA (702) being carried out is multifaceted and complicated.  However, the origin of the law and or extension therein, is entirely the responsibility of the Legislative Branch.  It really is that simple.

WASHINGTON DC – […] Democrats have coalesced behind an ultimatum: They won’t support a reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as long as Bill Pulte, an ally of President Donald Trump with no national security experience, remains acting director of national intelligence. The White House is standing by Pulte, at least publicly, while accusing Democrats of holding the spy power “hostage” and putting the country’s “national security at risk.” (read more)

Here Are The Biggest Outstanding Supreme Court Cases To Keep An Eye Out For

Here are the biggest remaining cases to keep an eye out for as the high court finishes its term.

The Federalist

Americans across the country are gearing up to celebrate the country’s 250th birthday. But before that happens, the U.S. Supreme Court will release several high-profile decisions of great constitutional importance.

From presidents’ power over so-called “independent agencies” to the constitutionality of “birthplace citizenship,” here are the biggest remaining cases to keep an eye out for as the high court finishes its 2025 term.

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission

This case stems from a 2022 lawsuit brought by the National Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees and then-Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) over a provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). They alleged that the provision — which limits coordinated spending campaign between political parties and candidates — violates the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court will determine whether the FECA limits violate the First Amendment “either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with ‘party coordinated communications,’” according to Oyez.

[Campaign Finance And The First Amendment At SCOTUS]

Trump v. Slaughter

This case centers around President Trump’s March 2025 firing of Democrat Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

While granting the Trump administration’s request to temporarily pause a lower court blockade on Slaughter’s removal, the high court also agreed to take up and address whether existing statutory restrictions on the president’s ability to remove members of so-called “independent agencies” like the FTC violate existing separation of powers. The justices also notably indicated they will decide whether to overturn the precedent established in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935).

As The Federalist previously reported, Humphrey’s Executor “helped birth what has now become known as the administrative state,” the de-facto “fourth branch of government” comprised of “independent agencies” and other federal departments that has “effectively been allowed to operate outside of the confines of the Constitution for decades.”

[Poised To Recognize That Presidents Run The Executive Branch]

Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

These cases deal with the legality of state laws passed by Idaho (Little v. Hecox) and West Virginia (West Virginia v. B.P.J.) that protect women’s sports from trans-identifying males. Attorneys, Republican attorneys general, and female athletes have all highlighted how males’ distinct biological advantage over women puts them at a competitive advantage over female athletes and imposes physical risks to their safety.

The justices will address the question of whether these statutes violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, or, in the West Virginia case, Title IX.

[SCOTUS Signals Willingness To Protect Women’s Sports]

Trump v. Cook

This case deals with President Trump’s August 2025 removal of Democrat Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. The president fired Cook due to allegations that she committed mortgage fraud prior to her time at the agency.

Following a lower court blockade, the administration asked the Supreme Court to pause such actions so that Cook could be removed from her position while litigation on the matter continued. In agreeing to take up the case, the high court deferred on ruling on the government’s request until after it heard oral arguments on the issue, which were held in January.

[Mixed Signals On Trump’s Removal Of Federal Reserve Member]

Wolford v. Lopez

This case came to fruition in 2023, when a coalition of Hawaii residents and a firearms organization challenged the Aloha State’s “vampire rule” restricting citizens with a concealed carry permit from carrying on private property open to the public unless they receive authorization to do so from the property owner, lessee, or manager. The plaintiffs argued that the law infringes on their Second Amendment rights.

The justices will decide whether Hawaii “may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.”

[SCOTUS Scolds Hawaii Over Americans’ 2nd Amendment Rights]

U.S. v. Hemani

This case came about after FBI agents conducted a search on Texas resident Ali Danial Hemani’s home on suspicions that he held ties to a foreign terrorist group. While carrying out the search, authorities found that Hemani was in possession of a pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine.

Hemani reportedly admitted to being a regular marijuana user and was subsequently charged under a provision (18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(3)) of the 1968 Gun Control Act that prohibits a person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm. Hemani challenged the provision’s legality, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights.

Following litigation in the lower courts, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and determine whether the statute violates the Second Amendment as applied to Hemani.

[Gun Restriction Takes Center Stage At SCOTUS]

Watson v. Republican National Committee

This case deals with a 2024 lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee and the Mississippi GOP against a Mississippi election law. The plaintiffs specifically contested that a state law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be accepted up to five days after Election Day violates existing federal laws establishing an election day for federal contests.

The justices will decide whether these federal statutes preempt states like Mississippi from enacting such laws.

[Skepticism About States Accepting Mail-In Ballots After Election Day]

Mullin v. Alt Otro Lado

This case centers around a previously used border policy called “metering,” which involves U.S. immigration officials turning away asylum seekers before they entered America. The left-wing immigration group Al Otro Lado and more than a dozen asylum seekers challenged the policy, arguing that the 1990 Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits an individual who “arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum status and undergo examination from U.S. border officials.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with challengers by ruling that “the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ encompasses those who encounter officials at the border, whichever side of the border they are standing on.” The Supreme Court will determine whether “an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S. Mexico border ‘arrives in the United States’ within the meaning of [the INA’s] provisions.”

[Supreme Court Weighs Asylum Policy Critical To Combatting Border Surges]

Trump v. Barbara

This case deals with President Trump’s January 2025 executive order tackling so-called “birthplace citizenship,” which centers on the idea that the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil are automatically granted American citizenship. Legal specialists and court observers have regularly highlighted the doctrine’s legal and practical absurdity.

The president’s directive specified that “It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship” to individuals who fit these criteria.

The justices will determine whether Trump’s order “complies on its face with the [14th Amendment’s] Citizenship Clause and with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a), which codifies that Clause.”

[SCOTUS Upholds ‘Birthright Citizenship,’ At Its Own Peril]

Mullin v. Doe and Trump v. Miot

These cases center around President Trump’s revocation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for various groups of foreign nationals residing in the United States under the TPS program. Under federal law, the executive branch may use the program to offer temporary residency to foreign nationals from countries experiencing natural disasters, violent conflicts, and other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

As The Federalist previously reported, the challengers argued that the statutory provisions governing TPS “do not bar courts from reviewing an administration’s actions on the program and that the government is required to undertake certain steps (ex. consultation and assessment of a country’s conditions) before implementing such policies.” The Trump administration argued the opposite — that the provisions bar federal courts from reviewing the executive’s TPS designations.

'Not Above the Law': Vance Smacks Walz, Ellison With DOJ Criminal Fraud Referral

RedState 

The epic scale of the social services fraud in Gov. Tim Walz’s Minnesota has been under the microscope for months, and now the vice president of the United States, JD Vance, who was appointed by President Trump to head up the Task Force to Eliminate Fraud in March, is formally referring Gov. Jazz Hands and the Gopher State’s leftist attorney general, Keith Ellison, to the Department of Justice for a criminal fraud investigation.

The VP announced the referral on social media on Tuesday:

The move comes following the release of a bombshell House Oversight Committee report on Monday. RedState’s Ben Smith brought you the story:

The report, titled "The Cost of Doing Nothing: How Tim Walz and Keith Ellison Fueled Minnesota's Fraud Explosion," concludes that Walz and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison were aware of credible, systemic fraud in federally funded social programs as early as 2019 and did nothing. Their reasons for inaction weren't legal barriers. They were fear of lawsuits, fear of being called racist, and fear of upsetting the politically active Somali community in Minneapolis, a constituency both men depend on politically. The cost was an estimated $300 million in federal child nutrition funds lost, and potentially $9 billion in Medicaid-related spending lost or placed at serious risk.

Vance gave a hat tip to the committee in his announcement:

“Minnesota state officials are not above the law, and if they facilitated fraud, lied under oath about what they knew, or harassed and intimated whistleblowers, they must face justice,” Vance wrote on X, adding that his referral was prompted by a letter and a report from the Republican-led House Oversight Committee.

The response from Walz and Ellison was exactly what you’d expect from this pair of (allegedly) deeply corrupt left-wingers: Who, me?

Teddy Tschann, a spokesperson for Walz, pointed to the governor’s testimony to the Oversight Committee in March and added, “This committee has proven time and time again to be nothing more than a joke.”

In a statement to NBC News, Ellison said the allegations were “unfounded” and a “political stunt.”

“It is deeply troubling to see official powers and public resources diverted away from serving the people and instead aimed at pursuing political adversaries,” Ellison said. “That is not what government is for, and it diminishes public trust in our institutions.”

Oh sure, you can trust this guy:

The DOJ is already investigating Walz for allegedly impeding federal immigration enforcement. They have not responded to Vance’s new referral as of this writing, but if they take it up, we can hope for more than strongly worded letters — hopefully, we’ll see some indictments.

Walz, Ellison, and Co. are long overdue for some accountability for what they let happen in their state.

DHS Chief Mullin Crushes New Jersey Gov's Hot Take on Newark ICE Facility

RedState 

Anti-ICE radicals have been creating chaos at the Delaney Hall ICE facility in Newark, New Jersey, for more than two weeks. 

Democratic New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill helped to whip up the situation when she showed up at one of the protests in May and tried to get into the facility. But she doesn't have any federal oversight rights. Members of Congress, who do have an oversight right, have been allowed in. 

Sherill was later allowed, but still threw a fit. 

After being denied access for weeks, I was finally allowed into Delaney Hall – but what I received was a closely controlled and limited tour of the facility. That is unacceptable. 

I was not allowed to meet or speak directly with the detainees, which continues to raise serious questions about the real conditions of the facility and the treatment of those held there. I will continue to push to speak with the detainees directly. They deserve to be heard and the public deserves answers.

She said she would continue to advocate for the facility's closure.

That's when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) head Markwayne Mullin replied and just crushed her hot take, turning the tables on her claims. 

I’m not surprised you would say something like this, @GovSherrillNJ

On June 8th, I personally granted you access to the facility as an act of good faith— despite you having exactly ZERO federal oversight authority. Of course, you’re still trying to turn Delaney Hall into a political football for the radical left. 

You were told BEFORE you went in you would not have the ability to speak to detainees. This is a federal facility, Governor. You are NOT federally elected. 

I suggest you and your health inspectors spend more time at your New Jersey state detention facilities. Delaney Hall has 2x more medical personnel per detainee than NJ state prison, and at least 2x as much square footage. Detainees are also 2x more likely to die in NJ state custody.

Mullin continued, telling Sherrill she should focus on her own backyard and constituents. 

Governor Sherrill won’t tell you: New Jersey state prisons face systemic health code violations. Over 8,000 grievances are filed annually by inmates.  

Northern State Prison: untreated flooding, sewage and wastewater sewage, and lack of temperature control.  

Garden State Youth Correctional Facility: received citations for filthy conditions with standing water and rodent infestations. 

New Jersey State Prison: contaminated site surrounded by six other toxic sites within half a mile.  Sick call requests also face major delayed response times in NJ state prisons.  

I’d encourage @GovSherrillNJ to focus on her own backyard, and put the safety of her own constituents above illegal aliens.

Boom, game, set, and match to Mullin. Where is Sherill, looking into the situation in her own state, for her own citizens? 

As we've noted, Border Czar Tom Homan and Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02) both visited and said things were in good condition. Homan said he sat and ate with the detainees. 

On top of that, there's a new report that on May 28, state health inspectors inspected the facility’s kitchens and food storage areas and found the food service areas to be “satisfactory." 

So Democrats like Sherrill can keep trying, but it's not flying.