Trump rightly rips Supreme Court's nest of cowards over their latest ruling against electoral integrity

American Thinker 

In another inexplicable ruling from the Supreme Court, this travesty of justice was handed down yesterday.

According to the Washington Post:

The Supreme Court on Monday blocked the Trump administration from moving forward with unprecedented new restrictions on mail ballots for the pivotal midterm elections.

The ruling, a major defeat for President Donald Trump, leaves intact election procedures and prohibits changes that could have had significant impacts for millions of voters set to vote by mail in contests that will determine which party controls the House and Senate.

About one-third of voters used mail ballots in 2024.

In a brief order Monday evening, the majority did not explain its reasoning for leaving in place a lower court order blocking the administration’s plans. The majority wrote that the Trump administration was “unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” to the lower court order.

President Trump rightly ripped it, and the so-called justices who handed it down:

WASHINGTON — President Trump railed Tuesday against his three nominees to the Supreme Court after each of them voted to block new rules governing mail-in ballots from taking effect ahead of the November midterms.

“These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves,” Trump wrote about Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Because the implications of the zero-legal-reasoning ruling, which they didn't even try to offer an explanation of, other than the old Jim Comey line of "no reasonable prosecutor"  which has now become "unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge" is complete speculation, and complete drivel.

Trump rightly attributed it to what it really was, which was cowardice.

“This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years.”

Trump went on to claim that “certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats, and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America.”

Cowardice against the crazy left is probably a factor, and a second one is likely a bid to appease the Democrats, who have threatened to stack the Supreme Court with dozens of radical leftists to dilute down any semblance of rule of law as well as cancel out all of their votes in favor of whatever the DSA party elite dictate instead. We know they don't want that, which all by itself makes the case for a constitutional Amendment to fix the Supreme Court at one number. Reportedly, there has been a bill in Congress going around to try to make that happen, as it's obviously affecting the Supreme Court's rulings.

It's such a bad ruling -- going hand in hand with its ruling on birthright citizenship and baby farms, as well as a previous ruling on mail ballots that its implications have to be laid out.

They're basically saying that Trump isn't president and has no right to run the Postal Service as the elected executive. He can't run it, he has to let it be run the way Democrats before him ran it, and the hint of legal reasoning from Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that there isn't sufficient time to make changes disingenuously ignores that the states opposing this got their voting processes out early precisely to influence the Court's ruling their way, which they did.

Yet fraud is real and the Postal Service, which isn't a neutral player here, but a creature of the public employee unions who donate exclusively to Democrats, gets to have its hands on the ballots with the same status as professional ballot handlers but no bipartisan supervision or transparency, despite problems like these:

Let’s talk about the US mail. I wrote a thank you note in late June. Yes. An honest-to-God, handwritten thank you note. Put a stamp on it, put it in the mailbox, put up the little red flag. Next day, little red flag is down, mailbox is empty. I live in North Carolina,…

— Cleta Mitchell (@CletaMitchell) September 13, 2026

Postal Worker Allegedly Dumped at Least 30,000 Pieces of Mail in Vacant Parking Lots Instead of Delivering Them #Postalservice #U.S.PostalServicehttps://t.co/kVjyab7vt9

— Lady Ginger (@he2406) September 11, 2026

And I have no doubt that this open door to fraud is going to lead to more fraud in the next midterm.

The Supreme Court seems uniquely insensititve to Americans' falling confidence in elections, and is moving to block and counter any measure from the executive that will create confidence and more voting participation, in favor of the areas with the highest evidence of cheating and rigging.

In a way, these unelected officials seem to be against elections themselves. We voted for Trump because we wanted him to clean up the fraud and rigging we see again and again with U.S. elections, something that has made our country a global laughingstock and indeed has the very real consequences of our not being represented by people who are entitled to be in office. Why is it that any effort to get the change we voted for always gets shot down in favor of the corrupted establishment by this Court?

What's to be done? Trump will probably have to employ extended monitors on the Postal Service in the days before and after the election to watch the public employee union workers, extend a network of surveillance apparati against the ones whom there is a high likelihood of fraudulent activity, and advise Republicans to start playing the same games Democrats do with nursing homes, homeless NGOs, graveyards, illegally registered illegals, ballot harvestings, and empty apartment buildings and gas stations with 90 people supposedly living in one unit, same as Democrats already do. There's no way to stop the fraud through the postal service anymore, and what's more, any fraud commited once the counting is done six weeks after Election Day will always be waved through -- because the Court will refuse to hear the case -- so now the world has just gotten uglier. We want fair elections, we voted for the change we need to ensure fair elections and this miserable Court won't allow it, foolishly believing it can appease the Democrat monster which wants to stack the Court.

It will fail.

Cowards indeed. Every last one of them who voted for this should be investigated for evidence of corruption that can get us more serious justices as a result.

Podcast thread for Sept 16

 

Hard days disappear after 24 hours

Believe Them When They Tell You They Want You Dead

Townhall 

It’s a beautiful autumn, with the sun out and the economy getting better and relative peace and quiet in the country, and then you realize that a substantial number of the people we share this country with want to see us dead. No one wants to have that realization, and a lot of people will try to deny it. After all, it’s easier to deny unpleasant truths than to face them forthrightly. But we need to face this one forthrightly. We need to look at exactly what’s happening, confront it, and defeat it. Because if we don’t defeat it, they’re going to defeat us, and then they’re going to murder us. How do I know this? Well, there’s a thing called history that used to be taught in schools, but you can find out all about it through the magic of the Interwebs if you have any doubts about what I’m saying.

And you shouldn’t have any doubts about what I’m saying because it’s manifestly true. There are a lot of people who want us dead. They are just currently incapable of doing it. We need to keep things that way.

September 10 was the first anniversary of when some leftist pervert, likely with the foreknowledge of a bunch of his fellow leftist perverts, murdered Charlie Kirk for the crime of speaking freely about things they didn’t want said. And it wasn’t just any murder. It was a large-caliber round that blew apart his neck. The reaction of a normal human being to this is shock, disgust, and a desire for justice. That’s what made the reaction of so many seemingly normal people, and plenty of freaks, too, so disturbing.

They celebrated it. They were happy about it. They were glad he was shot to death while his family watched. And they want more of it. They want it to happen to you.

Now, most of them haven’t said that openly just yet — the part about wanting to kill you. Some certainly have. There’s always some college professor out there who wants to exterminate the white race or kill the kulaks or whatever. But there’s no reason to believe the other celebrants don’t share that view. It’s reasonable to assume that if you approve of something, you want more of it, and what was particularly troubling was how normal so many of the people celebrating this slaughter appeared.

Recommended

Yeah, there were the fatties, the commies, the perverts, the rainbow hairs, the furries, but also relatively normal-appearing people like the college student daughters of major executives, or feminine male-identifying types posting their best wishes for the “Kirkiversary.” Some of them even went out in public, like this one who actually baked a Kirk-killing cake. This girl, an undistinguished mid of the type who is human wallpaper in all our lives, took the time to assemble ingredients, mix them, bake them, decorate the resulting cake, and then took it out in public and allowed herself to be photographed, commemorating the murder of someone who thinks as you and I do. Oh, she said she was sorry after she was caught, and probably after Daddy told her he was cutting off all her money if she didn’t unscrew things before the blowback on the family got too intense. But still, she thought this was OK. And she thought it was OK because she was glad Charlie Kirk is dead, and if she’s glad Charlie Kirk is dead, it’s reasonable to assume she would like you dead, too.

You don’t feel comfortable doing this sort of transgressive thing unless you really believe it. That’s why, when they get caught and apologize, it’s fake. Don’t buy it, like the sissy invertebrates of the University of Utah College Republicans. Good Lord, what’s more useless than a Utah Republican whose name isn’t Mike Lee? Be angry. You have a right to be angry. You have a duty to be angry. So be angry and act accordingly.

Here’s a pro tip – when people tell you, directly or indirectly, that they want you dead, you should believe them. We were told for decades by the psychotic, pagan, Muslim fanatics that they wanted to kill us, and all the smart people responsible for our foreign policy told us, “No, that’s crazy talk; they don’t really mean it.” This was while terrorists around the globe were killing Americans, but even after terrorists came and killed nearly 3,000 Americans here on our soil, you still have people denying the obvious. It’s obvious because the killers say so. They’re not hiding it. In fact, they like rubbing it in our faces and calling us “Islamophobic” when we believe them.

They want us dead. Are you man enough to believe them when they tell you that? Or would you rather believe everything is sunshine and hugs?

When senior Democrat politicians giggle like schoolgirls as the names of Americans butchered by 7th-century desert cultists are read at memorial services, you can safely assume that they would be happy if your name were added to that roster. And given power, they would add it to the roster of the dead. Again, how do I know? Again, history, because history shows that when Muslim fanatics or communists get power, they kill everybody they had been saying they were going to kill all along. They even kill each other. The communists helped Khomeini launch his primitive revolution in Iran, and the first thing he did when he took over was shoot the communists. Sure, even a broken clock is right twice a day, but you get my point.

Our enemies are vicious, and given the opportunity, they will be even more vicious. Right now, they’re only vicious in the manner of cheesy little mean girls. They say nasty things about you on social media. They call you racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and whatever other -phobic or -ist label somebody just invented — a couple of weeks ago, the socialists got together, and one of the things they started complaining about was how exercise constitutes “fat genocide,” so fatist is apparently a thing now.

But all they can do — for now — is talk. All they can do is try to convince us to submit. Sadly, too many of us comply. For some bizarre reason, a substantial number of Americans allow themselves to be browbeaten into serfdom. A country that was born because we gave the middle finger to people who tried to tell us what to do and tried to take our guns now has a substantial part of the population eager to jump into handmaiden gear at the behest of the local imam and give up any means of protecting ourselves from tyranny. But that last part makes sense, since they are the tyranny that we have our guns as a means of protecting ourselves from.

As with so many things, it really does come down to guns. Guns represent a counterbalance to the governmental monopoly on violence that exists in every single tyranny. The fact that we are armed, and the fact that we are ornery enough to use our freedom steel in the event that the aspiring tyrants so substantially undermine the rights granted to us by our Creator, we have no alternative, is what keeps us free. Now, we’re a long way from that. We still have an election system that mostly functions, and a court system that intermittently functions, but guns in our hands, along with the courage and capacity to use them, are our insurance against a time when the people who care nothing about our freedom except to squash it take real power.

I’ve written extensively in my Kelly Turnbull books and my oral history novel about a second American Civil War on what would happen if America had a constitutional crisis followed by conflict. Civil wars are the least civil of wars. I served in the ruins of one, trying to keep the opposing parties from butchering each other further. Villages of different ethnicities that had existed for centuries a mile or two apart were intent on slaughtering each other. That’s what civil war means. And giggling girls doing TikTok dances about people like us being shot through the neck gin up a level of hatred they have no conception of. They’ve always lived in peace, peace created, imposed, and defended by the very same people they hate. It has never occurred to them that we might hate them back, and when that happens, it’s going to get ugly.

That is why we have to win through the political process. We have to beat these guys at the ballot box and in the culture. It’s all hands on deck to save America, and, collaterally, to save the very same people who would be happy to see us die. Because the alternative is very, very ugly, and it’s an ugliness they fueled with their hate.

🎭 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. 

Immigration Law Enforcement Is Only Deadly Because Of Democrats And The Media

The Federalist 

Whenever reading some tragic story related to immigration in the dying news media, it’s always important to remember one thing: This is, in no small part, their fault.

The Washington Post this week has a gruesome report on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent who allegedly shot himself after being told by his superiors that he was being terminated. Naturally, the Post frames the affair as an avoidable problem caused by the Trump administration having even hired the agent at all.

Citing unnamed “former officials” and others, the report said the agent, identified as 38-year-old Joseph Moore, was hired “so quickly that many new officers were put on the streets before being adequately vetted” and that “his death might have never happened if the agency had adequately vetted him.”

Moore was hired as a deportation officer, meaning his job was to assist in facilitating the removal of the millions of aliens who are in this country illegally, thanks to Democrats (and even still some Republicans) who unlawfully gave them entry. And while many of those aliens have been here, they’ve raped, robbed, and murdered countless Americans, stories you will essentially never see in The Washington Post or the rest of the dying media.

Their interest isn’t in upholding immigration law enforcement. It’s in stopping it, so that yet more foreigners can be imported, loaded up with welfare, and then vote Democrat. Or, at minimum, get counted in the census in Democrat territory in time for congressional apportionment.

Voters made a choice in the last election to reverse our immigration situation. A problem of this magnitude requires a solution of equal size. That’s why this administration has dumped money into ICE and U.S. Border Patrol, expanding the number of agents and pulling every single power lever it has to complete the job. Anyone could have foreseen that the operation would be unpleasant, maybe even ugly. It was the only option.

It’s unfortunate that some people have been hurt in the process, but there’s no one to blame but the people who got us here. That includes the Post and the dying media. They had nothing to say about the last administration opening up the southern border and allowing in millions upon millions of destitute foreigners, who had no guarantee that they would be permitted to stay indefinitely.

That anyone has ever ended up dead or even mildly inconvenienced by this administration’s efforts to enforce immigration law, the very thing voters demanded in 2024, is the direct fault of Democrats and the dying media who enable them. They did this. Joseph Moore is dead because of them.

The Washington Post can keep covering these tragedies if it must. They’re helpful reminders of who’s to blame for the horrifying immigration mess we’re in.

Carney looks to open Canada’s 4 largest airports to private investment

KUGLUKTUK, NVT. -- Prime Minister Mark Carney says the federal government is seeking private investment to run Canada’s four major airports: Toronto-Pearson, Montreal-Trudeau, Calgary and Vancouver.

“Following best practice in other countries, the government of Canada will retain ownership of the underlying land and assets, but we will unlock their true value by bringing in new capital and expertise to their operations and their growth,” Carney said during his keynote speech at the Canada Investment Summit on Tuesday in Toronto.

The federal government has been actively exploring the privatization and alternative ownership models of its major airports, which currently run under a not-for-profit model where local airport authorities manage federally owned land via long-term leases.

In both the 2025 federal budget and this spring’s economic statement, the federal government signalled its intent to pursue alternative ownership models.

Speaking to the summit, Carney insists private investment will mean a “better passenger experience” and reinvestment of that capital will go into infrastructure that “Canada needs for the next generation.”

“Canadian pension funds already successfully invest and manage airports around the world. It’s time to bring that same expertise back home to directly benefit Canadians,” Carney later added.

Carney’s inaugural Canada Investment Summit got underway in Toronto on Monday, with the goal of courting $1 trillion in investment over the next five years for major projects.

Airports were not among the more than 160 projects in the summit’s deal book.

In a question-and-answer session after his speech, Carney emphasized that the federal government looked at other countries’ approaches before deciding on maintaining land ownership.

“We’re selling a concession, not privatizing the airport,” he said, later adding that Canada is “getting the benefit of being late to this” and will be applying lessons from other countries.

Why open airports to private investment now?

The federal government under former prime minister Justin Trudeau previously examined the privatization of eight Canadian airports but opted against it due to mixed stakeholder feedback.

Asked by reporters in Toronto why now is the right moment to seek private investment, Carney said “we are living in different times.”

“This will be something that will take on increased significance in national broadband, including in the Arctic, and including connections between Europe and Asia, which is fundamentally strategic for this country,” Carney said.

The prime minister also said consultations on the issue will be happening “in the coming weeks” and security standards will remain with the regulators.

In an interview with CTV’s chief political correspondent Vassy Kapelos on Tuesday in Toronto at the summit, B.C. Premier David Eby said he is “not opposed to the prime minister talking about concessions related to the airports,” but is interested to hear more details.

“The piece that I heard in his announcement this morning was about supporting regional airports, and that’s something that really needs to happen in British Columbia,” Eby said. “I’m sure my colleagues across Canada feel the same way.”

A sign for Toronto Pearson International Airport is pictured in Mississauga, Ont., on Thursday, April 20, 2023.

Labour groups oppose airport privatization

Prior to the summit, the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) released a report saying privatizing Canadian airports could lead to higher costs for travellers, increased pressure on airport workers and the loss of long-term public value.

In a new statement Tuesday, CLC secretary-treasurer Lily Chang warned private investment “will cost Canadians.”

“In the middle of a trade war, handing profitable public infrastructure over to private investors is exactly the wrong move,” the statement reads in part. “If the goal is to make Canada stronger and more secure, we should be investing in the assets we depend on, keeping their value here at home.”

The Unifor Aviation Council of Canada, meanwhile, protested outside the investment summit on Monday to push back against airport privatization.

“Outsourcing and contract flipping already drive down wages, benefits and working conditions, further public sell-offs can only make this crisis worse for airport workers,” Unifor National president Lana Payne said in a press release.

“We have seen over and over again how the sell-off of public infrastructure leaves us more vulnerable economically. If there was ever a time to hold the line and build more public infrastructure, it is now.”

Asked by a reporter on Tuesday whether he supports the government’s plan to open the airports to private investment, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said his party’s “mission is to save (consumers) money on air travel.”

“We want to know the details of this plan and want to see how it’s going to save money for Canadians,” he said. “Because if it doesn’t save money, then why do it?”

“We want to make sure that it doesn’t end up being sweetheart deals for corporate power brokers and Liberal insiders at the expense of hardworking Canadians who are already struggling to put food on their table,” he added. “So, we’ll wait for the details.”

 Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that the federal government will seek private investment to operate Canada’s four largest airports: Toronto Pearson, Vancouver International, Montreal-Trudeau, and Calgary International. 

The government plans to issue long-term concessions for airport operations while retaining ownership of the underlying land and assets. 

Carney stated this move aims to raise tens of billions of dollars in capital, which will be reinvested into regional and remote airports as well as national infrastructure like broadband networks. 

Operational Model: Private investors will manage operations and growth, bringing new expertise and capital, while the government keeps a stake via the Canada Strong Fund. 

Rationale: Carney cited "different times" and global best practices, arguing that leveraging private efficiency will improve the passenger experience and fund strategic connectivity between Europe and Asia. 

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/politics/2026/09/15/carney-looks-to-open-canadas-4-largest-airports-to-private-investment/

Secretary of State Rubio Announces New Visa Restrictions

Following the previous discussion with leaders from South Africa, President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio have now announced visa restrictions for the nation of South Africa.

Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, authorizes the Secretary of State to render inadmissible any alien whose entry into the Unites States “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

STATE DEPT – As stated in President Trump’s Executive Order (EO) 14204, “Addressing Egregious Actions of the Republic of South Africa,” the United States remains gravely concerned about racially motivated crime and government-sponsored discrimination occurring against the Afrikaners and other minority populations in South Africa, including race-based discriminatory legislation, threats of land expropriation without compensation, and incitement of racial violence through dehumanizing chants and slogans.

The South African government has not adequately addressed the previously laid out concerns and so today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy under Section 212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act targeting foreign nationals who are responsible for, or complicit in, the enactment or implementation of laws or policies that enable uncompensated land seizures, race-based discrimination, and/or the incitement of imminent violence against members of minority ethnic or racial groups in South Africa. The United States will not allow such behavior to go unchecked. These actions directly undermine peace, economic stability, and the rule of law, and they are incompatible with the pillars of America’s foreign policy.

We once again strongly urge the South African government to quickly address these egregious actions. {Source}