Category: Crap For Brains

Obama Judge Goes Full Theater Kid, Declares It ‘Unconstitutional’ for Trump to Pull Security Clearances

As lower and district court judges continue to one-up each other with absurd usurpations of clearly stated executive authority, another contender has entered the ring.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled on Friday night that the President of the United States does not have the power to pull government security clearances from Perkins Coie, a private law firm. Yeah, that would be the same Perkins Coie that worked with Democrats to gin up the Russian collusion hoax. 

In her order, Howell decided that quoting Shakespeare was appropriate. I guess our judiciary is full of theater kids.

“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,’” Howell wrote in the 102-page order on Friday. 

Howell alleges that the Trump administration violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, with her basic argument being that the executive order in question amounted to illegal coercion. In arguably politicized fashion, she went on to express animosity toward the law firms that cut deals with the administration to keep their clearances.

All of this will undoubtedly and justifiably seem ridiculous to onlookers, regardless of what legal arguments may or may not actually exist. Control over security clearances is a vested power in the executive branch, and if the president decides he doesn’t want a law firm that literally targeted him on behalf of Hillary Clinton to have access to classified materials within his administration, one would think he should be able to do so.

Continue reading “”

I like to see the left get a dose of their own medicine

Reaping What You Sow: AOC Townhall Descends Into Chaos As Protester Shrieks, ‘You’re a Liar!’

The Democrats love chaos and unhinged protests—except when it’s directed against them. But sometimes, the chickens come home to roost, and NY Dem Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez found that out the hard way as she was heckled and shouted down at her town hall Friday night.

Remember: no matter how woke you are, there’s always someone even woker:

Not surprisingly, it was a protester who had her knickers in a twist about the supposed Palestinian “genocide,” but didn’t have a word to say about the savage October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel where terrorists killed and raped over 1,200 innocents and took hundreds hostage. That seems to be OK in some of these people’s minds.

A hysterical protester yelling about the “genocide” in Gaza interrupted a district town hall event being held by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., shortly after it began on Friday night.

As Ocasio-Cortez first began speaking, she pulled up a PowerPoint presentation for the night’s event. She was then interrupted before even getting through her first slide discussing the Trump administration’s budget cuts, including alleged cuts to local healthcare systems.

“I am a healthcare worker and I want to know what you’re doing about the genocide in Gaza!” the protester started shouting at the congresswoman.

The female protester epitomized the unhinged leftists that we’re getting all too used to seeing:

“Shame on you, you’re a liar. You’re a liar!” the woman screamed as others began to boo at her.

“Shame on you, I used to support you,” the woman shouted as she exited. “You’re a war criminal! War criminal! War Criminal!”

The intellectually challenged congresswoman is many things, mainly an anti-American values provocateur, but even I, as a harsh critic, don’t think she fits the bill of “war criminal.”

This is the world that Democrats have created, though—they’ve celebrated far-left “defiance” and radical protests and unhinged diatribes… It’s actually kind of beautiful when it comes back to haunt them.

Enjoy it, AOC, this is your world.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t done, of course, she had more—and it may come back to haunt her. She taunted Border Czar Tom Homan, which in my view is not a particularly smart thing to do:

“Come for me,” she shouted out to the man my colleague Ward Clark likes to call “The Hammer.” She may well get her wish, but I don’t think it will go well for her.

First Circuit Rules in Favor of Massachusetts Assault Weapons and Magazine Ban

A federal appeals court determined Massachusetts’ ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines aligns with historical firearm regulation and doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, confirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the sale of so-called “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 and magazines that hold over ten rounds. The court found that its previous decision upholding a similar Rhode Island magazine ban also applied to Massachusetts’ restrictions on firearms.

Judge Gary Katzmann wrote in Capen v. Campbell, “A straightforward application of our prior holding in Ocean State Tactical supports the Commonwealth’s demonstration that the Massachusetts Ban’s AR-15 restriction ‘is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’” He added, “This means that Appellants have failed to demonstrate at this stage that the Ban is unconstitutional in all its applications.”

This decision follows a pattern of appellate courts upholding state-level bans on certain firearms and magazines since the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling in 2022.

The Bruen decision changed the landscape for Second Amendment legal challenges by now requiring firearm regulations to abide by the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This new framework has opened new avenues for gun owners to challenge AWBs and magazine bans in solid blue states. That said, the courts have still placed obstacles for gun owners seeking to roll back unconstitutional gun control measures. 

Shortly after the Bruen ruling, U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Superior, Colorado’s ordinance prohibiting AR-15s and magazines over 10 rounds. The court rejected the town’s argument that such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” calling attention to their widespread lawful use and the lack of historical precedent for the implementation of such bans at the local level. Judge Moore alluded to Bruen’s emphasis on text and tradition, writing that the town’s public safety justification did not trump constitutional rights. While the TRO was limited to 14 days, the case marked the beginning of an early wave of judicial skepticism toward municipal AWBs through the use of the Bruen framework.

With respect to Oregon, Arnold v. Kotek, an Oregon state court permanently enjoined Measure 114, a 2024 ballot initiative that led to the ban of magazines holding over 10 rounds and the imposition of a permit-to-purchase system. Judge Robert Raschio ruled the law violated the Oregon Constitution’s right to bear arms, finding that high-capacity magazines have a valid use in the context of modern self-defense and that the state failed to demonstrate a historical tradition for such restrictions.

Though the Oregon Court of Appeals later reversed this decision, the case underscores how Bruen’s logic has continued to influence state-level challenges.

In Illinois’ case, in Barnett v. Raoul, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn ruled last November that Illinois’ statewide ban on assault weapons and magazines holding over 10–15 rounds violated the Second Amendment. The court determined that AR-15-style rifles and similar firearms are commonly owned and used by citizens for legal purposes, including self-defense, and thus fall under Second Amendment protection.

Judge McGlynn stressed that the state failed to identify historical analogues for banning weapons widely used by law-abiding citizens, as dictated by Bruen. However, the decision was stayed for 30 days pending appeal, but the 7th Circuit later allowed the ban to remain in place temporarily while the appeals process goes on. 

Going back to Massachusetts, the state can continue enforcing its firearms and magazine restrictions. The plaintiffs may either appeal the decision or return to district court to argue the case on its merits. The legislation being challenged is the 2024 Act Modernizing Firearms Laws (Chapter 135/H.4885), which Gov. Maura Healey (D) signed last July.  The legislation replaced “assault weapon” with “assault-style firearm” and broadened definitions to include firearms with interchangeable parts or receivers compatible with prohibited models. Additionally, the bill mandated serialization and registration of all firearms, including privately manufactured “ghost guns,” within strict timelines, while also reinforcing the 10-round limit for detachable magazines and introducing new penalties for non-compliance.

With this decision in the books, Massachusetts maintains some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, pending any further appeals. While the post-Bruen era offers new opportunities for gun owners to resist gun grabs in blue states through litigation, these legal battles will be protracted and costly in nature. Restoring gun rights in the most hostile jurisdictions toward the right to self-defense will be no walk in the park.

Spain experienced a nationwide power outage one week after reaching 100% “green” energy.

Across all of Portugal and Spain, people were left without power or cell service of any kind. The nations literally went dark.

Tens of millions of people had to resort to old handheld radios to figure out what was even happening. It could have been an alien invasion for all they knew!

From El Pais:

The outage suddenly set Spain back to the 19th century. Traffic lights out of service, traffic jams forming across the country, pedestrians wandering around cities without public transportation, desperate families trying to communicate with their loved ones, passengers left stranded without trains or flights, canceled medical appointments, rescues underway in subway stations and elevators, lines forming outside small shops due to supermarket closures…

I wonder what could have caused this?

For no reason at all, here’s a video of Spaniards celebrating the destruction of a nuclear power plant three years ago.

This is the way it’s been in Europe for quite a while. Major parts of a gun are serialized, and restricted. You can see this on Glocks and other European made guns where the serial number is on the frame, slide and barrel. Just like for ammo, if the tyrant demoncraps in California do happen to pass such a crap-for-brains law,  people who are interested enough will simply cross the state line to buy.

Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: California Democrats Push Background Checks for Gun Barrels

California Democrats are pushing legislation to require background checks for gun barrel purchases, effectively taking the “ghost gun” regulatory push to its logical conclusion.

The bill, Senate Bill 704, is sponsored by state Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D).

SB 704 singles out firearm barrels among the many other parts of firearm, requiring a background check for any replacement barrel or aftermarket barrel upgrade purchase:

Commencing on July 1, 2026, this bill would, except as specified, prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel, as defined, unless the transaction is completed in person by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill would require the licensed firearms dealer to conduct a background check of the purchaser or transferee and to record specified information pertaining to the transaction, including the date of the sale or transfer.

Moreover, SB 704 specifically outlines how the costs of performing background checks for barrels must be handled, making clear that the legislation literally creates “a new crime,” albeit a misdemeanor, in the state California.

Gun rights proponents have long warned that the Democrats’ use of terminology like “ghost guns”–and the resulting regulation of said “guns”–would lead to background checks for aftermarket firearm parts. State Sen. Arreguín’s legislation is doing just that.

Additionally, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) warns that with a background check, SB 704 would end online barrel sales via the requirement for face-to-face transactions.

NAGR said, “We have warned that this was always the end goal. Target the secondary market — driving up the cost of repairing and maintaining firearms in an effort to win through attrition. The ultimate objective is a complete ban on online sales.”

U.S. First Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Assault Weapon Ban Constitutional

The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, on April 17, held that Massachusetts law banning the sale, transfer, or possession of an assault weapon is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, sending a clear message to Americans that the Boston-based kangaroo court is either illiterate, corrupt, or just unforgivably stupid.

I’ll be honest here, my ability to suffer foolishness kindly on this matter has permanently expired, so if you aren’t a fan of name-calling and my propensity for the abrasive truth, then this one may not be for you.

Massachusetts resident, Joseph Capen, brought the case, announcing his plan to purchase items restricted by the infringement for the lawful purpose of self-defense, but a three blind mice panel of subversive activist judges who wouldn’t know a natural right from ringworm performed just the right amount of mental gymnastics necessary to return with a ruling so heavily steeped in treason that I’m offended by their citizenship status alone, much less their seat on a bench.

Comrade Judge Gary Katzmann, whom I definitely wouldn’t let babysit my children, wrote for the three-traitor panel that the “court” needed to consider whether the law was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which would make it allowable under the Second Amendment.

To be fair, Katzmann and his cronies would have found it consistent with a bowl of cereal if doing so properly served his anti-American agenda, and that is about as plausible as the panel’s holding that the ban on AR-15s, the most common sporting rifle in America, does not unduly burden civilian self-defense.

The court was so disingenuous in its ruling that it claimed Capen and additional appellants failed to show any instance in which these models had ever been used for self-defense, an asinine finding that any search engine could refute in seconds with days and weeks of reading material.

Katzmann embarrassingly attempted to correlate a longstanding tradition of regulation with the outright banning of “specific weapons once it became clear that they posed a unique danger to public safety, including mass deaths and violent crime unrelated to self-defense.” However, no such longstanding tradition exists, with the mental gymnastics here contributing mostly to a sad perversion of the Bruen decision, for which the Supreme Court is likely to tuck tail and expose its lack of spine.

In fact, even machine guns are not banned outright. But Katzmann and his ilk of treasonous judicial activists never burden themselves with obstacles like honesty, integrity, or their oath to America and the Constitution. Why let any of that get in the way of the internal insurrectionist agenda?

Katzmann and his merry band of idiots also claimed the ruling was not inconsistent with Heller, noting that the Second Amendment right was not unlimited and did not pertain to weapons “designed for military use.”

While this take is genuinely not unique by any standard, it has also been debunked since, well, the beginning, as the Second Amendment clearly states in plain English, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A “well-regulated militia,” by definition, refers to a body of citizens trained and equipped to serve in a military capacity, ensuring the security of a free state, the Founding principle behind the Second Amendment.

Here’s a note to Katzmann and all the activist judicial traitors out there. If I can disprove you that easily, your children should be embarrassed by your legacy. There is very little I find more disgraceful than the absolute irreverence for your oath and obligation to the American people while you work to weaken the United States of America and poison our founding values from the inside.

Throughout history, many theories have been propounded as to the black robes worn by judges. Some say they provide a symbol of the authority and power conferred by the state, while others suggest they foster uniformity and promote the concept that justice remains blind. Judges like Katzmann and his First Circuit cohorts, however, bring modern clarity to the garb, as it seems the real symbolism behind the black robe is the death and mourning of our Constitution.

Alito’s right to warn: Court’s knee-jerk habit of slapping Trump will cost it dearly.

“A number of judges have seemingly adopted a constitutional meta-principle: what a past President did, President Trump may not undo.”

So wrote Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Adrian Vermeule on Friday after a district-court judge issued yet another lawless nationwide injunction meant to handcuff Trump and halt his agenda.

It’s a criticism the Supreme Court, and particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, must take to heart.

One of the hallmarks of Roberts’ term has been an overweening desire to guard the judicial branch’s “legitimacy.”

But Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the courts’ legitimacy comes from the courts themselves — and his desire to preserve the judiciary’s standing with a small circle of Washington and academic insiders.

We saw that as far back as 2012, when Roberts switched sides in the case against Obamacare at the last minute, for fear that striking down that unprecedented bill would upset the DC applecart and harm the court’s legitimacy.

Instead, it was a self-inflicted wound. Nobody respects a trimmer.

Roberts’ Obamacare decision wasn’t rooted in the Constitution, but an attempt to have it both ways, giving the Democrats enough of a victory to keep them from declaring war.

And we’ve seen that sort of thing repeatedly in the years since.

Roberts seems less concerned with preserving the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of America’s citizens, and more with the views of the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, plus some Ivy League law professors whose schools’ decaying reputations should give him pause.

But now the flurry of lower-court interference is reaching crisis proportions, says Harvard’s Vermeule and others.

The prime issue, among others, is the illegal — and yes, it was contrary to the statutes on the books — Biden administration policy to admit millions of unvetted migrants into the country, and to allow them to stay here.

The “rule of law” didn’t matter then, because the crowd to which Roberts defers was in favor of open borders and its massive influx of a low-wage, government-dependent underclass.

Biden’s border policy has never been popular with the public, but the public isn’t Roberts’ concern: When he worries about legitimacy, he’s really thinking peer opinion — the “Mean Girls” judiciary.

“People Who Bypassed Legal Process in Migrating to USA Demand Legal Process before Being Kicked Out,” as The Babylon Bee parody site put it.

This came to a head early Saturday as Roberts and six colleagues stepped in to temporarily uphold a lower-court opinion interfering with Trump’s deportations.

The Supremes acted one-sidedly and with untoward swiftness to block the president — in accordance, it seems, with Vermeule’s dictum.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Justice Samuel Alito said, in a blazing dissent:

“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation.”

The court may make much of the “rule of law,” Alito noted — but “both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.”

The court’s irregular behavior here brings that into serious question.

Continue reading “”

David Hogg Has Humiliating Meltdown on ABC News

On Sunday’s episode of ABC News’ “This Week,”  former Trump White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus made mincemeat out of DNC Vice Chair David Hogg during a heated exchange as Priebus successfully cornered Hogg into defending one the Democratic Party’s recent messaging debacles — advocating for a suspected MS-13 gang member, wife beater, and human trafficker who was deported.

Priebus didn’t hold back, ripping into the current state of the Democratic Party: “They’ve got no message, they’ve got no movement, they’ve got no leader. I mean, it doesn’t get any worse than that.” He blasted Hogg for “defending Harvard” and the DNC for “traveling to El Salvador for MS-13 gang members,” mocking the party’s apparent priorities.

When the host interrupted to note that the deportee in question was only an “alleged” gang member, Priebus criticized Hogg’s pledge to spend $20 million to primary incumbent Democrats.

“You’re taking $20 million… it’s $20 million out of the DNC’s pocket,” he argued. “You can’t be on the board of the fishing and forest company and on Greenpeace at the same time,” he added, calling into question the DNC’s blurred lines between activism and governance.

Hogg jumped in, visibly agitated.

“Let me push back against that,” he began. “This was not an MS-13 gang member, and you damn well know that.”

But Priebus didn’t flinch.

“Oh, come on,” he fired back. “So keep defending this guy, you’re just digging your own hole.”

Priebus is right. Evidence of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s connections to MS-13 came out last week, as did court documents showing that his wife accused him of domestic abuse and that he’s suspected of human trafficking.

Nevertheless, Hogg dug himself in deeper with the same old talking points we’ve heard before.

“In America, we have due process and we are a land of law and order,” he said. “This administration is repeatedly showing time and time again, they do not care about what the Supreme Court says, they do not care about the rule of law.”

Priebus responded with a reality check. “CNN just did a poll… most Americans think that all illegal immigrants should be deported, by the way.”

Hogg claimed that Abrego Garcia was denied counsel and due process and that “you cannot defend sending people… to another country where they don’t have rights.” Actually, you can defend sending an illegal immigrant back to his home country.

Naturally, Priebus didn’t let the moment slip. “If you want to try to defend the constitutionality of deporting an illegal immigrant that’s here — he’s here illegally,” Priebus insisted before pointing out that “every intel community agency and the White House say he is a member of MS-13.”

First Circuit Upholds Massachusetts ‘Assault Weapon,’ Magazine Bans

he Bay State’s ban on the sale of certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines does not run afoul of the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

A three-judge panel for the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction against Massachusetts’ ban on the sale of “assault weapons,” such as the popular AR-15, and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. It determined that the logic of a prior ruling upholding Rhode Island’s ban on certain magazines applied to the weapons banned by Massachusetts law.

“A straightforward application of our prior holding in Ocean State Tactical supports the Commonwealth’s demonstration that the Massachusetts Ban’s AR-15 restriction ‘is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,’” Judge Gary Katzmann wrote in Capen v. Campbell. “This means that Appellants have failed to demonstrate at this stage that the Ban is unconstitutional in all its applications.”

The ruling extends the unbeaten streak for states defending hardware bans at the federal appellate level ever since the Supreme Court handed down its New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision in 2022. It will undoubtedly add to the growing sense of frustration among gun-rights advocates who believe Supreme Court precedent forecloses sales bans on common semi-automatic firearms and the magazines that come standard with them.

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), the plaintiff in this case, did not respond to a request for comment. The group sued over Massachusetts’ bans in 2022, shortly after the High Court handed down the Bruen decision. They were first upheld by US District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV in December 2023 after Saylor ruled that the banned items fit within the country’s historical tradition of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

Between that ruling and Thursday’s update on appeal, the First Circuit issued a separate opinion upholding Rhode Island’s nearly identical ban on ammunition magazines in March of 2024.

“The justification for the law is a public safety concern comparable to the concerns justifying the historical regulation of gunpowder storage and of weapons like sawed-off shotguns, Bowie knives, M-16s and the like,” Judge William Kayatta wrote in Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island. “The analogical ‘how’ and ‘why’ inquiry that Bruen calls for therefore strongly points in the direction of finding that Rhode Island’s LCM ban does not violate the Second Amendment.”

Continue reading “”

BLUF
The Harvard Kennedy School might want to go back to basics. Taxing a Constitutional right doesn’t add up. Locking up criminals equals less crimes and less victims.

Harvard Scholar Argues to Tax Freedom for ‘Public Health’

Leave it to the “scholars” at Harvard Kennedy School to come up with a scheme that combines the arrogance of the “intellectual elite,” increasing taxes, administering gun confiscation plans and – again – purposefully conflating “public health” policies for crime control for the latest pie-in-the-sky gun control plan.

It would be an absurd April Fool’s joke if the researchers at Harvard Kennedy School weren’t serious. Just to be sure, a little digging shows that they received a grant for the study from Arnold Ventures, a known antigun philanthropy organization that funds gun control efforts across the country. What the idea shows is how out-of-touch the “intellectual elite” are when it comes Americans’ – and the firearm industry’s – commitment is to ensuring free exercise of Second Amendment freedoms. These are foundational to the unique American identity – that the rights are granted to Americans by their Creator and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, specifically in this case by the Bill of Rights. That’s not the case with two ivy-bound researchers. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms – they’ve got a plan.

Trust me. It’s not better.

Luis Armona, an economic and assistant professor of policy at Harvard Kennedy School, and Adam Rosenberg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, believe they’ve come up with a way to reduce the criminal misuse of firearms – specifically murder. They just need to tax the snot out of them.

Continue reading “”

The demoncrap leadership has made it clear they approve of violence against their opponents. I wonder what they’ll think when -not if, when – people get fed up enough with that and decide to turn this into a two way range, likely under Bill Clinton’s Rules of Engagement?

When the Philanderer in Chief, frustrated with Serbian intransigence in 1999, changed the rules of engagement to include the political leadership, news media and the intellectual underpinnings of his enemy’s war effort, he accidentally filed suit under the Law of Unintended Consequences.
The Serbians knuckled under, yes.
But the rest of the world took note, including us.
I assure you, the appeal to the higher court of history in that case has yet to be decided.

Tesla Vandals Keep Getting Caught, Democrats Keep Staying Silent.

There are two stories here. Once is the ongoing wave of vandalism and domestic terrorism by left-wing nutjobs and the other is the silence of Democrats. Neither of these stories is really breaking news at this point, but I haven’t stopped caring and I don’t think our readers have either.So on that note, let’s just go over a few acts of vandalism and the people who’ve been either identified as suspects or already arrested. Apparently these people don’t understand that Tesla’s have lots of cameras.In Boston, a woman was captured on video throwing a brick through the window of a Tesla.

This happened on Sunday. Boston PD is now looking for the suspect. Something tells me she won’t be too hard to identify.

This one happened in Dallas where a guy keyed a Tesla at an airport parking lot. He has now been arrested and is being sued by the owner in a civil case. Here’s a local news story on the lawsuit:

And this guy from West Fargo, North Dakota is now facing a felony charge.

He apparently confessed when questioned by police. Not much doubt about the politics that motivated him.

In Gilbert, Arizona a man named David Moller was arrested for keying a Cybertruck.

And in Kentwood, Michigan, police released a photo of two suspects they believe spray painted five Tesla Cybertrucks in a mall parking lot.

Again, the politics motivating this are pretty clear.

In the small city of Town and Country, Missouri a man named Matthew Reynolds has been arrested for keying a woman’s Model 3 in a parking lot.

Reynolds is also facing a felony charge. Here’s his mugshot.

In Aventura, Florida just north of Miami, a woman was arrested after spreading chewing gum on the door handle of a Tesla parked in a mall parking lot. Her name is Yamaris Marrero.

In Brookhaven, Mississippi a Cuban migrant named Osvaldo Torres-Rodriguez is still wanted for (allegedly) vandalizing a Tesla with a pair of pliers or wire-cutters.

Here’s one from Columbus, Ohio. Don’t know if this person has been caught yet.

Unfortunately, I could go on. There are many more examples of people who haven’t been arrested yet but who probably will be soon. You can see a bunch of them on this X account.

Meanwhile, the Democrats who have inspired all of this have said almost nothing about it. AOC has been asked about it twice and has replied that Republicans say all sorts of things about her. But of course she has called out others for “stochastic terrorism” in the past.

Questioned by Fox News Digital, “Squad” member and leading Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York refused to answer whether she believes Democrats’ inflammatory rhetoric against Elon Musk has any connection to the violent attacks and vandalism against Tesla owners and dealers across the country…

Though she would not comment on the acts of terror against Tesla owners and workers, Ocasio-Cortez, considered  one of the country’s leading Democratic voices, has previously accused her Republican opponents of engaging in “stochastic terrorism,” using inflammatory language to incite violent action, by criticizing her, which she said prompted her to hire security.

Speaking on CNN in 2023, she said, “It’s uncomfortable serving with people who engage in what many experts deem stochastic terrorism, which is the incitement of violence using digital means and large platforms so that individuals themselves may not be the one that’s wielding a weapon.

Few national Democrats have criticized the wave of arson and vandalism. It’s almost as if they know the vandals are on their side.

Media Efforts To Turn Signalgate Into A Scandal Are The Surest Sign It’s Not One

There are still pieces of the “Signalgate” saga of interest — like how did the worst person in Washington end up in the chat? But what would have been a relatively minor controversy has been so excessively hyped up as an epic scandal that it’s impossible to remember why it aroused anyone in the first place.

What we know from screenshots of a Signal smartphone group chat published in The Atlantic on Monday (followed by another round of screenshots on Wednesday) is that a couple of weeks ago, high-level Trump administration officials were in the chat debating the merits of a U.S. attack on the Islamic Houthi militants in Yemen. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, who is proven to make things up for the sake of defaming President Trump, said he was included in the chat by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who has confirmed as much, though he said it was accidental and he doesn’t know how Goldberg was added.

There are legitimate concerns about federal recordkeeping and handling of sensitive communications, but to the extent that the content of the chat is newsworthy, it features an interesting debate on foreign policy between Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and others. What’s most consequential is a portion in which Hegseth tells the chat the times that some targets will be bombed on a specific day, without specific locations, names, or routes.

It’s debatable whether the information was classified (the administration says it wasn’t) or could have potentially endangered lives — what good is a time without a location? — but per usual, the media haven’t let enough be enough. Before publishing the full screenshots, Goldberg claimed that in the chat Waltz had identified a covert CIA agent, which wasn’t true; and he suggested that explicitly named in the chat were specific enemy targets, which was also untrue.

Then a Wall Street Journal editorial said the “real security scandal” was that Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff, who is at the center of peace negotiations in Israel and Ukraine, was on the chat while in Russia and therefore, “Russian intelligence services must be listening to Mr. Witkoff’s every eyebrow flutter.” There’s no evidence that Witkoff’s phone was on him while he was in Russia, and the one message from him in the screenshots would have placed him back in the U.S. at the time it was sent. Witkoff has said he only had a secure device while he was in Russia.

Most irksome are subsequent news articles characterizing the chat screenshots as containing “details” and “specifics” on the military attacks, when it’s at best unclear how useful time stamps alone would be in thwarting them. It’s a pointless mind exercise anyway. The public knew nothing about the conversation or the military attack plans until days after they were executed. If that’s to Goldberg’s credit, then congratulations to him — he’s not a complete and total traitor to his country, even if he is anti-American in every other way.

That brings us to the enduring point of concern with this highly oversold story: Why did Mike Waltz have Goldberg’s contact information? What are the odds that this exact anti-Trump media figure would be selected to slip into a sensitive group chat? Waltz has offered doubtful explanations and theories, such as the possibility that Goldberg’s number was listed under the wrong name in his phone contacts or, even more dubious, that Goldberg’s contact was “sucked in” via a third party. Waltz has also said he thought Goldberg was “someone else.” Okay, who? Either Waltz never intended to include the contact belonging to Goldberg — “sucked in” — or he did but thought it was a different person. It can’t be both.

It’s possible Waltz really has no clue what took place there. Stranger things have happened. But his version of events isn’t satisfying. It’s to his benefit that it’s the one part of this whole episode receiving the least amount of attention from the people keeping the story alive.

Chavez v. Bonta. California’s 18-20 year old ban on buying semiauto centerfire rifles is upheld

This is ‘merely’ in the District Court; as it were, Act 1 in the play. The Firearms Policy Center will almost undoubtedly appeal and from the 9th Circus historical record we know how that will ultimately turn out, so in a few years, we may see it appealed to SCOTUS.

The judge cites that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the restriction on retail sales, meaningfully constrained the 18-20 year old Californians’ right to acquire firearms. The judge says that there are other routes e.g. private sales, gifts etc. BUT, this is ‘interest balancing‘, which SCOTUS has ruled is unconstitutional and repeated that several times.

The Supreme Court has upheld the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule.

During the Biden ‘administration’ ATF ruled that “80%” receivers were to be treated and regulated just like they were fully finished guns.

The were sued and it went all the way to SCOTUS.

Justices Alito and Thomas were the only ones to dissent. All the others agreed. Regard the fate of future decisions accordingly.

 

BLUF
A decision point is coming. Decisive action by the Chief Justice could save the judicial branch by restoring the judicial modesty that preserves the respect of the other branches. If only we could be confident that John Roberts was wise enough to do it.

The Agony of John Roberts.

Pity poor John Roberts. No, he’s not corrupt or compromised. He is simply a man who has found himself at a pivotal time and place in a position of great responsibility for which he is utterly unsuited. He’s not a dumb man. He is, in fact, a very smart man – Hugh Hewitt knew him personally in the Reagan administration and testifies to that. I have no doubt it’s true. I know many smart people who have similar flaws. As objectively intelligent as John Roberts is, he is unwise, and he is endangering the institution he wants to preserve because he does not understand human nature or the times he finds himself in.

Frankly, I’ll take wisdom over raw intellect any day of the week.

If he had the capacity to lead that he so manifestly lacks, John Roberts could save his institution with decisive and bold action. But that’s not who he is. Understand what John Roberts wants. He is an institutionalist who has always wanted to protect the judiciary branch. He wants it to be a fully co-equal branch that is respected by all. But the very actions he has chosen to take – or not to take – in response to the current crisis of out-of-control subordinate courts are guaranteeing that it will fall. Continue reading “”

Never interrupt the enemy when he’s making a mistake.

Chuck Schumer rejects calls to step down as Senate Democratic leader.

WASHINGTON — A defiant Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed that he won’t step aside as the chamber’s top Democrat, rejecting calls from some House colleagues and liberal advocates critical of his move to help pass a Republican funding bill.

“Look, I’m not stepping down,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a taped interview that aired Sunday on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

Continue reading “”