Trump Administration Sends Brutally Honest Response Saying Judge Can’t Undo a Perfectly Good Deportation

The Justice Department filed an application for an emergency stay of an order requiring an adjudicated MS-13 member be brought back the United States that stopped within inches of calling the district court judge who issued the order a moron. In a tersely worded brief that demolished the entire proceeding, the Justice Department’s brief ridiculed the order by Obama-appointed Judge Paula Xinis to “facilitate and effectuate” Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s return to the US by Monday night, saying: “Because the United States has no control over Abrego Garcia, however, Defendants have no independent authority to “effectuate” his return to the United States—any more than they would have the power to follow a court order commanding them to “effectuate” the end of the war in Ukraine, or a return of the hostages from Gaza;” see Judge Orders Trump to Return Deported Man Sent to El Salvadoran Prison, Sets Up a Massive Showdown – RedState.

Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, who is portrayed as a “Maryland father” in most news reports, entered the US illegally in 2011. In 2019, he was arrested on allegations of membership in the violent Salvadoran gang called Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13. At that time, he applied for political asylum, which was denied. He was given an order of removal, but a judge put his deportation on hold on the grounds that he might be in danger if he returned to El Salvador. In early March, Garcia was arrested and put on a plane to El Salvador and the Terrorist Confinement Facility, CECOT.

His attorneys sued, and a judge ordered the Trump administration to return Garcia to Maryland. In her order, the judge called the deportation “an illegal act.”

When White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt reacted by saying, “We suggest the Judge contact [El Salvador’s] President [Nayib] Bukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador,” it struck me, and many others, as the kind of remark you can make if you are in no danger of facing the judge in a courtroom. As it turned out, she perfectly captured the tone of the administration’s request for a stay of her order.

Continue reading “”

First Look: Smith & Wesson 10mm M&P FPC: Add a little oomph to your folding carbine.

Smith & Wesson is releasing its M&P FPC now chambered in 10mm. The optics-ready FPC, or Folding Pistol Carbine, uses a blowback design and is equipped with three 15-round double-stack M&P M2.0 pistol magazines. It features an integrated recoil buffer system, an overall length of 30.6 inches and can fold to 16.5 inches long for easy storage. The horizontal folding mechanism of the FPC provides a locking latch to ensure secure transport and prevents interference with most top-mounted optics or accessories. Its 9/16×24 tpi threaded muzzle can be paired with the user’s preferred suppressor, while the in-stock magazine storage facilitates fast and efficient reloading.

The M&P FPC handguard features an upper Picatinny rail for mounting an optic and M-Lok slots for adding other accessories. There is a flat-face trigger with a crisp break, and the interchangeable grip inserts let you tailor the gun for more comfort. The rifle includes a carrying bag with multiple storage compartments to keep components and accessories organized and secure. In addition to the new standard 10mm model, Smith & Wesson now also offers a compliant version that shares the same feature set but includes three 10-round magazines.

Smith & Wesson M&P FPC 10mm Specifications

  • Width: 2.5 inches
  • Length (Unfolded) 30.6 inches
  • Height: 8 inches
  • Weight: 5 pounds, 11 ounces
  • Caliber: 10mm
  • Capacity: 15 rounds (10-round versions available)
  • Action: Blowback
  • Barrel Length: 16.25 inches
  • Grip: Polymer
  • Sights: None
  • Safety: Cross-Bolt
  • Color/Finish: Black
  • Threaded Barrel: Yes
  • Barrel Material: 4140 CM
  • Frame: Aluminum
  • Number Of Magazines: Three

MSRP for the M&P FPC 10mm is $499, and for more information on this rifle or other products from Smith & Wesson, visit smith-wesson.com.

60 Days In, How Is AG Pamela Bondi Doing Defending the 2nd Amendment?

It’s been roughly 60 days since Pamela Bondi stepped up as Attorney General under President Trump, and the pro-gun community is talking.

For those of us who live and breathe the Second Amendment, a Trump appointee like Bondi comes with big expectations. Two months in, though, the word on platforms like X and in gun circles is a mixed bag. Is she the 2A defender we’ve been waiting for, or is she falling short?

The Good: Bondi’s Pro-Gun Moves

Bondi’s made some moves that have gun folks nodding in approval. In February, she fired the ATF’s General Counsel, Pamela Hicks, with a sharp statement: “These people were targeting gun owners. Not going to happen under this administration.”

That’s a solid hit against an agency we all see as overreaching. Then, in late March, she launched a DOJ investigation into Los Angeles County’s Second Amendment practices, declaring, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right.” Pro-gun groups have given her a thumbs-up for that, calling it a strong first step.

These actions show she’s willing to push back on anti-gun efforts, and that’s got some folks hopeful.

The Bad: What’s Happening with Adamiak?

Then there’s the Patrick “Tate” Adamiak case, and it’s a sore spot. This former Navy sailor’s been in prison for 30 months, facing a 20-year sentence, all tied to what Lee Williams calls fake ATF evidence—think toy guns twisted into “machineguns” by a questionable ATF tech. Federal prosecutors under Bondi’s DOJ are still fighting his appeal, sticking to the ATF’s story. Lee’s recent article laid out the details, and the pro-gun reaction was fierce. Some asked why Bondi isn’t stepping in to stop this. Others demanded she sack the prosecutors involved.

For a guy who just wants to serve his country again, it’s tough to see her not acting. Is she too tied up, or is this not on her radar?

The Ugly: Trust Issues Hang Around

Here’s the kicker: Bondi’s got a past that doesn’t sit right with everyone. As Florida’s AG, she backed red flag laws and age restrictions for gun purchases after Parkland. That’s still fresh for a lot of gun owners—X posts from the last two months keep bringing it up, pointing to her “unconstitutional” stances. Even with her recent pro-2A actions, some see her as inconsistent. There’s grumbling that DOJ attorneys under her are still pushing anti-gun arguments in court, like in cases challenging young adults’ rights.

It feels like she’s half in the fight, half stuck in the old habits.

What’s the Buzz?

The pro-gun crowd’s divided. On X, some praise her ATF shakeup but say she needs to do more. Others argue she’s swamped fixing a messed-up system, the FBI Deputy Director, Dan Bongino, dropped a message saying, “Just because you don’t immediately see it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.” However, not everyone’s buying that excuse.

 

“A patriot’s losing his rights for what?” one voice shot back. There’s speculation she might not even know about Adamiak, with hopes pinned on a Trump pardon instead. Meanwhile, calls to flood her inbox and the White House with messages are gaining traction—complete with how-to guides floating around. The vibe? We’re watching closely and not staying quiet.

The Bottom Line

Bondi’s at a turning point. She’s got the power to be a Second Amendment hero, but she’s got to prove it. Firing ATF brass and probing LA County are big, but letting an innocent guy sit in jail while her team plays hardball? That’s a miss. Her past raises eyebrows, but her next moves could settle the score. Two months isn’t the whole story, but it’s enough to show where she’s leaning. Right now, it’s anyone’s guess.

DataRepublican 

I’ve had a change of heart on federal income tax. On the surface, it’s just a way for the government to generate revenue—it has to get its funding from somewhere. But I now see that the method of taxation itself fundamentally alters the relationship between the government and its people.

When the government relies on taxing individual income, it shifts from serving its citizens to exploiting them as a revenue source. This dynamic creates an inherent friction, where the government no longer answers to the people but to the system that extracts from them. And if you look around, it’s clear—whatever our tax dollars are funding, it’s not serving us.

This is what modern economists fail to grasp when they dismiss tariffs, sales taxes, or luxury taxes as harmful. The structure of taxation matters, not just the amount collected. The income tax distorts governance itself—and it needs to go.

Worth repeating as he takes apart all these claims

Easter Is Not Pagan, and Neither Are Its Origins
Jesus is our Passover, and the events of one specific Passover week are the origin of the holiday, no matter how many Cadbury eggs you may consume.

Every year, as Christians around the world celebrate Easter, skeptics revive a familiar claim: that Easter is just a repackaged pagan festival. They point to spring fertility rites, to goddesses like Ishtar and Eostre, and to symbols like eggs and rabbits, declaring Christianity guilty of cultural plagiarism.

But these assertions, repeated so often they’ve become clichés, collapse under any serious historical scrutiny. The truth is simple: Easter isn’t pagan, and neither are its origins. Rather, it is the central celebration of the Christian faith, grounded in real events, rooted in Jewish (not pagan) practice.

Perhaps some of the people who claim otherwise are simply used to distrusting authority (a good thing). A few may feel “superior” by asserting “hidden knowledge” (which is not at all a good thing: it’s pride, or gnosticism, or both).

But the truth is, even if Easter had all manner of pagan trappings (it does not), it wouldn’t matter: Christ came to conquer and redeem all things. That’s the whole point of the Resurrection: our Lord even conquered death! And Scripture tells us that it is indeed that Resurrection which is our hope, and that if it is not true then “we are to be the most pitied among men.” (1 Corinthians 15:17-19)

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS Sides With Trump Admin 5-4, Stays Lower Court Ruling Compelling Teacher Training Grants

At last check, we were north of 160 federal lawsuits filed against Trump administration executive actions, and while the district courts have been furiously handing out temporary restraining orders (TROs) and injunctions, a number of the cases have been snaking their way up through the appellate courts to the Supreme Court. Mind you, these are largely procedural rulings rather than decisions on the merits. There’s still a long way to go before all the dust settles.

But the Trump administration scored a win before the Supreme Court Friday afternoon as the high court issued a 5-4 decision granting the administration’s request for a stay of a district court TRO, which enjoined the administration from terminating various education-related grants and required it to pay out past-due grant obligations and continue paying grant obligations as they accrue.

Here’s a bit more background:

A divided Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration by allowing officials to block $65 million in teacher development grants frozen over concerns they were promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices.

The 5-4 emergency ruling, for now, lifts a lower order that allowed the Education Department to resume the grants in eight Democratic-led states that are suing. …

In February, the administration began canceling disbursements under two federal education grants aimed at developing educators and combatting teacher shortages:  the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program.

Officials have cast the freezes as part of the administration’s broader crackdown on DEI, and it also comes as Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon look to effectively gut the department.

As noted above, this was a 5-4 decision. It is per curiam, so there’s no designated author of the majority decision, but Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.

The full decision may be viewed here, but here are the key factors in the majority’s ruling:

Continue reading “”

Have They Even Read the Second Amendment?

I understand not everyone has read the U.S. Constitution in its entirety. It’s not overly long, but it’s not exactly the most riveting work of literature in history. But the Bill of Rights is so short and succinct that there’s no excuse for anyone not to have read it.

So when people say baffling stuff about, say, gun control, it’s hard to believe any of them have read it.

This isn’t some nebulous complaint, either. There was a specific example recently:

“ On Tuesday, Moms Demand Action members fanned out across the capital to ask lawmakers not to pass the age change. The group’s executive director, Angela Ferrell-Zabala, says she remembers how, after Parkland, then-Gov. Rick Scott and a bipartisan group of legislators worked to prevent what she calls, quote, “another senseless tragedy.”

“To actually roll that back right now is just a slap in the face to survivors and advocates that worked so hard for this change to ensure public safety,” she said.

The House easily passed the bill dropping the age of purchase to 18. The vote was 78-34 with Republicans largely in support. Many of the arguments for lowering the age of purchase center around the Second Amendment — which enshrines the right to own weapons in the U.S. Constitution. However, Ferrell-Zabala disagrees with that stance.

“One thing that I often hear that is very frustrating is pitting this against the Second Amendment. That is absolutely ridiculous,” she said. “We have many gun owners amongst us that advocate right alongside us and even gun owners that are survivors of gun violence themselves.

Responsible gun ownership is something that we should be really making sure that we have in this state and across the country. Not anything that’s going to be reckless or endanger public safety.”

I get that it’s frustrating for her, but nothing she says addresses the constitutionality of what she wants.

“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.”

Where in all of that is there any mention of “the right of the people if they’re above a certain age beyond the age of majority” or anything of the type?

The fact that there are supposedly gun owners who back gun control doesn’t negate the fact that what they are demanding strips the Second Amendment rights for many lawful, law-abiding adults simply because they’re deemed too young. Considering that these same jackwagons tend to want to lower the voting age to 16 or younger, I find their arguments unconvincing.

One has to wonder if they’ve even read the Second Amendment. I know that despite their protestations to the contrary, they don’t support it, but have they even read it in the first place? Ferrell-Zabala’s comments sure suggest she doesn’t have the first clue as to what it says, that’s for sure.

Then again, when you’re trying to override a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, one wouldn’t expect you’d get hung up on key details like what the rights actually are or anything else.

VA Dems Unsuccessful in Gun Control Veto Override

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Democrats in the Virginia House of Delegates unsuccessfully focused on gun control bills vetoed by Gov. Glenn Youngkin out of a reported 157 bills he nixed in what was his final veto session as the Old Dominion chief executive.

The Washington Examiner is reporting that Democrats were unable to override Youngkin’s veto of HB 1607 which would have prohibited the importation, sale, manufacturing, purchasing, or transferring of so-called assault weapons.

Virginia limits its governors to a single term at a time. They may not serve consecutive terms. Republican Lieutenant Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, a Marine Corps veteran, is running hard to succeed him, and she is also considered pro-rights when it comes to the Second Amendment.

According to the Courthouse News, gun control joined voting rights and raising the state’s minimum wage as top-of-the-heap priorities with Democrats, who have a slight majority, as they come back in session. However, the CN acknowledged the slim majority might not play in their favor entirely, and they were right.

Youngkin came into office as a breath of fresh air after Democrats under former Gov. Ralph Northam rammed through several restrictive measures five years ago.

Courthouse News illustrated the divide between Republicans and Democrats in the commonwealth where guns are concerned, by quoting two delegates.

Democrat Dan Helmer, a veteran, complained about Youngkin’s veto of a ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“These firearms were designed for the battlefield, not for our streets,” Helmer reportedly declared, mouthing an argument that has been made repeatedly by the gun prohibition lobby and its legislative allies.

Republican Nick Freitas, a former Green Beret combat veteran reportedly countered, “The only people in this room terrified of something are apparently our Democrat colleagues, of our own law-abiding citizens. The reason why we have the Second Amendment is not because the founders got back from an especially rigorous hunting trip. The reason why we have the Second Amendment is because our founders recognize that free citizens have to have the means to be able to provide for their own security.”

Voters in Northern Virginia strongly vote Democrat, primarily because many work in government. The south and west parts of the state are traditionally more conservative.