3000 years of history condensed down to 8 seconds
3000 years of history condensed to 8 seconds pic.twitter.com/x5svsxot5Q
— Ed Gethane (@ed_gethane) March 16, 2025
🚨UPDATE🚨
GOA & GOF have been GAGGED from printing the news (uncovered in a FOIA) for 18 months.
Despite a recent ruling by the D.C. Circuit prohibiting such gag orders, Biden holdovers in @TheJusticeDept are asking the court to extend this First Amendment violation. pic.twitter.com/sp2FrKNmQo
— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) March 12, 2025
President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele mocked U.S. District Judge James Boasberg after two flights from the U.S. carrying nearly between 250 and 300 Venezuelan and other gang members landed in El Salvador despite Boasberg’s emergency order issued Saturday evening in a case brought by the ACLU to turn the planes around and return the gang members to the U.S.
According to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a few MS-13 gang members and most wanted fugitives were among the over 250 Tren de Aragua Venezuelan gang members deported after President Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
Bukele posted, “Oopsie…Too late ” over a New York Post headline that reads, “Fed judge orders deportation flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gangbangers to return to US after Trump invokes Alien Enemies Act”
Bukele also posted video of the nighttime arrival of the deportees, showing the gang members being removed from the planes in shackles and then being taken to El Salvador’s supermax security prison, CECOT, the Terrorism Confinement Center, in a massive security operation.
Oh, now she tells us… pic.twitter.com/uKLKPPSSaw
— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) March 15, 2025
It’s amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites.
-Thomas Sowell
March 16, 2025
Lawmakers Pushing Commerce Secretary To Dump Biden Admin’s Gun Export Restriction.
A group of 88 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are pushing to have the Biden Administration rule restricting firearm exports by law-abiding American manufacturers reversed, and they want it done now.
On March 7, the lawmakers, led by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tennessee, sent a letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick requesting reversal of the policy, which was part of the Biden Administration’s weaponized attack on gun owners, gun sellers and gun makers.
“As soon as is practically possible, we respectfully request that you rescind the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) recent interim final rule (IFR) ‘Revision of Firearms License Requirements,” the letter stated. “This misguided and destructive IFR is costing the American firearms industry nearly $500 million annually while doing nothing to advance U.S. interests or regional stability. Despite numerous attempts to rein in these actions through letters, legislation, hearings, markups and oversight, the Biden BIS ignored Congress and used the IFR to advance the Biden administration’s anti-firearms agenda.”
The letter also referenced President Donald Trump’s recent executive order instructing new Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements and other actions of executive departments and agencies that violate the Second Amendment or furthered the Biden administration’s anti-firearms agenda.
“Section (2)(b)(vii) of the executive order specifically requires the review and remediation of any agency action regarding the ‘processing of applications, to make, manufacture, transfer or export firearms.’ Because this IFR stops the commercial export of firearms, ammunition and related components to over 36 countries and severely limits the ability of American businesses to obtain export licenses, we believe this IFR ought to be addressed immediately.”
For his part, Sen. Lee said now is the time to act to get this onerous restriction off the books.
Well, almost anything will be better than that Verhoeven trash
New ‘Starship Troopers’ Movie in the Works from ‘District 9’ Filmmaker Neill Blomkamp.
Sony is behind the new adaptation, which is not a remake of Paul Verhoeven’s 1997 film, but rather will go back to the 1959 novel as source material.
Johnny Rico is coming back to kill some more bugs.
Columbia Pictures is plotting a new Starship Troopers movie, setting District 9 filmmaker Neill Blomkamp to write and direct an adaptation of the classic sci-fi novel story by Robert A. Heinlein.
Blomkamp will also produce the feature alongside Terri Tatchell, his partner and wife who co-wrote the South African filmmaker’s District 9 and 2015 outing, Chappie.
Published in 1959, Troopers ostensibly told of an interstellar war between Earth and a host of bug-like aliens, and focused on a rise of a military serviceman named Johnny Rico. But the story had other things on its minds, like exploring the strengths of life in a military society and such ideas as having to perform service in order to have voting rights.
While the book won a Hugo Award for best novel and has been quite influential in sci-fi literature, some quarters described the book as fascist. It was that tone that was satirized in the 1997 movie from Paul Verhoeven, the director of Robocop, Total Recall, Basic Instinct and Showgirls. Verhoeven was over-the-top in his depiction of the military jingoism and propaganda, fetishized costumes, and highlighted Nazi influences.
Rico was played by squared jaw roughneck Casper Van Dien and the cast included Dina Meyer, Denise Richards, Neil Patrick Harris and Michael Ironside. While the movie was not initially a success, and some critics accused Verhoeven of putting a positive spin on fascism, the movie has since developed a reappraisal and a cult following.
Blomkamp’s take is not a remake of the Verhoeven movie, and sources say the goal is to go back to the source material.
Blomkamp most recently directed Gran Turismo for Sony Pictures, a critical and commercial success that grossed over $122 million worldwide.
The filmmaker showed his ability to tackle deep themes while balancing human-versus-aliens conflicts with his splashy 2009 feature debut District 9. The movie was a hit at the box office and earned four Oscar nominations, including best picture and best adapted screenplay for Blomkamp and Tatchell.
Blomkamp followed that up with more sci-fi offerings, including Chappie and Elysium.
He is repped by CAA and Gendler Kelly.
And speaking of….
An appeals court ruled Friday that, contrary to what a previous judge had ruled, there was no constitutional right to bear DEI.
According to Reuters, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Richmond, Virginia sided with President Donald Trump and his administration, positing that a ban on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs ordered by the White House was likely constitutional.
While the ruling from the court was a mixed blessing — two of the three judges also wrote a separate opinion that DEI policies aren’t unconstitutional — the move means that the administration can move forward with a suite of programs that would end programs at federal agencies and entities which receive federal funds.
“This is a difficult case that will benefit from more sustained attention than we can give it in the present posture,” wrote Judge Pamela Harris, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“But for now, I believe the government has shown a sufficient likelihood of success to warrant a stay until we can hear and decide its appeal.”
She was joined in that opinion by Judge Albert Diaz, who also felt that the final decision might depend on implementation and not the basics.
“Despite the vitriol now being heaped on DEI, people of good faith who work to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion deserve praise, not opprobrium,” Diaz wrote.
The third judge, Trump appointee Allison Jones Rushing, said in a separate opinion that the government was likely to succeed in making its constitutional arguments about DEI.
The case was initially filed by the city council of Baltimore, with three other co-plaintiffs. All four receive federal funding and have DEI-promoting initiatives.
Trump, the Baltimore city council said in its lawsuit, “cannot usurp Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, nor can he silence those who disagree with him by threatening them with the loss of federal funds and other enforcement actions.”
Biden appointee Judge Adam Abelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland agreed in February, writing that the orders may violate the First Amendment.
“As Plaintiffs put it, ‘efforts to foster inclusion have been widespread and uncontroversially legal for decades,'” Abelson wrote in his decision, according to Reuters. “Plaintiffs’ irreparable harms include widespread chilling of unquestionably protected speech.”
Deputy White House chief of staff Stephen Miller argued that DEI programs violate the Civil Rights Act by illegally discriminating against individuals to promote women and minorities.
“A judge cannot nullify the Civil Rights Act and order the government to award federal taxpayer dollars to organizations that discriminate based on race,” Miller said at the time.
The 4th Circuit’s findings seemed to indicate that court didn’t buy the First Amendment defense.
In addition, Rushing’s opinion said that policy preferences on the court have little to do with the lawfulness or constitutionality of the executive orders.
“A judge’s opinion that DEI programs ‘deserve praise, not opprobrium’ should play absolutely no part in deciding this case,” Rushing wrote.
However, the decision would only allow the administration to temporarily implement its ban on the programs; the lower court’s decision “will remain in place pending the outcome of the Trump administration’s appeal, which could take months,” Reuters noted.
Nevertheless, it’s a big win for the Trump administration: three judges, two appointed by Obama, admitting the truth about the legality of the DEI purge while the left argues that discrimination somehow equals free speech. The battle might not be over, but it’s one heck of a W to notch for the new president.
Judicial Overreach and the Separation of Powers: Why Judges Cannot Run the Executive Branch
The United States Constitution is built on a system of separation of powers, ensuring that each branch of government—the legislative, executive, and judicial—operates within its own clearly defined sphere of authority. Article II of the Constitution explicitly vests executive power in the president, granting him the sole authority to run the executive branch, hire and fire federal employees, and manage the implementation of federal policy.
However, in recent years, judicial overreach has increasingly threatened this fundamental structure. Activist judges have repeatedly interfered with executive decisions, particularly regarding federal employment and budgetary matters, effectively attempting to seize control of the executive branch. This kind of judicial activism is not only unconstitutional but also dangerous to the very principles of self-governance and democratic accountability.
The Executive Power Belongs to the President Alone
Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This is not an ambiguous statement—it makes clear that executive authority belongs to the President, not to Congress, not to the courts, and not to unelected federal bureaucrats.
Among the responsibilities that come with executive power is the authority to hire and fire federal employees. The president, as the head of the executive branch, is responsible for ensuring that federal employees serve the interests of the American people effectively and efficiently. If an administration determines that certain employees are unnecessary, redundant, or incompetent, it is well within the president’s constitutional authority to dismiss them. No federal employee has a constitutional right to a government job. Employment in the federal government is not a protected right, and courts have no legitimate authority to override the president’s decisions on workforce management.
Despite this clear constitutional framework, we have seen repeated attempts by liberal judges to interfere with the executive branch’s authority by blocking efforts to reduce the federal workforce, demanding that terminated employees be rehired, or even forcing the president to spend taxpayer money on wasteful programs that he deems unnecessary. Such rulings are blatant violations of the separation of powers and represent an unacceptable intrusion into executive functions.
What do they want, sponge balls for bullets? These purported scientists are morons with crap-for-brains to think they can sell this.
Gun Control Researchers Should Realize: It’s the Criminal, Not the Bullet’s ‘Case Fatality Rate’
Instead of advocating for prosecutors to get tough on criminals who break the law, keeping them behind bars longer rather than being released with a slap on the wrist, researchers have been keeping themselves busy in a flurry of “research” to tell us what we already know. Firearms are deadly. That is, after all, why law-abiding citizens use firearms for self-defense.
That is why gun rights advocates, Second Amendment supporters and self-defense proponents take firearm education and training so seriously. With great privilege (exercising Second Amendment rights) comes great responsibility.
Several researchers teamed up to publish a recent article in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) titled, “Bullets as Pathogen—The Need for Public Health and Policy Approaches.” The results were not at all earth-shattering – that larger bullets cause more damage than smaller ones – but policy recommendations resulting from the “research” could be far-reaching, if impractical.
“It is past time to address the ultimate cause of injury and death, the bullet, and consider bullet-specific regulations to decrease the burden of firearm injuries in the U.S.,” the authors proclaimed.
Bullets Aren’t Bacteria
Gun control activists in university research departments are increasingly partnering with health care professionals in order to push an agenda of strict gun control as if they’re trying to solve a public health emergency. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health immediately comes to mind. That institution, funded by staunch gun control activist and hypocrite Micheal Bloomberg – who also bankrolls Everytown for Gun Safety and its propaganda “news” outlet The Trace – just released a report including five policy recommendations and promoted the idea that gun ownership would be better treated as a privilege and not as a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for all law-abiding citizens.
The researchers behind the new JAMA article are pushing more of the same.
“Through examination of the devastating damage of bullets to individuals and society and application of public health principles akin to communicable diseases, we can prevent further injuries, disability and unnecessary loss of life,” the authors wrote.
Court upholds Florida gun law that bars people under 21 from buying rifles
Friday’s ruling by the full Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision and outlined the history of the nation’s gun laws, from its founding to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting guidelines for determining how to apply the Second Amendment.
Saying the restriction is “consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation,” a federal appeals court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Florida law that raised the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21. [really? What ‘historical tradition?]
The 8-4 ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after seven years of legal wrangling in the National Rifle Association’s challenge to a 2018 law passed after a mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 students and faculty members.
Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 at the time, used a semiautomatic rifle to gun down the victims at his former school. The NRA filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the gun-age restriction shortly after the law passed.
Friday’s ruling by the full Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision and outlined the history of the nation’s gun laws, from its founding to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting guidelines for determining how to apply the Second Amendment. While the law barred people under 21 from buying rifles and long guns, they still can receive them, for example, as gifts from family members.
“From this history emerges a straightforward conclusion: the Florida law is consistent with our regulatory tradition in why and how it burdens the right of minors to keep and bear arms,” Chief Judge William Pryor wrote. “Because minors have yet to reach the age of reason, the Florida law prohibits them from purchasing firearms, yet it allows them to receive firearms from their parents or another responsible adult.”
Judges Adalberto Jordan, Robin Rosenbaum, Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom, Britt Grant, Nancy Abudu and Charles Wilson joined the majority opinion. Judge Andrew Brasher wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Judges Elizabeth Branch, Barbara Lagoa and Robert Luck.
I said it before. I’m of the opinion that the British royals and a lot of the rest of the ‘nobility’ converted to islam years ago.
This is what an invasion looks like. pic.twitter.com/Np5KjHm9D0
— RadioGenoa (@RadioGenoa) March 14, 2025
This is how you get a new Crusade.
Just a heads up: I’m not moderating my language in this one. If you can’t handle the existence of profanity, just skip this one. I’m not going to entertain discussion on my choice of words on this one.
[FYI, I put the really raw stuff below the ‘read more’ tab]
I don’t talk a lot about my faith here because, frankly, I’m so bad at practicing it. I’m a terrible example of a Christian, but I try to be open about that while also improving myself to be better at practicing my faith.
It ain’t easy.
I also happen to be a free speech guy. People have a right to say things I have moral objections to. I’ve written about how the most fundamental right we have is the right to be an asshole.
And I’m not about to change that.
However, there’s a difference between opposing laws that try to moderate what people can and cannot say and actually being supportive of them saying some of those things.
You may have a right to be an ass. You do not have an obligation.
Especially when you’re projecting a double standard by doing so.
For example, how many people remember the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack? The French publication was targeted because they published a satirical rendition of Mohammed on the cover. While few would actually celebrate the attack publicly, plenty of people argued that the publication sort of was asking for it by mocking Islam.
Mocking Islam here is likely to get you canceled. The usual suspects will term you as racists and Islamophobic—even though Islam isn’t a race and “Islamophobic” is a nonsense term and, arguably, justified in light of numerous terrorist attacks throughout the world—and call you a terrible person.
But if you mock Christianity, it’s fine.
March 15, 2024
Beware the Ides of March! : Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene 2
The Ides of March – Idus Martiae – is the 74th day in the Roman calendar, corresponding to 15 March. It was marked by several religious observances and was a deadline for settling debts in Rome.
Having been proclaimed Permanent Dictator – Dictator Perpetuo – almost exactly a month earlier, Julius Caesar got sliced and diced on this day in 44 B.C., due to the fear of a power grab, ending the Roman Republic with Caesar becoming King.
It’s debated whether the problems the Republic had been going through were solvable by any means. Nevertheless, Caesar’s assassination changed world history in ways we are still dealing with today.
Caesar: The ides of March are come.
Soothsayer: Aye, Caesar; but not gone.