The Truth Is Out There

Posts tagged ‘politics’

FBI Reports: Teen Killed Parents as Part of Satanic Plot to Assassinate President Trump. Absolutely Frigging Chilling!


FBI Reports: Teen Killed Parents as Part of Satanic Plot to Assassinate President Trump

There’s a growing unease spreading across the heartland, a sense that the values holding our nation together are fraying at the edges. You’ve felt it too, right? That quiet disturbance beneath the surface of daily life, suggesting the foundations we once took for granted might be cracking. It whispers of challenges not just from distant shores, but from within our own communities, festering quietly.

This isn’t mere political disagreement; it feels deeper, more fundamental. It’s that unsettling feeling that bedrock principles – faith, family, respect for authority, the very fabric of Western civilization – are being steadily chipped away by forces that seem to prefer darkness to light, chaos to order. Makes you wonder where this is all headed, doesn’t it? What happens when the guardrails ensuring basic decency start to buckle under the strain?

We see the symptoms pop up, often dismissed by the mainstream as just isolated incidents, nothing to worry about. But thoughtful conservatives understand that sometimes these acts of depravity signal a more profound cultural sickness, a rot spreading unseen until it breaks through in the most shocking ways imaginable. Are we really paying attention or just hoping it goes away?

And then, bam, you get news like this out of Waukesha, Wisconsin, confirming those very fears. In a crime that chills the soul, investigators allege that a 17-year-old high school student, Nikita Casap, brutally murdered his own parents, Tatiana Casap and Donald Mayer, in their home back in February. The details paint a picture of calculated violence against the very people who gave him life and raised him. Just when you think the depths have been plumbed…

But the horror didn’t stop there. Indeed, it intensified dramatically when the FBI revealed the why behind the parricide. Court documents indicate this wasn’t just some tragic, albeit horrific, domestic dispute. Nope. Investigators state the teen killed his parents to gain the “financial means and autonomy” necessary for a far more sinister plot: the assassination of President Donald Trump.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Unmasking the Hate

So, what kind of poison could drive a kid to this? According to the FBI, the teenager was swimming in a venomous cocktail of extremist ideologies. He was allegedly part of a “satanic cult” harboring “strong anti-Judaism anti-Christian and anti-western ideologies.” Further investigation has uncovered links to a neo-Nazi group called the Order of Nine Angles, praise for Adolf Hitler, and deeply antisemitic writings. Get this: Satanists and Nazis, apparently now swapping notes? You couldn’t script this stuff up, but it seems they found common ground in hating everything foundational and good to America and Judeo-Christian values.

The teen’s own manifesto, found by investigators, laid bare the chillingly blunt objective. It wasn’t just about some personal vendetta against President Trump; it was about deliberately destabilizing the nation itself. The goal was explicit: pure anarchy. His own words tell the chilling, if predictable, story:

“As to why, specifically Trump, most believe it’s pretty obvious. By getting rid of the president and perhaps the vice president, that would have guaranteed bringing in chaos.”

Supposedly points for honesty it would appear.

A Deeper Conspiracy?

Now, was this twisted plot conceived entirely in a teenager’s head? The court documents allege Casap aimed not just to kill the President but ultimately sought to overthrow the U.S. government. And naturally, there are whispers of outside contact. Investigators found evidence suggesting he was communicating with individuals in Russia about his plans and even plotting an escape to Ukraine. It certainly raises disturbing questions about who else might be involved, pulling strings or fanning flames.

Make no mistake, this wasn’t just some basement fantasy. Authorities stated the teen had purchased a drone and explosives for a potential attack – taking concrete steps. Casap’s later arrest in Kansas while driving his murdered stepfather’s car containing a handgun, stolen valuables, a pried-open safe, and $14,000 in cash, practically screaming premeditation and flight. He now faces a raft of felony counts, including first-degree intentional homicide, and potential federal charges for the assassination plot. Casap is being held on a $1 million bond. It should be no bond.

This entire horrifying episode serves as a brutal, flashing red light. It’s a reminder of the serious internal threats we face. The ideologies fueling such hatred – whether they call themselves Satanists, Nazis, or wave some other anti-American banner – feast on cultural decay and the rejection of traditional morality. They target not just individuals like President Trump, but the very stability, fabric and soul of our nation.

The fight against this darkness requires more than just hoping law enforcement catches them all. This isn’t just some news story; it demands a reaffirmation from us of the values that actually built this country: faith, strong families, respect for life, and unwavering patriotism. Are we just going to shrug this off or will we remain vigilant, recognize the signs of this rot, and stand firm in defending the principles that stand in stark opposition to the chaos these extremists crave?

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Lawmakers: CCPs influence on American investment must be stopped


As the U.S. and China escalate their tariff rates in an all-out trade war, two congressional committees held a joint hearing Wednesday on the problem of the Chinese Communist Party’s influence on American investment and possible solutions.

The Chinese Communist Party is embedded in Chinese business to the extent that the assets of any American who has tried to do business in China, invests in the stock market, international index funds or mutual funds, or who has a 401K or pension invested in international index funds is at risk, according to TV personality and businessman Kevin O’Leary. O’Leary was called as an expert witness at the hearing.

The hearing was hosted by a House select committee that focuses on “strategic competition” between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party and the Senate Special Committee on Aging, as the party’s involvement in the Chinese economy and financial scams stands to disproportionately impact older Americans, according to committee members.

“The [Chinese] government has chosen to be America’s enemy. Unfortunately, that’s not a problem that only our military intelligence community has to worry about,” said Sen. Rick Scott, R-FL, chairman of the aging committee. “ If you have your retirement invested in anything that is controlled by or under the jurisdiction of the Chinese Communist Party, you are at risk of losing every dollar, and this could happen overnight.”

The senator went on to say that “there is no real private industry in China,” a point that was emphasized multiple times throughout the hearing by both committee members and the called witnesses.

O’Leary, an investor on the business reality TV show Shark Tank and the U.K.’s Dragon’s Den, said that China allows something called a “golden share,” which essentially de-privatizes private businesses. Any entity that purchases a golden share in a Chinese business – a small share, typically 1% – acquires disproportionate control of that company. A golden share can secure its owner a position on the company’s board or a certain level of authority over company decisions. The Chinese government buys these shares in companies it wants to influence, so that the Chinese Communist Party is deeply involved in companies that may appear private “on paper,” according to O’Leary.

In addition, the Chinese government doesn’t “play by the rules” of the World Trade Organization, even though it has been a member since 2001, according to O’Leary. This poses a real risk to Americans’ savings, according to Rep. John Moolenaar, R-MI.

“The CCP’s opaque regulatory regime, its disregard for the rule of law and its willingness to use financial tools for political gain present ongoing and significant dangers to American savings,” Moolenaar said.

O’Leary said that the Chinese Communist Party implements policies that disadvantage other countries in the Chinese economy but uses other countries’ legal systems against them to gain the upper hand in economic competition.

The party has passed “various laws in the realm of cyber security, espionage, intelligence and beyond and other mechanisms to control its corporations, industries and business partnerships, all to the detriment of U.S. investors,” O’Leary said.

The Chinese government doesn’t allow other countries to own shares of Chinese companies, for instance, while the U.S. “has given China preferential treatment for over a decade through its own special memorandum of understanding that governs accounting standards and oversight,” according to O’Leary.

“If we can’t own stocks in their country, they should not be allowed to own stocks in the U.S. Unless businesses can operate in China with the same freedoms that Chinese businesses have here, we should not let their businesses operate in the U.S.,” O’Leary said.

“Make no mistake, I want to do business in China, as do millions of other investors and companies, but we want a reciprocal ecosystem in place that is transparent,” he continued, saying the U.S. should leave China’s marketplace until its government implements significant reforms.

President and CEO of the American Securities Association Chris Iacovella said that even though China seemingly transitioned from a state-run to a free market economy decades ago, that’s not really what happened. Instead, China has “penetrated [American] capital markets” to build wealth and power. As a partial remedy, Iacovella said Congress should enact a ban against Chinese companies that engage in unlawful behavior from American markets.

“We have companies on the commerce list, on the DOD list, on the human rights list. These companies should not have access to our capital markets. They should not have access to anybody to be able to do business in this country,” Iacovella said.

A third expert witness called by the committee members was Brady Finta, founder of the National Elder Fraud Justice Coordination Center.

“I believe the scale of fraud against America’s elders has grown to epidemic proportions, and it’s time that we as a country treat it as such,” Finta told the committee members.

Finta worked to combat elder fraud in a previous position with the FBI but said the scale of the problem was so great, he and his team were able to address less than 1% of scams reported to them, even though only a fraction of people report the crimes committed against them.

Some committee members believed the CCP was either directly involved with international crime rings that perpetuate such scams, or at minimum, doesn’t actively deter them.

Finta suggested now is the time for a “whole of society response.” Separately, neither local, state nor federal law enforcement has the bandwidth to sustain a response that matches the magnitude of the problem. But if they joined together in elder justice task forces across the country and even partnered with the private sector, which has access to much of the data that is exploited, they could wage a much stronger fight, according to Finta.

“[Where] local and state resources can be used to support larger federal and international investigations, the effect of that is much greater than the individual investigations by local law enforcement,” Finta said.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

What Are We Fighting For In Europe?


As I read a recent flood of articles bemoaning the Trump administration’s stance toward the European Union and the elites that run it, I had an attack of déjà vu. I kept hearing the 1960s band Country Joe and the Fish singing in my memory. The words do apply today. As far as Europe is concerned, “What are we fighting for? Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn.”

True, this could be nothing more than a reverberation of a misspent youth. But the issues raised are real and need to be addressed. Why are we so deeply involved in the affairs and economies of Europe, all to our own detriment? Why so many troops stationed in Europe 80 years after the end of World War II and 35 years after the fall of the Soviet Union? Why do we tolerate their incessant hectoring and their dangerous and threatening authoritarian moves?

Since the beginning of the year, Europe as defined as the European Union (EU), has gone full tyranny. Any thought that the EU shared American values is a dangerous delusion. Just a quick check list shows that the leading candidate for President in Romania was removed from the ballot with virtually no justification other than his opposition to the “European experiment.” The populist party Alternative for Germany was boxed out of any say in government despite scoring a strong second place. In France, the leading candidate for President in the next election, Marie LePen was barred for some contrived charge. In Spain, the leading conservative-populist voice was charged with “hate speech” because he opposes the destruction of his country through mass illegal immigration.

But it isn’t just manipulation of the electoral process to deny true democratic expression. The EU has flexed its thuggish muscles in countless other ways as well. From expelling a 4-year-old from kindergarten for allegedly being “transphobic,” to Britain establishing a two-tiered criminal sentencing scheme that imposes harsher penalties on white men, to the refusal to admit that the so-called “climate crisis” is a lie that is crushing economies throughout the continent, Europe is gone. There was a reason many of our ancestors escaped it and now we can see that all the tendencies and arrogant abuse are part of the DNA of Europe, not of just a few individuals.

The most recent example, coming out of Germany, is a stark reminder of the ultimate expression of fascism, the very definition of it as stated by Benito Mussolini in a 1927 speech in the Italian Parliament when he said, “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State” A German court has imposed a 7-month probation sentence on editor-in-chief of Deutschland Kurier, David Bendels, for publishing a parody of a German federal official. The Bamberg District Court found that a satirical photo montage about Federal Minister Nancy Faeser to be an instance of “defamation against political figures,” under Paragraph 188 of the German Criminal Code (StGB).

Faeser, echoing il Duce, famously is quoted as saying during her term of interior minister: “Those who mock the State must be dealt with by a strong State.” Can’t get any more clear than that.

It is time, way past time, to get out and leave Europe to rot.

The United States was only drawn into the European con-game by Woodrow Wilson who fell for the One World, Globalist vision a little over 100 years ago. It was a huge mistake. Then while there was overwhelming opposition to entering World War II — at least on the European front — conditions and raw propaganda brushed it aside. Was defeating the Nazis a good thing? Of course it was. But the aftermath has been horrible. Why did we rebuild Europe? Why do we continue to subsidize their defense and their entire economies? Why is it our job to keep the Middle East shipping lanes open when it is Europe who gets the goods that pass through them.

And why do we continue to suffer their condescending attacks. Whether it is the threats on U.S. tech companies using the phony scam of “disinformation” as the ruse or the demand that all companies throughout world adhere to the destructive Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) standards that the EU is proposing as a pre-condition to doing business in the EU, the attacks are relentless.  This is the globalist — World Economic Forum — Atlantic Council agenda.  And it and they need to be removed as a clear threat to the United States by any means necessary. They are the enemies of American freedom, not allies.

A big part of the answer to these questions are also found from our hazy friends. Country Joe’s lyrics are as relevant today as they were in 1969. A couple of lines prove the point: “Come on, Wall Street, don’t be slow, why, man, this war’s a go-go. There’s plenty of good money to be made by supplying the army with the tools of trade.” Or: “Come on, Generals, let’s move fast.  Your big chance is here at last!”

Money. Advancement. Power. And all at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dead Ukrainians and Russians. The simple truth is that key elements of the establishment in the U.S. thrive as a result of us being chained to the EU. The benefit to the American people does not factor in. And while some make mountains of money from it, the real beneficiaries are the globalist ideologues who work day and night to destroy the United States as a free, sovereign and independent nation and impose their world government schemes. The entire exercise is aimed at nothing less than the elimination of any say by the people who pay the bills and bleed and die.

It is time. Remove all U.S. troops from Europe. Reduce or eliminate our support for and role in NATO. Any nation that refuses to remove trade barriers to American products and services should be hit with a fee or tariff double what is being imposed on Americans. When the crippled, bleeding sore that is the European Union moves to reform and open their systems to the will of the people of their nations including free speech, we should be glad to deal with them. But to continue to play the sucker to the EU has got to end. Freedom from this abusive and destructive relationship is, after all, worth fighting for.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Restoration of Second Amendment Rights After They Are Lost


There has long been a provision of federal law that allows Americans to petition the U.S. attorney general (AG) for relief from firearm disabilities on a case-by-case basis, a little-known piece of information due to the function lying dormant since 1991. You see, it’s easier to lose the right to purchase or possess firearms than one might think, and many of the offenses and the conditions surrounding them point to the fact that the prohibited individual does not pose any enhanced risk of physical harm to themselves or the public. So why, then, and how have Americans lost this fundamental access to the restoration of a constitutionally enumerated liberty?

It began in 1991 when a Bolshevik anti-Second Amendment group, the Violence Policy Center, released a report that claimed occasions upon which some citizens who were granted relief would later go on to re-offend. It is important to note that although the AG oversees the provision, the administration process for the petitions had been handed down to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Politicians, in their ever-knee-jerking zeal to strip Americans of their right to bear arms, responded to the report in Congress by passing language in ATF funding bills that prohibited the use of any funds for this purpose.

Now, if you’re thinking that Congress is passing bills contradictory to the law and circumventing both the rights of Americans and the authority of the AG, then you are right on track, but this is nothing new. Look at all the existing gun control laws, both on the federal and state side, that already circumvent Constitutional law and the politicians and activist judges that have ushered them into existence and protected them from legal challenges. It is easy, then, to determine that all branches of the government have long since been in cahoots to some extent and that the tyrannical ship sailed on the American people years ago.

Last week, The Washington Post published an editorial in its opinion section by two law professors who argued that the government should resume funding the rights restoration provision on the grounds that categories of prohibited individuals include people who would not be demonstrably dangerous and whose Second Amendment prohibitions would likely not survive U.S. Supreme Court caselaw scrutiny. The professors also stipulate that the ability to seek relief itself may shield the overly broad categories of prohibition from further Constitutional challenges, which could perhaps lead to the Supreme Court striking down possession prohibitions entirely, two issues that I do not find mutually exclusive. However, I am not sure the High Court, even in its current perceived configuration, is capable of such Constitutional reverence.

The issue of rights restoration recently reemerged as the Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Trump has started reviewing petitions through the Office of the Pardon Attorney, a very clever workaround to the illegal ATF funding rider issued by the Politburo, AKA Congress, which deprives Americans of not only their Second Amendment liberty but also their right to due process. Legal precedent requires the government to carry the burden of proof that an individual poses an enhanced risk of harm to self or others before prohibiting them from purchasing or possessing firearms.

Those of us who live in reality understand that criminals intent on violent crime and murder do not give pause to their actions in order to follow legal protocol and procedure when obtaining firearms. Instead, they see those laws as a means to make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to their objectives and, in that sense, make great partners to the left and any lawmakers who follow the subversive path of the gun control agenda. Leaving Americans unprotected in this manner invites violence, which creates the opportunity for further infringements upon our rights under the guise of protecting our safety, and that cycle is designed to continue until all freedom is lost. Guess what happens next.

When I hear remarks about America being a beacon of freedom, I think to myself, sure, maybe relatively speaking, depending on what state you live in, but not in any general understanding. I’m sure it was at one time, long before I was a twinkle in the eyes of my parents. I wish I could have seen it back then. But individual liberty has not survived the scrutiny of disingenuous agendas and their narratives that claim to know better what Americans need than Americans themselves. The idea that politicians and the government need to strip our freedoms to protect us is insulting and is not even original, as the same tired scheme has been used ad nauseam historically to subjugate populations around the world.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Climate Alarmist Gets Costly Lesson After Attempt to Silence Critics Backfires. BAM!


Climate Alarmist Gets Costly Lesson After Attempt to Silence Critics Backfires

In the high-stakes world of climate science, questioning the established narrative can come with serious consequences. And let me tell you, nobody knows this better than Mark Steyn and National Review, who found themselves on the receiving end of a defamation lawsuit after criticizing Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph – that convenient climate model that helped launch a thousand carbon tax proposals and endless doomsday predictions that somehow never quite materialize. For over a decade, Mann, the darling of climate activism, has been locked in a bitter legal battle against those who dared challenge his work. But sometimes, even science’s elite must face the cold reality of the judicial system – a reality that doesn’t care about consensus or how many times you’ve been invited to speak at Davos.

Mann’s lawsuit against National Review began in 2012, a case that would stretch on for years, consuming resources and threatening to silence critical voices in climate science debate. The University of Pennsylvania professor, celebrated in climate advocacy circles (and boy, do they love to celebrate each other), had declared the publication a “threat to our children” in private emails. His rage was triggered after Canadian conservative commentator Mark Steyn wrote a post questioning Mann’s methodology, followed by National Review editor Rich Lowry publishing a piece supporting Steyn’s critique. Imagine that – journalists actually doing their job by questioning powerful institutional figures!

What Mann didn’t anticipate, however, was how this attempt to punish his critics might ultimately send him reaching for his own checkbook instead. Isn’t it funny how those who scream loudest about “following the science” are often the first to run to the courts when their work faces actual scientific scrutiny?

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia recently delivered news that likely sent shockwaves through Mann’s office. Despite his desperate legal maneuvers to delay the inevitable, the court flatly rejected his bid to postpone payment of a staggering $530,000 in legal fees to National Review – the very publication he sought to destroy through litigation. I guess silencing critics isn’t as cheap as it used to be.

Judge Albert Irving wrote in March that Mann and his lawyers had presented misleading information to the jury while the defamation case was at trial. Specifically, Mann and his representation misled the jury as to how much grant funding he missed out on due to the actions of the defendants, a key element of his defamation case, with Irving describing the deception as “extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.”

This decisive ruling comes after Mann had already requested a stay to delay payment, essentially asking the court for more time before having to sign a check to the conservative publication he had once hoped to financially cripple. In January 2025, the court had ordered Mann to pay approximately $530,000 within 30 days, and his subsequent attempt to get that deadline extended just crashed and burned – much like so many climate model predictions. In a fitting twist of irony, the very legal system Mann had weaponized against his critics is now demanding he pay up, and promptly.

A Pattern of Deception Exposed

What makes this ruling particularly damning is the court’s acknowledgment of Mann’s dishonesty during the trial process. Judge Irving’s blistering assessment that Mann and his lawyers misled the jury about the financial impact of the criticism he received cuts to the heart of his entire defamation claim. The judge didn’t mince words, characterizing the deception as “extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.” (And believe me, that’s saying something in Washington!)

The implications extend far beyond this single case. For years, climate skeptics have faced accusations of being “science deniers,” while attempts to question climate orthodoxy have been met with personal attacks, professional ostracism, and now, as Mann demonstrated, lawfare. This court decision represents a rare instance where the tables have turned – where the cost of attempting to silence legitimate scientific debate through litigation has been assigned to the silencer rather than the silenced.

Victory for Scientific Discourse

The court’s decision marks a significant moment for free expression in scientific debate. The $530,000 payment Mann now owes represents more than just compensation for legal expenses – it stands as a warning to those who would use litigation to stifle criticism rather than engaging with it on its merits. For conservatives who’ve long questioned the climate catastrophe narrative, this ruling feels like vindication.

In an age where climate policy drives trillion-dollar economic decisions and shapes international agreements, robust debate about the underlying science shouldn’t just be permitted – it should be encouraged. Mann’s lawsuit represented the opposite approach: an attempt to use legal intimidation to shield his work from scrutiny.

This case serves as a reminder of why the founders placed free speech as the first amendment in our Bill of Rights. Scientific progress depends on challenging established theories, questioning methodologies, and yes, sometimes criticizing the work of prominent researchers. When scientists attempt to use courts rather than evidence to vindicate their positions, they undermine the very foundation of scientific inquiry.

Key Takeaways

  • A DC court rejected climate scientist Michael Mann’s attempt to avoid paying $530,000 in legal fees to National Review after his failed lawsuit.
  • The judge issued a scathing assessment that Mann and his lawyers deliberately misled the jury about lost grant funding.
  • This case exposes how climate alarmists often use legal intimidation rather than scientific evidence to silence critics.
  • Free speech in scientific debate scores a major victory as Mann’s attempt to punish skeptics backfires spectacularly.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

A Government Held Hostage: Why The Supreme Court Must Rein In Rogue Federal Judges


In a case that would read like satire were its consequences not so severe, a single district judge has attempted to substitute his judgment for that of the president of the United States, his Cabinet and the entire machinery of the executive branch. On the shaky foundation of delayed bathroom openings and speculative FOIA frustrations, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered six federal agencies to reinstate over 16,000 probationary employees whom the executive had lawfully terminated. That is no way to run a government. It is, however, an efficient way to cripple one.

This unprecedented judicial intrusion warrants urgent reversal by the Supreme Court. It implicates not only the structural integrity of the constitutional order but also the basic operability of the executive branch. If allowed to stand, this injunction would green-light a new era of governance—by district court decree—where plaintiffs need not even be the employees affected, but merely individuals inconvenienced by the possibility of less-than-optimal service from the federal leviathan.

Let us be clear: the terminated employees were probationary. That term is not decorative. It denotes a class of individuals whom the federal government, acting through agency discretion, has not yet deemed fit for permanent service. The very purpose of probationary status, long recognized in civil service jurisprudence, is to afford the government the flexibility to assess aptitude before conferring permanence. To strip the executive of this discretion at the whim of a district court is to invert the hierarchy of constitutional authority.

Even more astonishing is the identity of the plaintiffs. Not the employees themselves—who, under the Civil Service Reform Act, must pursue redress through specific administrative channels—but organizations that claim their members were adversely affected by reductions in services. The theoretical chain from dismissal to harm proceeds thus: an agency terminated an employee, which may have led to a slower FOIA response or a delayed bathroom opening at a national park, which may have annoyed a citizen who belongs to a nonprofit, which nonprofit now claims standing to challenge the Executive’s staffing decisions. This is not law; it is farce.

The doctrine of standing, which limits federal courts to adjudicating actual cases and controversies, is designed to prevent such misadventures. As the Supreme Court affirmed in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, federal courts do not exist to conduct general oversight of the Executive Branch. They are not roving commissions to improve customer service. Yet the district court in AFGE v. OPM embraced a theory of injury so attenuated it makes the proverbial butterfly effect look rigorous.

Even assuming arguendo that the court could entertain such a theory, its remedy is legally indefensible. Reinstatement of employees is a drastic and rarely granted measure, especially where, as here, the employees themselves are not before the court. As the Court recognized in Sampson v. Murray, judicially compelled reinstatement of a single employee represents a significant intrusion on executive discretion. Imposing that remedy on a mass scale, without statutory warrant and without a showing of irreparable harm, is more than judicial activism; it is judicial usurpation.

Moreover, the district court’s order tramples Congress’ deliberate scheme for federal personnel disputes. The Civil Service Reform Act provides a comprehensive and exclusive avenue for terminated employees to challenge their dismissals. End-runs through district court by third-party organizations are not just unauthorized; they are antithetical to the statute’s purpose. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Fausto, permitting such circumvention would upend the structure Congress enacted and invite a chaotic patchwork of judicial micromanagement.

The executive has not stood idle. Following the court’s temporary restraining order, the Office of Personnel Management clarified its guidance, emphasizing that it did not and could not direct agencies to terminate specific employees. Agencies, in turn, independently affirmed their staffing decisions. Some even rescinded terminations. Others, in line with the president’s directive to optimize the federal workforce, maintained course. This reflects exactly what the Constitution envisions: agency discretion under the aegis of a politically accountable executive.

Yet the court was not satisfied. It doubled down, ordering full reinstatement to active duty—no administrative leave permitted—and demanding agencies report their progress to the bench. In effect, the judge transformed himself into a personnel director for the federal government, supervising onboarding procedures and issuing dictates about work assignments. This is not judicial review; it is receivership.

The administrative burden imposed by the order is staggering. Agencies have been forced to contact, rehire and reassign thousands of individuals in a matter of days. The government must pay salaries, issue credentials and allocate workspace—all under the threat of contempt. And should the injunction be reversed—as it almost certainly will be—the agencies will be forced to terminate these employees again, compounding the cost and confusion.

Meanwhile, the constitutional damage mounts. This case is not an outlier; it is part of a growing trend. As the government notes, more than 40 injunctions or temporary restraining orders have been issued against the executive branch in just two months—more than during the first three years of the previous administration. The judiciary is not merely overstepping its bounds; it is sprinting past them.

This Court has the tools to restore order. The standards for issuing a stay are well established: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, and the balance of equities. Each factor weighs heavily in favor of the government. The constitutional structure demands a course correction. Judicial modesty is not a quaint ideal—it is a constitutional imperative.

If one district judge can effectively seize control of six executive agencies based on speculative harms and attenuated theories of standing, then no executive action is safe from pretextual interference. The line between judicial oversight and judicial governance has been crossed. It is the task of the Supreme Court to redraw it—and to redraw it firmly.

For the sake of the separation of powers, for the integrity of the executive and for the rule of law itself, the Court must act. The injunction must be stayed. The machinery of government must be permitted to function. And the Constitution must, once again, be obeyed.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

China is Terrified of Trump


China is terrified that Donald Trump could turn it into a Japan-style zombie economy.

According to the Wall Street Journal, China is “Right to worry.”

The reason is Trump’s aggressive tariffs on China — with more to come on April 2nd — are hitting when China’s economy is already reeling from failed central planning.

This includes trillions of overcapacity dumped into state favorites from green energy and EV’s to semiconductors and commercial aircraft.

Overcapacity in China

To illustrate, by 2019 China had five hundred electric vehicle makers.

80% have already gone bust. With a hundred still to go.

This over-capacity is crashing prices in China, which are actually falling again — despite panicked money-printing by China’s central bank.

Meanwhile, private-sector estimates peg China’s economy limping along just over 2% growth — a far cry from double-digits a decade ago.

Ominously, after China’s youth employment soared past 20%, Beijing stopped reporting it.

China’s response to overcapacity has been dumping abroad, which is why you can get four dollar shirts on Temu.

That’s pissing off trade partners including the EU.

But that’s barely making a dent, with prices still falling. Which puts tens of thousands more factories at risk.

That could mean millions more jobs lost.

Last year China had nearly a thousand “dissent events” — including riots.

Millions of unemployed factory workers would be gasoline to the fire.

Trump’s Tariffs

Donald Trump is now feeding China’s house of cards into the wood chipper.

A few weeks ago he hiked tariffs to between 17 and a half to 35 percent, with more to come on April second, when Trump goes nuclear with reciprocal tariffs.

Even China perma-bull JP Morgan admitted “we felt tariffs were a negotiating tactic rather than a structural change. We appear to be wrong.”

I’ve mentioned in previous articles that Trump’s dream of bringing production back to America is actually possible if business taxes and red tape are tamed.

DOGE is aiming directly at both. And Trump keeps flirting with repealing the entire income tax.

Given America’s huge economy — we’re one-quarter of the entire global economy — if you nestle that under a big beautiful tariff umbrella and cut costs and red tape you get a flood of Chinese companies wanting to Make it in America.

Beijing will be bribing them to stay.

China’s Abuse of Foreign Firms

It’s not just Trump.

Doing business in China has always been like dating a stripper — good-looking but there’s an awful lot of drama.

Beijing forces you to train your competitors and share your trade secrets — so-called forced technology transfer.

Its regulations change depending who you know. With foreigners at the back of the line.

Occasionally it arrests your managers as hostages if it’s upset with your country.

Thanks to all this, foreign investment into China has collapsed 96% since Xi Jinping took office, actually turning negative — more leaving than coming — with a record $168 billion outflow last year.

There’s even talk that China could be turning into a Japan-style zombie economy thanks to government allocation of capital. Bond markets say it already has.

What’s Next

China’s President Xi appears incapable of handling the challenge. He’s the most anti-business Chinese leader since Mao — with a decade of low growth to show for it.

Worse, his instinctive combativeness is going to create fireworks with Donald Trump, who’s currently luring China’s most important ally, Russia, out of its orbit.

Sadly for the Chinese people, Xi’s greatest achievement is the police state he built. So, at age 71, there’s no cavalry coming.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Green Card-Holding Palestinian Trump’s Deporting Gets Even Worse News as Justice Finds Him


Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is pictured during an April protest at Columbia University campus in New York. (Ted Shaffrey / AP)

Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is pictured during an April protest at Columbia University campus in New York. (Ted Shaffrey / AP)

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and former Columbia University graduate student detained by immigration authorities over the weekend, appears to have violated explicit federal immigration laws.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Khalil, a permanent resident with a green card, on Saturday.

The agents originally told Khalil his student visa was being revoked, according to The Associated Press, which quoted Khalil’s attorney, Amy Greer.

Greer told the AP she spoke on the phone with the agents during the arrest and said her client had a green card. The agent then told her the green card was being revoked instead, Greer said, according to the AP.

On Sunday, in a post on the social media platform X, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the federal government will be “revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security said Khalil was arrested “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism” because he “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization,” according to the AP.

On Monday, however, a federal judge in New York blocked Khalil’s deportation. Judge Jesse M. Furman said that Khalil must remain in the United States “to preserve the court’s jurisdiction” as the court considers his case, according to NBC News.

A hearing for the case is scheduled in federal court for Wednesday.

Other protesters have assembled in New York City to demand the release of Khalil.

Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge via email. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Pennsylvania Democratic U.S. Rep. Summer Lee also came to his defense, asserting on social media that “Mahmoud Khalil should be at home with his 8-month pregnant wife.”

But it appears that federal law is rather clear about support of a terrorist organization serving as grounds for removal from the country — and that is likely worse news for Khalil.

When discussing “inadmissible aliens,” the law specifically includes any foreigner who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”

The U.S. government has designated Hamas as a “foreign terrorist organization” for nearly 30 years, according to a webpage from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The group uses a variety of weaponry to “to advance attacks against Israeli military forces and civilians.”

Hamas also “engages in cyber espionage, computer network exploitation, and kidnapping operations.”

No matter how much leftist protesters and lawmakers may complain, Khalil does not belong in the United States if he is going to align himself with terrorist organizations.

For non-citizens, being in the United States is a privilege, not a right.

Wasting the incredible opportunity of attending an Ivy League school and building a better life after graduation is incredibly foolish.

The last thing the United States needs is the importation and continued presence of foreigners trying to drag us into their conflicts.

This deportation should send a crystal clear message to the rest of the country that coming here for such activities, especially in support of clearly designated terrorist organizations, is not allowed.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Who are the Judges ruling against Trump’s orders?


Money Trails and Backgrounds of 10 Democrat-Appointed Judges Blocking Trump Policies

Federal judges ruling against President Donald Trump’s recent executive actions have been almost entirely appointees of his two Democrat predecessors.

Some were previously activists, others were steeped in Democrat politics, and one is a former clerk for then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor. These judges have issued rulings to block Trump’s policies on immigration, federal spending, the Department of Government Efficiency, and other matters. 

Plaintiffs have been “forum shopping” to attain more favorable rulings, said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice. Forum shopping means they search for specific parts of the country where judges are more likely to be liberal and sympathetic to their case.

“They are trying to flood the zone and make it hard for the Trump administration to pursue its agenda,” Levey told The Daily Signal. “They are likely to win at the district level. And liberal districts are often in liberal circuits. So, in some cases, they can win at the circuit level and give the appearance that the Trump administration is under siege. Another advantage to flooding the zone is that the Supreme Court is limited. It only hears about 75 cases per year.”

Some of the judges ruling against Trump include:

A one-time major Democrat donor, U.S. District Judge John McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island, recently sided with a group of Democrat state attorneys general in a lawsuit to block Trump’s attempted funding freeze for numerous federal grants to nongovernmental organizations. 

From 2000 until when President Barack Obama nominated him to the federal bench in 2010, McConnell contributed about $60,000 to Democrat candidates. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed his nomination, noting his long career as a lawyer who sued over lead paint and tobacco, Forbes reported. 

McConnell was a former treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic Committee and chaired the campaign of Providence Mayor David Cicilline, according to the Providence Journal. Cicilline was later elected to the U.S. House. 

Notably, the judge previously rejected a lawsuit to remove candidate Trump from Rhode Island’s 2024 ballot. 

In a separate case targeting the order on the funding freeze, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan of the District of Columbia, an appointee of President Joe Biden, imposed a restraining order on the freeze. AliKhan was previously on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the D.C. solicitor general. 

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali of the District of Columbia, a Biden appointee, enforced a restraining order to prevent the spending freeze on foreign aid disbursed by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. In 2020, Ali contributed $1,500 to Biden’s presidential campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org. He also made modest contributions to numerous other Democrat candidates. 

Before his nomination, Ali was the executive director of the MacArthur Justice Center, an organization initially founded to oppose the death penalty but that has since expanded to other criminal justice issues.  

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang of the District of Maryland, an Obama appointee, blocked the Trump administration from conducting immigration raids and arrests at certain houses of worship. 

During much of Obama’s time in office, Chuang was the deputy general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security. Before that, from 2007 to 2009, he was the deputy chief investigative counsel for the Democrat majority on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He was also a past contributor to several Democrat candidates, including giving $750 to Obama’s 2008 campaign and $1,250 to the 2004 presidential bid of Democrat John Kerry. 

U.S. District Judge Jeannette Vargas of the Southern District of New York recently halted DOGE’s access to Department of Treasury records. 

Biden nominated Vargas, a former New York federal prosecutor, last year. Vargas contributed $2,000 to Biden’s 2020 campaign, and before that, gave $750 to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Before working in the Justice Department, Vargas clerked for then-U.S. 2nd Circuit Appeals Court Judge Sotomayor from 2001 to 2002. 

U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead of the Western District of Washington state blocked Trump’s executive order suspending refugee admissions. Biden nominated Whitehead in 2023. During the Obama administration, Whitehead was the senior trial attorney at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman of the District of Maryland sided with the American Federation of Teachers, a union, to block DOGE from accessing information from the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Education regarding student loans. 

Biden nominated Boardman, a former federal public defender, in 2021. She has been a moderate donor to numerous Democrat campaigns, including giving $500 to Obama’s 2008 campaign and $500 to Clinton in the same campaign cycle.  

U.S. District Judge Lauren King of the Western District of Washington, a Biden appointee, temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s restrictions on federal funding for “sex change” treatments for minors. 

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole of the District of Massachusetts, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, issued a similar ruling to block the Trump administration’s restriction on sex change funding. He was recommended for the seat by then-Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson of Maryland, Biden appointee, blocked Trump’s executive order ending federal support of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs, or DEI. A very modest donor to Democrat candidates, he was previously a magistrate judge and in private practice in Maryland. 

Some notable exceptions to the Democrat-appointed judges handing Trump court losses: There have been at least four court rulings on Trump’s order scrapping birthright citizenship, with two of those rulings coming from Republican appointees—Judges John Coughenour of Washington state and Joseph Laplante of New Hampshire. They were nominated by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

‘Deranged Jack Smith’ Executive Order Takes Down And Shakes Up His Friends


An order signed by President Trump on Tuesday signals a new front in fighting lawfare operatives in the private sector.

As an aide started to explain the latest order about to be signed during a press conference in the White House on Tuesday afternoon, President Trump interrupted his spiel.

“Hold it, this is a good one,” the president, holding up his hand, said to several reporters assembled in the Oval Office. “Is everybody listening? We’re going to call it the ‘Deranged Jack Smith’…bill.”

The order, in the form of a memo to several agency heads, suspended the security clearance of employees at Covington & Burling, a Democratic-connected white-shoe law firm headquartered in Washington. According to a January 27 Wall Street Journal article–and followed up by Politico–the firm provided at least $140,000 in pro bono services to disgraced former special counsel Jack Smith.

Although both cases ended after Trump’s election, Smith’s problems were just beginning. Trump had promised on the campaign trail that his administration would investigate evidence of abuse and misconduct by the special counsel and his team. He fulfilled that promise by signing an executive order on January 20 to end the “weaponization” of the federal government, particularly the DOJ and intelligence community: “The prior administration and allies throughout the country engaged in an unprecedented, third-world weaponization of prosecutorial power to upend the democratic process. These actions appear oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives.”

In a follow-up move, Attorney General Pam Bondi formed a “Weaponization Working Group” on Feb. 5 and specifically cited Smith, “who spent more than $50 million targeting President Trump.”

Smith officially left the Biden DOJ on January 10 but not before succeeding in releasing one volume of his two-volume report into the investigations of the president. And in the “quit digging a hole” category, Smith recently signed an open letter to current prosecutors expressing “alarm…by recent actions of the Department’s leadership.”

With Free Friends Like This…

Trump, along with his DOJ, likely will have the last laugh. And it’s doubtful Smith’s free lawyers at Covington & Burling, with offices around the world, are amused. While it’s unclear how many security clearances have been suspended, it appears two lawyers—Peter Koski and Clinton pal Lanny Breuer—were directly involved in providing free counsel to Smith. Koski worked at the DOJ’s public integrity unit during the same time Smith headed the unit during the Obama administration. Other notable Democrats at the firm include former Attorney General Eric Holder, Biden’s longtime foreign affairs advisor and Ukraine war architect Victoria Nuland, and Biden’s former White House counsel Dana Remus.

The presidential directive may have an immediate impact on Smith’s ability to build a defense, particularly for Koski. “Revoking [Koski’s] clearance could limit his access to sensitive government records, given that both of Mr. Smith’s criminal investigations against Mr. Trump involved classified documents. Doing so could sharply limit what representation Mr. Koski might be able to offer,” the New York Times reported on Feb 25.

But Trump’s “Deranged Jack Smith” order goes beyond suspending access to privileged material. The president further ordered federal agencies to look for any government contracts with Covington & Burling. “I also direct the Attorney General and heads of agencies to take such actions as are necessary to terminate any engagement of Covington & Burling LLP by any agency to the maximum extent permitted by law,” the president wrote.

It’s unknown how many, if any, government contracts exist with the firm. Possibly none. But the missive is yet another welcome sign of the so-called “Trump 2.0” administration, where heads will roll inside and outside government not just for viciously targeting the president and his supporters but for misleading the American people and wasting time and money in the process. To wit, the president indicated this is just the start.

After signing the order, the president turned to his aide and asked, “we’ll be doing this for other firms as time goes by?” The aide answered in the affirmative. After adding his signature, Trump threw his Sharpie to someone in the office. “Why don’t you send it to Jack Smith,” he joked.

Prestigious law firms act as both the hidden hammer and revolving door in the lawfare against Republicans. This is playing out in at least a dozen lawsuits filed against the Trump administration over the past 30 days. Until there is pain felt by both public and private lawyers responsible for this unprecedented attack against the will of the people, it will continue.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

NAACP Gives Kamala Harris Award. Who’d Have ‘Thunk’.


The NAACP will present its prestigious Chairman’s Award to former Vice President Kamala Harris at the upcoming NAACP Image Awards on February 22. This honor is supposedly reserved for individuals who “excel in public service” and “leverage their platforms to ignite and drive meaningful change.”

Now, let’s be clear—this is hardly surprising. The NAACP has long functioned as an extension of the Democratic Party, handing out accolades to left-wing politicians while ignoring Black Americans who don’t subscribe to their political agenda.

Case in point: this award has gone to Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Lewis, Bennie Thompson, and Maxine Waters, but never to Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell—two of the most accomplished Black Americans in modern history. Apparently, their contributions to public service don’t count because they don’t toe the party line.

The announcement was filled with the usual over-the-top praise. According to NAACP Board Chairman Leon W. Russell, Harris is not just a leader but a “force of change” driven by “an unwavering passion to shape a brighter, more equitable future.”

Meanwhile, NAACP President Derrick Johnson declared that Harris “embodies the power, grace, and unyielding courage that Black women have long brought to the heart of the United States.” And, of course, the president of BET Media Group, Scott Mills, added that her “unwavering commitment to justice, equity, and progress has inspired millions.”

But here’s the real question: what exactly has Kamala Harris done to deserve this award? What policies has she spearheaded that have tangibly improved the lives of Black Americans?

Under the Biden-Harris administration, inflation has hammered working-class families, crime has skyrocketed in major cities, and border security has become an absolute disaster—despite Harris supposedly being the “border czar.” Yet, in the world of the NAACP, simply existing as a Black liberal politician seems to be enough to earn a trophy.

The pattern here is undeniable. If you’re a Black American who aligns with the left, you’re a “beacon of hope.”

If you’re a Black American who dares to think independently—like Clarence Thomas, who sits on the highest court in the land, or Thomas Sowell, one of the greatest economic minds of our time—you’re ignored. The NAACP isn’t about civil rights anymore; it’s about maintaining a political monopoly.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with:

Katlin Collin’s Deletes Social Media Post After Public Response


The case of alleged murderer Luigi Mangione has peeled back yet another layer of moral rot infecting certain corners of the modern left. Here we have a privileged 26-year-old from a wealthy Maryland family, a University of Pennsylvania graduate, who—according to police and clear-as-day video evidence—gunned down UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in the streets of New York City last December. A father. A husband. A man Mangione had no personal connection to.

And yet, in a disturbing reflection of the times, this brutal act has been met with a grotesque level of sympathy from some, all because the killer supposedly had the “right” motivations. His actions, they argue, were a protest against the healthcare system and the insurance industry—never mind that what he actually did was shoot an unarmed man in the back.

CNN “reporter” KaitlanCollins promoted a fundraiser for Luigi Mangione. She has since deleted the public relations post for Luigi. pic.twitter.com/7ZI72b9Yfk

But that’s not stopping the apologists. And now, CNN’s Kaitlan Collins appears to have waded right into the mess, according to reports. The network’s chief White House correspondent reportedly posted a link to a website launched by Mangione’s defense team—before quietly deleting it after the backlash hit. Why? Because people noticed.

That link, by the way, was for a legal defense fund that has already raked in over $300,000 from Mangione’s supporters. That’s right—an Ivy League-educated killer from a wealthy family, who allegedly committed a public execution in cold blood, has managed to draw in six figures’ worth of donations.

Kaitlan Collins omits the fact that Mangione’s defense attorney, the same one behind this website she is promoting, is a CNN contributor. https://t.co/6bsfXXFIb0 pic.twitter.com/HiBYGhJr23

Two things stand out here: First, Collins conveniently left out the fact that Mangione’s defense attorney is another CNN insider. Second, her original post is now mysteriously unavailable, as pointed out by journalist Stephen Miller. That deletion speaks volumes.

It’s worth asking: Was Collins just blindly sharing the link without thinking? Or was this yet another example of the increasingly common habit of framing violent criminals as misunderstood victims—so long as they fit the right ideological mold?

Wow. Usually when someone makes an error and deletes a tweet, they’ll say, “my bad” and explain they’ve removed a post.

Looks like @kaitlancollins thought no one would notice the Luigi Mangione boosting.

Oops. 

This isn’t the first time a murderer has been repackaged into a “cause” rather than a criminal. But what’s particularly galling here is the sheer detachment from reality. Brian Thompson doesn’t get to have a defense fund. He doesn’t get to have a website where he can share his feelings. He doesn’t get to post his gratitude to supporters. He was executed.

And yet, Mangione, a man who had every advantage in life, is now being treated like some kind of folk hero by certain circles.

Collins’ actions, whether intentional or just wildly careless, raise real questions. Is this just another example of mainstream media figures being unable to resist the impulse to glorify criminals if they fit a certain narrative? Or was this simply a case of poor judgment and a scramble to backtrack once the backlash hit? Either way, it’s not a good look.

Category:

Uncategorized

Tagged with: