Friday, June 26, 2026

Dysphoria and Dysfunction Are Displayed, From Reflecting Pool Algae Distemper to Disturbing Tesla Reports

Dysphoria and Dysfunction Are Displayed, From Reflecting Pool Algae Distemper to Disturbing Tesla Reports

Dysphoria and Dysfunction Are Displayed, From Reflecting Pool Algae Distemper to Disturbing Tesla Reports
Townhall Media

Get access to Brad Slager's "Riffed From the Headlines," a daily VIP feature where he looks to bring accountability to the mainstream media. Use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!

Race to the Bottom – THE ATLANTIC

  • It is to the point that anything we don’t like can be connected to slavery!

Several figures in the media can be relied upon to make ANYTHING being discussed into a rant about race. Joy Reid was always the flag bearer. Eddie Glaude cannot refrain from the temptation. And another seemingly afflicted with the racial Tourette's Syndrome is Jemele Hill.

Jemele’s issue, however, is that by starting from the standpoint of anything being racist, she rarely thinks through her claims, and often ends up appearing entirely unfamiliar with specifics while talking like an authority. Take, for instance, the recent time she told people in the interior states they did not have to worry about immigrants coming into their areas because…um, people willing to cross our national border are incapable of crossing state lines???

In a similar fashion, Ms. Hill was a guest on CNN and declared boldly that the reason Kamala Harris was not elected was due to the Electoral College, and that Federalism voting concept was installed to appease slave owners. At the risk of white-splaining, the EC was developed by our Founders (many of whom were anti-slavery) to protect smaller states from being overruled by larger population centers. 

As for litigating the 2016 election, that is something we have been told is election denialism, and a grievous political sin.

Artisanally-Crafted Narratives – CNN

  • We are sorry, but as segues go this was like a Mack Truck making a U-turn through a T-ball baseball diamond.

On the same panel from Abby Phillip’s nightly roundtable carp-fest, Ana Navarro made what must be the most abrupt change of topics in a discussion ever witnessed. Try not to get whiplash, as she is talking about the reflecting pool algae “scandal”, and then somehow leaps to people should be jailed over the Epstein files – in mid-sentence. There is no connective tissue between these topics, and she skips ahead to Epstein like you sat on the remote and accidently hit the CHAPTER button.

Low-Octane Gaslighting – MS NOW

  • Somehow, Trump took something away from the people that they were never permitted to do.

The Reflecting Pool algae blooms has the media so spun out that we almost tire of covering them do ing so – and yet, they keep outdoing themselves. For the latest we turn to MS NOW, where on the dimming show “The Weeknight” (they should really go with “weak”), guest Cornell Belcher was upset because he says children can no longer “splash around” in the reflecting pool, but now the Trump administration will arrest children who do so.

Small problem: People were never allowed to “splash around” in the Reflecting Pool, even though Cornell says he was able to do so as a kid.

Reporting on the Mirror – THE INDEPENDENTS

  • Refusing to play after being cut from the team is a grand look, Tucker.

We are not sure what broke Tucker Carlson and led him to become an anti-Semitic, contrarian, and pro-Qatar voice. (Ah! That must be it - the Qatari chsh flow!)

Whatever happened, most sane conservatives have stopped listening to Tucker some time ago. He has become rather unhinged.

But today he has come out to announce that he is done with the Republican Party!

This comes not only as the opposite of “a shock”, but we are more than certain that the party had moved on from him some time ago. But, okay Tucker, good luck on…your already in-place separation.

News Avoidance Syndrome – VARIOUS OUTLETS

  • One would think getting word from the experts here would be critical, no?

The three network news broadcasts, as well as many other ancillary outlets, have reported on the Tesla crash into a home in Houston. There was one fatality inside the residence, and the driver who survived claims the vehicle was in self-driving mode.

Most all reports cite this claim, and often lend expanded commentary about the dangers this provides, but there is little to be heard from Elon Musk or the company.

Well, he and another tech at the company have made disqualifying comments, and it will be interesting to see if there are any corrections or updated reports to be made.

Nice Try: Judge Rejects Bid to Toss Jeanine Pirro From Trump Assassination Case

Nice Try: Judge Rejects Bid to Toss Jeanine Pirro From Trump Assassination Case

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

A federal judge has rejected an attempt by the man accused of trying to assassinate President Donald Trump to force Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro off the prosecution team.

In an 18-page order issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden denied defendant Cole Tomas Allen's motion to disqualify both officials from the case stemming from the April 25 attack at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.

According to prosecutors, Allen traveled to the Washington Hilton intending to kill President Trump after tracking the event through public reporting. He allegedly rushed through a Secret Service checkpoint carrying a shotgun, wounded a Secret Service officer, and was stopped before reaching the ballroom where Trump, Cabinet officials, and other dignitaries were gathered.

Allen argued that Blanche and Pirro should be removed because they attended the dinner, later made public statements about the attack, and — in Pirro's case — because of her longstanding friendship with President Trump.

But Judge McFadden wasn't buying it.

The judge rejected Allen's contention that merely being present at the event transformed Blanche and Pirro into legal "victims" of the alleged crimes. The actual victims, he explained, were President Trump and the wounded Secret Service officer — not everyone who happened to be attending the dinner that evening.

Neither Blanche nor Pirro is a victim of Allen’s alleged crimes. Allen stands accused of attempting to assassinate the President, assaulting a United States officer with a deadly weapon, and committing two firearm offenses. See Indictment, ECFNo. 22. The only people “directly and proximately” harmed by those alleged crimes are the President and the wounded Secret Service officer. See Opp’n at 3. Add to that list, perhaps, the United States. Cf. Heldt, 668 F.2d at 1275. But the list stops short of Blanche and Pirro. Allen is not charged with attempting to harm either. Nor did he injure them. That they theoretically could have been injured or that they were present at the alleged crime scene does not make them “victims” of the charged crimes in a legal sense.

Nor did the court see any issue with either official speaking publicly on the matter afterward. Prosecutors, McFadden noted, aren't expected to be neutral observers. They are expected to vigorously prosecute criminal cases. The Constitution guarantees an impartial judge and jury — not prosecutors who are personally indifferent to whether a defendant is guilty.

Blanche’s and Pirro’s roles in this case assuage Allen’s specific concerns. Their remote supervisory status undermines the impropriety claim. See Opp’n at 8 n.3 (explaining that neither Blanche nor Pirro plan to act as trial attorneys here). It also undermines any claimed prejudice because line prosecutors will make most decisions. Allen’s fears that they will act inappropriately trade on his mistaken view that prosecutors must act completely impartially. That, the Court has explained, is a judge’s duty, not a prosecutor’s. See Wright, 732 F.2d at 1056. Should Allen develop concerns about biased treatment, the Court is confident that his attorneys will raise them.


READ MORE: Correspondents’ Dinner Attack: Suspect Cole Tomas Allen Enters His Plea

‘Premeditated’: Pirro Says Evidence in WHCD Shooting Now Tells a Much Darker Story


Perhaps the most interesting portion of the opinion addressed Pirro's friendship with Trump.

McFadden pointed out that presidents have long appointed trusted friends, political allies, and even family members to top Justice Department positions. He cited historical examples ranging from Robert F. Kennedy serving as attorney general for his brother, President John F. Kennedy, to Robert Jackson's close relationship with Franklin Roosevelt and Eric Holder's well-known ties to Barack Obama. He also leaned on Justice Antonin Scalia's famous refusal to recuse himself from a case involving then-Vice President Dick Cheney, explaining that friendship alone generally doesn't require recusal when government officials are acting in their official capacities.

McFadden acknowledged that the circumstances are unusual, given that senior Justice Department officials attended the event where the alleged assassination attempt occurred. But unusual, he concluded, isn't the same thing as unconstitutional.

Finding no actual conflict of interest — or even a legally sufficient appearance of one — the court denied Allen's motion, leaving Blanche, Pirro, and the Justice Department in place to continue prosecuting one of the most consequential criminal cases currently pending in federal court.

The case is not yet set for trial, but a status conference is set for June 29.

https://redstate.com/smoosieq/2026/06/23/nice-try-judge-rejects-bid-to-toss-jeanine-pirro-from-trump-assassination-case-n2203649?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Thursday, June 25, 2026

Jackson's Concurring Opinion in Hemani Case Makes Laughable Argument Against Bruen

Jackson's Concurring Opinion in Hemani Case Makes Laughable Argument Against Bruen

AP Photo/Alex Brandon

The Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen is probably the most important ruling the Court has made on the Second Amendment in history. While Heller and McDonald are critical as well, the Bruen test is a simple, straightforward test that can and should be easily applied to gun control laws. Did something like that exist at the time of the nation's founding? Was there something like it during the time of incorporation? No, then knock it off.

But while the Hemani decision was ultimately unanimous, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, along with Justice Sonya Sotomayor, arguing that the Bruen decision needs to be revisited.

Along with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Jackson is advising the court to review its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Jackson and Sotomayor said the 2022 decision is “unworkable” and that the court may need to “retire the failed Bruen experiment.” That test, according to Jackson, is based on centuries-old evidence that may not be relevant to today’s legal questions.

“It imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions,’ and ‘applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems,'” Jackson said in her opinion, per Law & Crime.


“Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.”

I find it interesting that Jackson and Sotomayor seem to think that applying history to whether something would align with the Founding Fathers' intentions is problematic for "contemporary problems." Never mind that we still look at their intentions on, say, the Fourth Amendment as it relates to your cell phone data or what's on your laptop. The historic norms were that your person and your property were largely off limits without a warrant. While frisking was one thing--the things in your pocket, for example--it was easy for the Court to decide that your cell phone was a different thing.

Why is it that guns are a different matter? Is it because the history doesn't align with what these two justices really wanted?

Unsurprisingly, some of the usual suspects agree with this nonsense completely.

Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, shared similar concerns.

“While the court was correct that a gummy at bedtime should not automatically disqualify someone from guns, that’s because of 2026 views on marijuana use, not because of 18th- or 19th-century laws that now determine the fate of all gun laws,” Lowy said in a statement, per USA Today.

“Twenty-first century gun violence can’t be solved with 18th-century solutions.”

Yeah, it can.

Look, say what you want about gun rights, but since the Bruen decision, we've seen the homicide rate drop like a Russian tank turret after hitting its apex. If "18th-century solutions" were the problem, you should have seen the opposite. We've got more guns on the streets of America than at any other time in history. 

Gun rights keep Americans safe, just as they did when the Founding Fathers ratified the Second Amendment.

Further, just because the Court happened to issue a ruling that aligns with modern attitudes on marijuana use, the reality is that the case lines up well with those 18th-century laws that Lowy decries. There was a prohibition on carrying a gun while drunk, but not while being a drinker, and that's the entire point here. Yes, marijuana has gained a lot of acceptance during my lifetime, but the Bruen test supported that decision just as much, if not more so, than modern attitudes about pot.

There's no reason to relitigate the Bruen decision, and there's nothing wrong with it. The only issue is that too many in lower courts are contorting themselves to try and find a reason that sounds acceptable under that precedent that will let them restrict just about everything they wanted to see restricted before.

That's not Bruen's fault. That's because some judges can't be bothered to actually try to accept the decision based on the spirit of the ruling, rather than how they can manipulate the letter of it.

https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/06/22/jacksons-concurring-opinion-in-hemani-case-makes-laughable-argument-against-bruen-n1232922?utm_source=twdailypmvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Trump Slashes South Africa HIV Funding Over Afrikaner Dispute

Trump Slashes South Africa HIV Funding Over Afrikaner Dispute

AP Photo/Themba Hadebe, File

South Africa spent more than a year betting that President Donald Trump was bluffing.

He wasn't.

The Trump administration is moving to phase out South Africa's remaining HIV/AIDS funding through the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, better known as PEPFAR, after months of warnings over race-based policies, land expropriation, and the treatment of white Afrikaners.

South Africa has long been one of PEPFAR's largest beneficiaries and has roughly 7.8 million people living with HIV, the highest number in the world.

Trump laid the groundwork last year, signing an executive order accusing South Africa of discriminating against Afrikaners and directing agencies to halt aid where legally possible.

According to a Daily Caller exclusive, U.S. officials wanted stronger condemnation of race-based incitement, including the "Kill the Boer" chant; prevention of land expropriation without fair compensation; designation of rural crime as a priority; more law-enforcement resources in high-crime farming areas; alternatives to race-based economic mandates affecting American companies; and no interference with the administration's Afrikaner refugee program.

South Africa failed to meet those demands.

Trump's executive order cited South Africa's Expropriation Act of 2024, which the administration argued could allow the government to seize agricultural property without compensation. It also pointed to race-based policies that the White House said undermine equal opportunity.

Trump put the matter simply:

"The United States cannot support the government of South Africa's commission of rights violations in its country or its undermining United States foreign policy, which poses national security threats to our Nation, our allies, our African partners, and our interests."

The White House also cited South Africa's case against Israel at the International Court of Justice and its growing relationship with Iran 

The order directed agencies to halt aid to South Africa "to the maximum extent allowed by law" and prioritize refugee admissions for Afrikaners whom the administration says are facing racial discrimination.

The fight burst into public view in May 2025, when Trump hosted South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the White House.

Trump confronted Ramaphosa with articles and video clips involving violence against white farmers and political rhetoric directed at Afrikaners, then pressed him on whether his government was protecting the minority community.

A State Department official said in a statement that South Africa had failed "to make demonstrable progress on policy requests by the administration" despite repeated discussions between the two governments.

The official added:

"The United States communicated to the South African government multiple times at many levels that PEPFAR funding would be terminated if they failed to address President Trump's concerns."

The administration is also done pretending South Africa needs a permanent American subsidy to run its own health-care system.

"South Africa is a middle-income country and is more than capable of supporting its own health programs," a State Department official said 

According to figures, South Africa received approximately $456 million in U.S. HIV/AIDS funding in 2024. That dropped to roughly $213 million in 2025 and has fallen further this year, with about $25 million allocated so far.

Until January 2025, U.S. funding accounted for roughly 18 percent of South Africa's HIV/AIDS budget.

South African officials have rejected accusations that the government discriminates against Afrikaners and defended Black Economic Empowerment policies as necessary to address inequalities left over from apartheid.

The country's health ministry has also said South Africa has been preparing for a future with less American assistance, with critical antiretroviral drug programs funded largely through a separate government mechanism.

None of that moved the White House.


Read More: 60 Minutes Attempts to Debunk Trump on South African Farmers, Produces a Hit Piece Instead

Trump Reminds the World About South Africa's 'Human Rights Abuses,' Drops Bad News for SA About Next G20


For years, American taxpayers helped fund one of the largest HIV programs in the world through PEPFAR. Trump spent more than a year warning Pretoria that the money would not keep flowing if its concerns went unanswered.

Pretoria can dispute the premise. It can argue that its policies are about correcting apartheid-era inequalities. It can insist Washington is misreading South Africa's domestic politics.

It cannot demand that American taxpayers keep funding business as usual.

Foreign aid should serve American interests. Countries receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the United States should expect consequences when they pursue policies the White House views as discriminatory, anti-American, or hostile to U.S. allies.

South Africa was warned. It chose not to comply.

The left will call it cruel. The administration will call it accountability. The era of automatic taxpayer-funded indulgence for Pretoria appears to be ending.

https://redstate.com/ben-smith/2026/06/22/trump-slashes-south-africa-hiv-funding-over-afrikaner-dispute-n2203579?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Adam Schiff's Latest Elon Musk Wealth Grab Fantasy Is Even Worse Than It Sounds

Adam Schiff's Latest Elon Musk Wealth Grab Fantasy Is Even Worse Than It Sounds

AP Photo/Ben Curtis

We've seen a variety of Democrats make ridiculous remarks since Elon Musk became a trillionaire following the initial public offering (IPO) of his company, SpaceX. 

They all seemed to think this was the time to talk about how much the government should grab from Elon and/or billionaires to redistribute to those who didn't earn it, and punish success. The Democratic nominee for the Senate from Maine, the scandal-plagued Graham Platner, even said that they should make sure that Musk was the "last trillionaire." California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) said we needed to "democratize the economy."   

There was Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna (CA-17), who revealed why we should never vote for his party and had problems with math as he spoke about a 5 percent wealth tax on billionaires. 

This the basic difference.  

Republicans believe that that if you let the wealthy spend capital` it will make Americans prosperous.  

Democrats believe that the federal government investing in the healthcare & education of our people will make America prosperous & productive.

As I noted then, Democrats think that "prosperity" comes from taking more of your money because they know how to spend it for you. What an ad for why we shouldn't vote for them. 


READ MORE: Dem Accidentally Reveals Why We Should Never Vote for His Party


However, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) apparently decided he wanted to top Khanna with an even worse idea. Actual redistribution of Elon's trillion to other people. 

First, he says you could distribute it to all American households. Then, he claims the trillion could pay for the college education of 7.7 million people. Finally, he suggests you could use it to pay for all child care costs from birth to 18 for 4.3 million kids. 

The Democrats are literally now proposing the idea of confiscating all someone's money. Can we talk again about how they are rushing headlong to embrace radical leftist thought? 

Leaving aside the questions of Schiff's math, Musk doesn't have a trillion dollars lying around in cash you can grab. It's locked up in the stock and the value of the companies. If you grab it, you destroy the companies and all they would provide, including the scientific advancement and the space exploration. You put all the tens of thousands of employees out of work. You destroy the investments that Americans have in his companies and probably tank the stock market, so you hurt all those people as well. 

Then you would probably cause billionaires to flee the country, if we had a government idiotic and communistic enough to do this, tanking the economy and the country even more. 

Then, too, can we talk about how bad they already are with the money they have taken from American taxpayers? It isn't Elon grabbing your money; it's the government. Elon was actually working hard to save us money when he was helping out the Trump administration with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Elon has created value, while politicians have created debt. 

But hey, just trust the Democrats, bro. They really mean well, even though the government has already gotten trillions and not done any of these things. All you need to do is give them more money. Not to mention, it isn't the role of the government to pay for the things he's talking about. 

Then, to top it off, Schiff doubled down on it after the backlash, posting Fox's take on his video, calling it (appropriately) a "war on success." 

Fox News: Adam Schiff points out how far $1 TRILLION would go to help Americans afford the cost of living if tax shelters didn’t allow it all to go to one person.  

Me: Yup.

Nope. Fox didn't say in that clip, "if tax shelters didn't allow it all to go to one person." That doesn't even make sense, as the money is wrapped up in stock value, not tax shelters.

Schiff called Musk's success a "product of a corrupt system." Musk's success is due to hard work and ingenuity. He earned it. Meanwhile, Schiff has been part of the system that just keeps spending more and piling up the debt, so what is he even saying? 

Any Democrat who comes up with these kinds of ideas should be willing to put up some of their own money. After all, if they care about "income inequality," it's the least they can do if they're going to push these ideas.

https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2026/06/21/schiff-remarks-about-elon-n2203568?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

Wednesday, June 24, 2026

Updated: DHS Hammers Media Defending Rioters Who 'Violently Obstructed, Assaulted' Agents; Trump Responds

Updated: DHS Hammers Media Defending Rioters Who 'Violently Obstructed, Assaulted' Agents; Trump Responds

AP Photo/Allison Robbert

You can count on the legacy media to run cover for left-wing criminal goblins, can't you? The latest example of this comes in the form of some propagandizing by The Washington Post, which has now drawn a sharp reply from the Trump administration's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a recent X post.

The DHS post reads:

This headline is ridiculous. These violent rioters are facing federal charges because they violently obstructed and assaulted law enforcement officers and destroyed government property. Shame on the @washingtonpost for defending these Antifa rioters’ violence against our law enforcement.

The original WaPo post read:

15 people were charged with conspiring to impede or injure federal officers in what the DOJ called an antifa-linked plot targeting agents during Trump’s immigration operation. Defendants say the “antifa” label is being used to criminalize dissent.

Is it belaboring the obvious to note that the "antifa label" is being used, not by DHS, but by, you know, the actual Antifa? The vicious little fascists who call themselves "anti-fascist"? These people? 

The Department of Homeland Security is right to call out WaPo's rather ridiculous assertion.


Read More: Chaos in New Jersey: Suspect Hits ICE Agent, Agent Fires Back

Homeland Security Clocks Anti-Ice NJ Dems Mad That DHS Denied Access to Delaney Hall With Reality


There is, though, no shame in the editorial offices at The Washington Post. Here's the article linked to in the Post's X comment.

Short for “anti-fascists,” antifa is a loosely knit movement of far-left activists. They are often anti-capitalist or anti-state, and oppose fascism and right-wing ideologies, which has made them a target of the Trump administration

But some of the defendants and their attorneys said they did not all belong to those groups, that the groups were mischaracterized and that the prosecutions are politically motivated. They said the indictment is designed to intimidate those who resisted the federal operation and to appease Trump.

And instead of dampening dissent, they already see signs that the indictment has reawakened activist networks that had gone dormant in the months after federal officials drew down the immigration operation.

Antifa doesn't just oppose "fascism and right-wing ideologies." They oppose free trade - or what WaPo calls capitalism, and which is honestly nothing more than people using their own skills, experiences, assets, and resources to their own economic benefit without the interference of government. They oppose the Constitution. They oppose federalism. They oppose anything and anyone that's to the political right of Josef Stalin, and they are willing to attack federal agents and even ordinary citizens if it might serve their agenda. We've seen this time and again.

Of course, these defendants are claiming, through their attorneys, that they aren't affiliated with Antifa, and any such affiliation is a hard thing to prove when the group is, by design, decentralized and organized into small, semi-autonomous cells, like most terror groups are.

But WaPo's comments here are a distraction. The facts are that these people stand accused of interfering with and even attacking federal law enforcement in the legal performance of their duties, and they will receive their due process. That's what really matters. The Washington Post's comments are nothing more than a distraction, as DHS has rightly pointed out.

Editor's Note: this article was edited for clarity post-publication.

UPDATE [12:42 PM Eastern]: President Trump has just shared his take on the matter in a new Truth Social post, which includes a poll on what the DHS agents should be called:

It reads:

POLL: ICE has been abused by the Fake News Media at levels never seen before. They are Great Patriots who work hard, and do a fantastic job in a very hostile environment. Much of this hostility is caused by the Dumocrats and the Fake News. The concept I have had for quite some time — A strong feeling that the name of these Patriots, “ICE,” should be changed to, “NICE,” in that it will totally discombobulate Crooked, Dishonest, and Unpatriotic Reporters and Journalists. For them to say, “We went to a NICE Facility today,” as opposed to “ICE” or, “NICE Agents have deported a Violent Drug Dealer,” they won’t be able to handle it, they will go totally crazy! All it means is adding an “N” (“National”) to “ICE (“Immigration and Customs Enforcement”) — A much more prestigious name. Everyone loves it, but I have been told by the legendary Tom Homan that the Agents do not love it as much as the other population. Who thinks that we should add an “N” to change the name of “ICE” to “NICE?”

 Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT

https://redstate.com/wardclark/2026/06/20/homeland-security-now-hammering-washington-post-for-backing-antifa-violence-n2203545?utm_source=rsmorningbriefingvip&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl