Unknown's avatar

About theartfuldilettante

The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.

Democrat Anguish Will Only Get Worse

From New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, the big cities that are led by Democrats are dying. And the Democrats who lived there know this. It presses down upon them.

And the recent ascent of the surging wild-eyed communist Zohran Mamdani over the tired and listless female groper and grandma killer Andrew Cuomo in the New York Democrat mayoral primary? It’s a gateway into the anguish of the Democrats.

“People go to cities and states where they can invest money and get a return on their investment,” billionaire grocer John Catsimatidis told Fox News after Mamdani’s stunning victory. “That’s what capitalism is all about. They’ll take a vibrant city and kill it.”

The left has already killed Chicago. Los Angeles was burned by fire and riots. New York still has a pulse, but the communist will squeeze the vibrancy of the city that never sleeps. And if things don’t go his way, his army will tear the city apart. Some of us have seen this movie before. It ends with illiterate cave dwellers wandering past the broken Statue of Liberty, unaware of what it once meant.

Those who remain in the dying cities are left with the festering Democrat trinity: decaying civic infrastructure, high violent crime, crushing high taxes. And public schools controlled by the Democrat storm troops of the teachers’ unions that can’t even teach children to read and write as the AI revolution sweeps down on the globe while raking away the illiterate chaff.

Others who loved their towns and urban life are desperate to get out, left to feed on anguish as they flee. Only those who can’t leave remain. It is the dystopian nightmare.

If you get your news from corrupt left wing legacy media, you might not know this, but the big cities have never recovered from the do-nothing George Soros prosecutors who refused to prosecute violent repeat offenders, the prosecutors playing the race card again and again to win elections and re-elections.

Likewise, the cities never recovered from the destruction and looting of the Black Lives Matter riots in the 2020 “Summer of Love.”

The three major cities are led by hard leftist socialists if not outright communists, and their goals are to defund the police, reduce or abolish the jails and prisons, promote universal healthcare, end cash bail, decriminalize drug possession and fight federal immigration enforcement targeting illegal migrant aliens.

And the decay spreads, as the great cities circle the drain. Those who love those great cities are left with an increasing sense of dread.

That’s why I selected August Friedrich Schenck’s painting titled “Anguish” as the opening image for this column. It depicts a mother sheep, a ewe, mourning the body of her lifeless lamb. They are surrounded by a murder of crows. They edge closer to feed on the carcass. They are pitiless.

What feeling does it give us?

Grief and despair. And helplessness.

The same emotions I feel after loving the dying city where I was born.

All this should be no surprise. It was written. After America spent decades embracing illegal immigration as Democrats hunted voters and corporate Republicans hunted cheap labor. Sentimental leftists embraced illegal immigrants who did not have the slightest affinity with the United States—except appetites for federal welfare—the end should have been apparent. And corporate media whipped them on.

Unchecked migration has fundamentally remade the electorate in the major cities. And Democrats change politics by changing voters. That is what the Democrat open borders policy was all about. Replacement.

Add to that decades upon decades of leftist indoctrination in the schools of education, and teachers cleaving to the communist Howard Zinn for “A People’s History of the United States.” Even sitting in the lap of Satan, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, founder of the Soviet state, must be laughing at us all.

The always insightful Orthodox Christian conservative moralist Rod Dreher sees what happened in New York as a referendum on the left on the Democrats. In “Mamdani’s Big Apple Intifada” in his Substack, Dreher writes:

“Left-wing voters in New York City, like their MAGA peers nationally nine years ago, lashed out against what they regard as a failed liberal establishment, electing a charismatic populist who promised a clear break with the past. We on the Right can shake our heads and laugh at how dumb New York liberals and progressives were to choose a candidate as politically inexperienced and radical as Mamdani, but don’t miss that this was also a referendum on the Democratic Party itself, and the party’s style of politics.”

New York flirts with disaster, nominating a hard leftist zealot to be mayor. Los Angeles is still in spasm after the leftist violence there. And my hometown, Chicago, is dying.

Chicago’s Mayor Brandon Johnson is a confused communist completely out of his depth. His opponent, the educator Paul Vallas understood management and budgets, but Vallas was a white man, and therefore unacceptable to the Chicago media and the left wing shock troops of the Chicago Teachers Union. They installed Johnson as their useful idiot. And Johnson’s old boss, the racist leftist known as Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle joined with the destructive element that we call AWFLs (Angry White Female Leftists). And Johnson was installed.

You want to open up a restaurant? There is an overabundance of empty commercial space in the city that used to work, courtesy of the BLM riots. And now Johnson has vetoed a teen curfew ordinance that would have let Chicago police shut down violent “teen takeovers” that get out of hand, sending a message that Chicago has given into anarchy.

Who wants to invest in Chicago businesses now? Nobody.

Adding even more gall to the cup of taxpayers, consider that after decades and decades of Democrat control of the legislature and State Supreme Court, the average retired state worker gets nearly $25,000 more than those who work to support them (meaning lowly taxpayers).

In Los Angeles leftist activists and aggressive muscle from SEIU are about following and harassing ICE agents. And a short car ride away, the Democrat vice mayor of Cudahy, Cynthia Gonzalez called on street gangs to attack federal immigration agents.

Not for nothing, but I want to know where all the cholos are at in Los Angeles? 18th Street, Florencia, where’s the leadership at?” said Gonzalez on video. “You guys are all about territory and this is 18th Street, and this is Florencia and you guys tag everything up claiming hood. And now that your hood is being invaded by the biggest gang there is, there ain’t a peep out of you.”

“It’s everyone else who’s not about the gang life that’s out there protesting and speaking up,” she said. “We’re out there fighting our turf, protecting our turf, protecting our people and, like, where you at?”

And U.S. Attorney Bill Essyli filed a lawsuit against Orange County for refusing to hand over records showing non-citizens illegally voting, casting ballots.

For Republican political operatives, the elevation of Mamdani is a gift. “I’d describe it as Christmas in July for the GOP,” said Sen. John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania Democrat.

But for the nation, it’s a threat.

Consider this from the communist Mamdani, who sounds like the deranged Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson, channeling his do-nothing Soros prosecutor zero Kim Foxx and Boss Toni Preckwinkle:

Zohran wants to empty the jails, as Boss Toni and Mayor Panic Attacks have done in Chicago.

Mamdani and Johnson sell the fiction they’re with the working class. But Mamdani owes his victory in New York to wealthy white elites. And Johnson owes his to the AWFLs and the Chicago Teachers Union and Boss Toni. And Castro organizer and LA Mayor Karen Bass is also encouraging violence, as are the others, because the left is all about force, all about violence.

Mamdani insists–with the smug assurance of a boy of elite leftist privilege–that violence is a nothing “construction.” Is that how the hard leftists talk at their cocktail parties in Soho and the Upper East Side?

Or is that how they talk when illegal migrant street gangs like Tren de Aragua club them to the ground, their women screaming, the leftists crawling on the pavement spitting blood during a robbery.

Is it what the leftist Menshevik’s believed up until the moment the Bolsheviks devoured them in the streets? If you’ve kept your eyes open you’ve seen this playing out in our big cities.

After Johnson, Bass, Mamdani have finished preening and what will be left of their cities?

The murder of crows edge closer, And the violent bear it away.

John Kass

Constitutionally Illiterate Imbecile

This nasty, intellectually dull totalitarian that puppet Biden put on the Supreme Court has actually upheld the authority of lower level federal judges over the President of the United States. Does this mean, on the same principle, that a lower court federal judge appointed by President Trump could override a Biden executive order on vaccine mandates, government censorship of social media and slave reparations? Of course not.

Even this Constitutionally illiterate imbecile understands her own radical ideology: All things leftist are upheld; all things nonleftist are struck down. It’s really as simple as that. This is the dictatorship that “progressives” seek to impose. They will not stop until they get it.

*****

In other news …

New York City’s probable next mayor is an open, unapologetic Communist and a Muslim. Communists and Muslims do not tolerate dissension or freedom of speech. The right-leaning New York Post has already been quite critical of him.

I wonder how Mamdani will respond to the New York Post’s criticisms once he’s in office? Maybe he’ll turn the NYPD into a hybrid of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the KGB. Will President Trump arrest and deport him?

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

A Very Consequential Two Weeks


That’s Selena Zito’s take, and I fully agree with her.  

There is an old wisdom in political science that real presidential power, whether domestic or international, is the power of persuasion. In less than two weeks, Trump has shown that his impact on American history has centered on his persuasive powers and using them to execute leadership.

While elites struggle to understand the appeal of Trump and conservative populism, what they miss, what they have always missed, is the nuance of what “Make America Great Again” meant to voters. The media saw it as a vulgar attempt at nationalism, often brazenly calling it so. But it never was. For most Trump supporters, it meant the connective tissue not with him, but with each other, that they were all part of something bigger than self.

To date, President Franklin Roosevelt has had the longest impact on American politics in our short history. Trump will exceed that, especially if he continues to have two-week stretches such as these.

So much has happened in the past two weeks to confirm her view that I cannot cover all of it — especially all the successes in the economy, tariff negotiations, peace deals around the world, lowering the rate of inflation, closing the border and deporting illegals, included. All of these are greatly consequential but this week I concentrate on the amazing successes in Iran and the Supreme Court. I picked these to clarify what the legacy media distorts. 

Bombing Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

Despite CNN and much of the legacy media misusing a leaked preliminary assessment (of “low confidence”) the bombing was of great value to both Israel and the United States. 

Israel’s use of the F-35 was an absolute success for the U.S. for the following reasons:

1. Combat-Proven Validation — Israeli F-35s successfully struck deep into Iranian territory without losses, proving the jet’s stealth and precision in real-world combat.

2. Global Surge in Demand — The success triggered a wave of interest, with countries like Romania, Greece, and Germany accelerating purchases, boosting U.S. defense exports.

3. Massive Economic Benefit — Lockheed Martin gains billions in new deals, creating thousands of American jobs and expanding the U.S. defense industrial base.

4. R&D and System Improvements — Israeli combat experience helped identify and fix performance issues, saving the U.S. billions in research and development.

5. Strategic and Tactical Edge — Insights from Israeli operations now inform U.S. Air Force tactics, improving readiness and increasing pilot survivability.

In short, this wasn’t just a success for Israel. It was also a major win for Lockheed Martin and the U.S. economy.

Catherine Herridge posts the Pentagon Assessment, which should put paid to media liars:

Pentagon Assessment Operation Midnight Hammer : Planned Over 15 Years #Iran

Chairman Joint Chiefs GEN Dan Caine @thejointstaff

 Strike at Fordow exploited two ventilation shafts

Days before, Iran tried to cover shafts with concrete cap

First US weapon removed concrete cap

Weapons 2, 3, 4, and 5 entered main shaft, traveling at 1000 feet per second  to Iran’s underground mission center

Weapon 6 “flex” capability

The “kill” mechanism was the combination of blast and overpressure on the target

Officer from DTRA (Defense Threat Reduction Agency) began the mission 15 years ago when the underground target was identified and the officer recognized the US did not have a weapon to counter it. 

Years of highly classified (likely special access program) development and testing followed.

Caine said he talked with the two DTRA officers who “lived this single target” for years. 

Post mission, they described hearts “ filled with pride to be a part of this.”

@SecDef  HEGSETH

Leaked DIA record was preliminary assessment and low confidence.     He accused some media of amplifying the report to create doubt, search for scandal, division and to “cheer against Trump”

NOTE: In the hierarchy of intel reports, a preliminary assessment with low confidence would not carry much weight.  It’s an early snapshot that concedes the picture will likely change as more intelligence is developed. 

IRAN RETALIATION

44 service members defended the Al Udeid base from Iran retaliatory strikes

Ranged in age from 28 year old captain to 21 year old private

Had “2 minutes to succeed or fail”

Single largest Patriot engagement in US history

GEN Caine “they absolutely crushed it”

BOMBER CREWS

Active Duty Air Force and Guard

said goodbye to their families Friday, not knowing the outcome, when they would return.

On Sunday, teams returned, tears flowed with families,  said it “felt like the Super Bowl”

You can bet that surveillance of Iranian efforts — if any — to reconstitute nuclear weapons is and will continue to be extensive, and the President has made clear that any such construction will be bombed again.

It was days after the ceasefire agreement before Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei was seen, and then he gave an utterly delusional account of events in which Iran was victorious, following which President Trump canceled all sanction relief for Iran. Reasonable analysis indicates the reins of power have shifted elsewhere to more rational Iranian actors (likely the military commanders) away from this lunatic.

Implications of this success — besides the world understanding that we have a leader whose words have meaning and consequences — are substantial for the entire Middle East, a focal point for decades of mushy-mouthed “foreign policy” gurus — John F. Kerry comes to mind and, like Khamenei, he made a televised appearance this week, deserving the same back of the hand dismissal the Ayatollah now gets.

Immediately after the American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, there was a quadruple phone call between US President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer.

President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu intend to quickly break into new peace agreements with Arab countries, as part of the expansion of the Abraham Accords.

The following principles were agreed upon in general lines:

The war in Gaza will end in two weeks. The termination conditions will include the entry of four Arab countries (including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) that will manage the Gaza Strip in place of the murderous Hams terror organization. What is left of the Hams leadership will be exiled to other countries, and of course, the hostages will be released.

Several countries around the world are expected to absorb many residents of Gaza who wish to emigrate.

The Abraham Accords will be expanded: Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Arab and Muslim countries will recognize Israel and establish official relations with it.

Israel will express its willingness to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians in the future under the concept of “two states,” and this is conditional on reforms in the Palestinian Authority.

The United States will recognize the application of some Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

The Supreme Court

The Court issued three significant opinions this week: The first in a case involving birthright citizenship obliterated the Left’s obvious plan of hogtying the President through a series of nationwide injunctions in a few Democratic districts. The second enforced parental rights over the public school board’s insistence that parents could not exempt their kids from clearly pornographic and pro LGBT+ lessons. The third found constitutional a Texas law requiring porn sites to confirm the age (adulthood) of viewers.

All three cases are important, but the ruling against district court nationwide injunctions frees up the carrying out of the Trump agenda and rightfully has garnered the most attention.  Jeff Childers explains for those who are non-lawyers or who went to one of those There-Ought-to-be-a Law schools, which have in recent years replaced real ones: 

Let’s discuss what this decision is and what it isn’t.

It isn’t a ban on injunctions, per se. Activist lawyers can still haul their wife-beating illegal aliens into court and get temporary deportation relief for that criminal. But they can no longer get midnight orders on behalf of all the other illegal aliens around the country who aren’t parties to their lawsuits. One wonders whether it will be worth the effort in most cases.

They can still litigate the merits of their cases, seeking final decisions that a particular executive order or statute is unconstitutional — but they can’t get it frozen nationwide while the case unfolds. Just frozen as to the specifically named parties.

Activists can also still seek to certify class actions. If they can certify a class — and a slew of those types of emergency motions were filed yesterday in the wake of SCOTUS’s decision — then they can still get a national injunction for their certified class, which in many ways is similar to a regular nationwide injunction.

The problem — and the reason why they haven’t tried it so far — is that class certification is much harder and more demanding even than getting a straight injunction.

In other words, certifying a class is more than double the effort. Now, the activist lawyers must both prove entitlement to an injunction and meet strict requirements for class certification. It almost certainly rules out after-hours temporary injunctions, since there’s no class yet at that early stage of the proceedings.

Naturally, efforts are underway by the Left immediately to fill friendly courts with class-action suits. Maybe the now chastised judges will be less amenable to ignoring the law.

A lot of attention has been focused on the unique, sharp criticism by Justice Amy Coney Barrett (Notre Dame) of the outrageously political and unreasoned dissenting opinion of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (Harvard). This is not a “cat fight” as some idiots have claimed. All six of the justices who signed on to the majority opinion signed on to this rebuke, something that Jonathan Turley summarized for those who do not want to read the whole opinion:

Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it.

It was, therefore, distressing to see Jackson picking up on the “No Kings” theme, warning about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system”

She said that limiting the power of individual judges to freeze the entire federal government was “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”

The “minutiae” dismissed by Jackson happen to be the statutory and constitutional authority of federal courts. It is the minutiae that distinguish the rule of law from mere judicial impulse.

Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”

She added, “We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

The last term has laid bare some of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a certain exasperation with having to closely follow the text of laws.  (In an earlier dissent this term, Jackson lashed out against the limits of textualism and argued for courts to free themselves from the confines — or shall we say the “minutiae” — of statutory language). In this opinion, Barrett slams Jackson for pursuing other diversions “because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.’” Again, what Jackson refers to as “legalese” is the heart of the judicial function in constraining courts under Article III.

Untethered by statutory or constitutional text, it allows the courts to float free from the limits of the Constitution.

For many, that is not an escape into minutiae but madness without clear lines for judicial power.

Any week in which good sense and rational, effective government prevails is a rare, much to be wished for one. And we just had two of them.

Clarice Feldman, American Thinker

New Image

sharethis sharing button
American Thinker on MeWe

 Print

 Email

The 6 Biggest Diabetes Complications and How to Avoid ThemGoodRx

2025 Senior Discounts: Here’s What Gutter Guards Should CostLeafFilter Partner

Sponsored

View & Add Comments (14)

Around the Web

Here’s What Gutter Guards Should Cost if You Qualify for Senior RebatesLeafFilter Partner

Branded GLP-1 Medications: What Are Your Options?GoodRx

5 Companies That Send People Money When They’re Asked NicelyThe Penny Hoarder

Neuropathy is Not From Low Vitamin B (Meet The Real Enemy)NeuropathyGuide

Seniors in Virginia May Be Entitled to Benefits, but Often Forget to ClaimThe Consumer Guide

8 Clever Ways to Pay Your BillsThe Penny Hoarder

Never Put Mustard in Your Fridge, Here’s WhyLife Hacks Garden

Wrap Foil Around Your Doorknob When Alone, Here’s WhyWellnessGaze News

Joint Pain? This ‘Oil Trick’ Works Like CrazyHealthier Living Tips

30+ Coolest Gifts Nobody Would Think ofGadgets Laboratory

More Efficient Than Solar Panels! Prepper’s Invention Takes Country By StormSolar Safe

This Simple Tip Reduces Joint Pain and Arthritis (Try It Now)Joint Genesis

Revcontent

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter
American Thinker on MeWe
American Thinker on GETTR
American Thinker on Truth Social

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

Trending Topics

Trending

Here’s The Estimated Cost of a 1-day Walk-in Shower UpgradeHomeBuddy

Here’s What Gutter Guards Should Cost if You Qualify for Senior RebatesLeafFilter Partner

Neurologists: 1/2 Cup Each Morning Relieves Neurоpathy Quickly! (Watch Now)Health Headlines

People Born 1921-1979 Are Due a Large Surprise, Check if You QualifyThe Consumer Guide

Revcontent

Most Read

24hr

48hr

7 Days

The Untold Reason for Mamdani’s Mayoral Win

Selwyn Duke

Yes, the U.S. ‘Obliterated’ Iran’s Nuclear Capabilities

Kenneth R. Timmerman

Biden aides testify; the perjury sweepstakes begin

Mike McDaniel

Justice Barrett gives Justice Jackson the nastiest judge-on-judge smackdown I’ve ever seen

Andrea Widburg

The recycling scam laid bare in California’s leftist heartland *UPDATED*

Andrea Widburg

Top Contributors


Last 7 Days

Douglas Schwartz

Silvio Canto, Jr.

M. Walter

Charlton Allen

Noel S. Williams

Last 30 Days

Silvio Canto, Jr.

Charlton Allen

Eric Utter

Clarice Feldman

Douglas Schwartz

Noel S. Williams

J.B. Shurk

M. Walter

Kevin Finn

Susan Quinn

nullAbout Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2025https://js.stripe.com/v3/controller-with-preconnect-3f56af80c8083f35673b1752f599c94c.html#__shared_params__[version]=v3&apiKey=pk_live_ylKFAuZgL0gwhmJlAURCf48f&stripeJsId=d0c8a6ef-a523-48f8-a2a5-258c5f7963a3&stripeObjId=sobj-392f6d54-e604-42d4-a396-7f031ca022e1&firstStripeInstanceCreatedLatency=3270&controllerCount=1&isCheckout=false&stripeJsLoadTime=1751204876607&manualBrowserDeprecationRollout=false&mids[guid]=NA&mids[muid]=e1f5519f-e3eb-42e3-8b18-559887f0707b4f762d&mids[sid]=e64a77ed-d271-4a5e-bf89-5607782cd952ac6887&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2025%2F06%2Fa_very_consequential_two_weeks.html&controllerId=__privateStripeController5341https://js.stripe.com/v3/m-outer-3437aaddcdf6922d623e172c2d6f9278.html#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2025%2F06%2Fa_very_consequential_two_weeks.html&title=%E2%80%98A%20Very%20Consequential%20Two%20Weeks%E2%80%99%20-%20American%20Thinker&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Ffreerepublic.com%2F&muid=e1f5519f-e3eb-42e3-8b18-559887f0707b4f762d&sid=e64a77ed-d271-4a5e-bf89-5607782cd952ac6887&version=6&preview=false&__shared_params__[version]=v3https://js.stripe.com/v3/hcaptcha-invisible-ec59993b09aacde2078e48c67de1c5d1.html#debugMode=false&parentOrigin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.comhttps://js.stripe.com/v3/m-outer-3437aaddcdf6922d623e172c2d6f9278.html#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2025%2F06%2Fa_very_consequential_two_weeks.html&title=%E2%80%98A%20Very%20Consequential%20Two%20Weeks%E2%80%99%20-%20American%20Thinker&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Ffreerepublic.com%2F&muid=e1f5519f-e3eb-42e3-8b18-559887f0707b4f762d&sid=e64a77ed-d271-4a5e-bf89-5607782cd952ac6887&version=6&preview=false&__shared_params__[version]=v3

×

null

Now we know why Deep State had to leak ‘fake Iran’ story to CNN’s Natasha Bertrand…

Well, CNN is at the center of yet another fake news hoax. What number is this now? Honestly, too many to count. But this latest stunt is especially egregious because it involves our national security.

So what happened?

CNN ran a bogus story claiming that President Trump’s highly successful military strikes barely dented Iran’s nuclear program and only set them back “a few months.” The goal was obvious: downplay the operation and spin it as a failure.

READ MORE: Cutthroat war between Bannon and Levin erupts… But here’s the problem: that claim completely contradicted the official military assessment, which stated the strikes were a resounding success. Senator Rubio and Pete Hegseth shredded the media and the likely leakers for pushing a false narrative that not only undermines President Trump but also puts US national security at risk.

Watch these two powerful clips:

IMG-4903

The FBI launched a probe into the fake news leak.

Daily Caller:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is launching a probe into a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report leaked to CNN assessing damage from President Donald Trump’s strikes on Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Wednesday.

Hegseth announced the probe during the NATO summit in The Hague, Netherlands, saying that the media’s reporting on the leak was spun “to make the president look bad when this was an overwhelming success.” The report was first leaked to CNN, which reported that the preliminary findings suggested that the strikes on Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear facilities on June 21 did not completely destroy Iran’s nuclear program as Trump claimed.

Now here’s where the story takes a turn. Enter Natasha Bertrand… CNN’s Pentagon and national security correspondent. But she’s a lot more than that.

READ MORE: It only took 5 days for CNN’s Erin Burnett to accidentally expose the anti-Trump Iran war plot… Bertrand has been called a Deep State mouthpiece and a key player in pushing the Russia hoax, the infamous “pee tape” lie, and a long list of other intelligence-backed psy-ops, like the Hunter Biden laptop coverup and the “51 spies who lied.” But now, she’s got a new gig. Ms. Bertrand is the alleged leaker.

Press Secretary Levitt called her out by name.

Rapid Response:

@PressSec: “We have seen this playbook run before… leaked bits and pieces of an intel assessment to push a false narrative. And it’s to the same reporter, I will add —

@NatashaBertrand

of@CNN— who has done this in the past. In 2020, it was Natasha Bertrand who had 51 intelligence analysts falsely lie to her… that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation.”

Dem leaders quickly fell in line, backing up the bogus story:

Now, President Trump is rightfully calling for Ms. Bertrand to be fired.

Of course, CNN doubled down on their shaky story and on their so-called star reporter, Natasha Bertrand.

So what happened? Why was it leaked?

Well, now we know.

The so-called “assessment” being passed around was junk—completely lacking in credibility. It was never going to be officially published because it wouldn’t hold up under real scrutiny.

Which means the only way this fake narrative could see the light of day was to leak it straight to the regime’s favorite cable news source: CNN. READ MORE: Riley Gaines DUNKS on Newsom after his pro-trans agenda gets smacked down…

That’s exactly why it landed in Natasha Bertrand’s lap. No ethical journalist would touch it. But she would, and that’s what makes Natasha the Deep State Darling that she is.

Journalist Molly Hemingway called out just how flimsy this so-called report really was.

https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1937954328423370964 But again, this shouldn’t surprise anybody, since Natasha is the Deep State’s go-to girl. And speaking of that, take a look at this reel, highlighting Natasha’s biggest fake news hits:

And who can forget this oldie-but-goodie that reminds us how Natasha flung fake news and intel psyops like a monkey with a fistful of propaganda grenades? But hey, it paid off—she went from peddling fake dossiers to MSNBC starlet in record time.

But don’t be fooled; it’s not just CNN and MSNBC beating the war drums and meddling with national security. Fox News has been joining in on the warmongering fun too.

Watch:

And speaking of Fox News, their chief Pentagon reporter, Jennifer Griffin, a known Deep State diva, is now flailing. She was recently nuked by Pete Hegseth.

Now she’s been exposed yet again as just another TDS shill. https://twitter.com/jackposobiec/status/1938225304176128379

And right on cue, the rats are scurrying. Bertrand is already trying to backpedal on her big “leak” story, hoping to save her own skin before it blows up anymore.

Richard Grenell:

On CNN International, @natashabertrand is walking back her story saying – now saying “it was an early assessment” but we didn’t really know. Not surprisingly, @biannagolodryga says “it proves Natasha was right”. lol. It only proves that Natasha makes stuff up (Hunter Biden’s laptop). And Bianna is a Democrat activist.

And the media wonders why Americans don’t trust them, and CNN’s ratings are in the toilet…

READ MORE: Tucker just dropped a bombshell about his final days at Fox

News…

None of this is journalism; it’s sabotage. The left and their media lackeys will stop at nothing to undermine President Trump, even if it means dragging our military through the mud. Their mission isn’t truth. It’s to take down Trump. Period, and end of story.

Revolver

Bread Lines Coming to New York City … Seriously!

Bread lines coming to NYC. The leading candidate for mayor is an open Communist, Zohran Mamdani. He’s seeking a $30/hr minimum wage, which will essentially shut down all businesses requiring humans to work. As if in acknowledgement of the catastrophic situation he plans to impose on what was once mankind’s greatest city, Mamdani wants the city government to take over all grocery stores and run them with bureaucrats out of city offices. Command-and-control — Soviet-style. Just like Venezuela. And Cuba. Lovely! Starvation, despair and black market — here we come! Will this sinister looking totalitarian psychopath allow NYC residents to order from Amazon? Or only from the city government? Maybe build a wall around the city? So citizens may not escape. And we thought this all ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall.

You said Communism never could reach America. It’s months away from New York City. The Democratic Party is radicalized, since Obama. Nationally, not just in New York. Communism is coming for you unless you arm yourself intellectually and literally. Check out even red state cities like Nashville and Louisville, where wokeism is spreading like an early stage malignancy.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

The Untold Reason for Mamdani’s Mayoral Win

The New York City mayoral Democrat primary race results have shaken the political world.

Candidate Zohran Mamdani, described as a Marxist Muslim, was five months ago languishing in also-ran territory at one percent in the polls. A most recent poll then showed him, to pundits’ surprise, beating erstwhile-front-runner (a whole week ago) Andrew Cuomo after the eighth round of ranked-choice calculations. But it was wrong.

Mamdani won the first-round tally by more than seven points and will assuredly be the Democrat nominee.

How did this happen? There are many reasons, but the overriding one is something overlooked, something indispensable, something that is a gift: charisma.

This is where those who dislike Mamdani — and I’m one of them (I actually consider him immoral) — must be careful. People are generally loath to give those they dislike credit; they view them through tinted glasses. But studies have shown what the Throughline media-training blog stated years ago in no uncertain terms: “The Most Charismatic Candidate Always Wins.”

I suspect the hard-Left has discovered this truth, too. Why do you think suburban girl Sandy Cortez (a.k.a. AOC) was chosen to be the Justice Democrats’ candidate in 2017 via what essentially was an audition? Yes, she really was.

Style Over Substance

Now, again, multiple factors contributed to Mamdani’s victory. He went the Full Monty on socialism, promising everything from freezing rent to defunding the police to free mass transit to a $30 minimum wage to city-owned grocery stores (yeah, the Soviets had those, too). He captured fellow Asian-descent residents, left-wing whites and (mis)educated voters, and the latter two groups do just love the latest shiny “progressive” thing.

It’s also true that only about 20 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. This means that the ones who did were, inordinately, those passionate about politics — and few were passionate about traditionally corrupt Andrew Cuomo. Many, however, were passionate about ideologically corrupt Mamdani. (Yes, embracing evil ideology is a form of corruption).

Sponsored

Nonetheless, even all these factors taken together can’t explain his meteoric rise.

Charisma does, though.

In 2011, I wrote “That Presidential Look: The Bad, the Beautiful and Voting-booth Realities,” which explained the importance of candidates’ appearance in our T.V. age.

Charisma goes along with that. As Throughline pointed out (in 2012), the more charismatic candidate had prevailed in every presidential election since 1980.

Just consider:

  • 1980 and ’84—Ronald Reagan defeated, respectively, Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale.
  • 1988—George H.W. Bush bested the even less charismatic Michael Dukakis.
  • 1992 and ’96—Bill Clinton won over, respectively, G.H.W. Bush and Bob Dole, the latter of whom was, as pundit Pat Buchanan put it, “like Richard Nixon — without the charm.”
  • 2000 and ’04: George W. Bush defeated, respectively, Al Gore and John Kerry.
  • 2008 and ’12: Barack Obama bested, respectively, cranky John McCain and stately-looking but somewhat stiff Mitt Romney.
  • 2016: In a historic upset, Donald Trump toppled Hillary Clinton, the antithesis of charisma.

This brings us to 2020 and ’24, where Trump and Joe Biden each captured one contest. Biden did have some charisma in his prime, but in 2020 was a mere shell of his former self. But I’m convinced that year’s election was stolen, so I don’t consider it an exception to the rule. (If you do, fine; call it an anomaly.)

Now, again, this is where I must caution partisans against reacting emotionally. The TDS types will recoil at associating Trump with charisma. And, yes, he does get testy sometimes. Watch one of his rallies, however, and you’ll see how he masterfully works a crowd. I’ve never seen anyone do it better.

On the other side, many may, as I do, find Obama and Bill Clinton (and any other left-wing demagogue) nauseating. But this is because such observers are looking beneath the surface and/or are conceiving of the person based on his policies. This is a mistake professional pundits often make, too. They’re politics wonks and project their own mindset, as humans will do, onto others.

Yet most voters aren’t conversant with politics; they make decisions on emotional bases. For example, if you knew little about Obama’s background or policies in 2008 and merely looked at and listened to him, you saw this: a decent-looking guy with a nice, resonant voice — and some charisma. Note when assessing this, too, that it’s as with what’s said about when you and a companion are fleeing from a vicious grizzly. You don’t have to outrun the bear.

You just have to outrun your companion.

(I.e., Obama’s competitors weren’t exactly charm school valedictorians.)

As for Mamdani, he not only could outrun Cuomo; he may leave the bear eating dust. Just consider, for instance, the first few minutes of the below interview with him. And imagine watching it as, let’s say, a kindly, apolitical grandmother who doesn’t know his positions or background.

Grandma’s first thought likely would be, “What a nice young man! He’d be perfect for my granddaughter!” Mamdani is photogenic enough, has an easy, contagious smile—and loads of charisma. As one commenter under the video put it, “I see how he beat Cuomo now. Wow[,] is he smooth!”

My point, again, is not to sing his praises, but to sound an alarm and send a message.

Mamdani is dangerous not just because his policies and attitudes are toxic, but because he’s a quintessential wolf in sheep’s clothing. It also occurs to me that just as sports competition is tougher than ever with today’s deep talent pools, so may competition in the political arena be because of high-tech media. The T.V. age made appearance and personality important; now the internet and social media age, with video exposure ad infinitum, have made those qualities imperative.

So the message is this: If Republicans want to win elections, ideological soundness is not enough (though it’s a prerequisite for governing). They also should choose candidates possessing that star quality, that special something, that charisma. If the person couldn’t conceivably carry a podcast, he perhaps can’t carry an election.

This said, I certainly wish the above weren’t so. I wish people would vote based on knowledge and wisdom and not fancies and fandom. But too many don’t. Consequently, nominating a candidate competent but as exciting as watching paint dry just won’t cut it.

Charisma is the one thing Trump, Mamdani and Cortez all have in common. Never underestimate such a person, either. Because in politics, charisma is king.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on X (formerly Twitter), MeWeGettrTumblrInstagram or Substack or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Iran Declares Victory [semi-satire]

In an address to Iranian citizens Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told them that “we have repelled the aggressors who treacherously tried to take our land from us. Though many of our heroic military leaders lost their lives in the conflict the nation as a whole has survived the bombings. I have successfully eluded assassination.”

“Our victory was achieved in only 12 days,” he added. “The Zionist little Satan hit us with everything they had, but was forced to retreat without accomplishing their goal of dislodging me from my post or causing our people to lose faith in the eventual triumph of Islam. The Great Satan was too frightened to do more than one tiny sortie to bomb three targets–all of which they failed to destroy. Our retaliatory strike on the US air base in Qatar was enough to convince Trump to request a ceasefire, which we mercifully granted.”

“As further punishment to our enemies, our Guardian Council has suspended all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Khamenei boasted. “Now we will be completely free from impediments to our nuclear armament program. Within the next year we will have tens of thousands of bombs and the missiles needed to deliver them against all who would ever dare to attack us again. Meanwhile, the brave jihadis we have infiltrated into the homeland of the Great Satan will carry out their continuing mission to win elections and implement the policies and assassinations needed to convert city-by-city and state-by-state into Islamic caliphates until all the world is for Allah.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) cited Khamenei’s speech as “proof that President Trump’s claim to have obliterated Iran’s nuclear weapons program is false. His decision to bomb Iran without prior authorization from Congress will now lead to a disastrous catastrophe for America. He has made us the aggressors and Iranian terrorists will have just cause for taking revenge on innocent men, women, and children. Only if we atone for Trump’s murderous attack on Iran by impeaching him could we hope to mitigate the horrors to come.”

John Semmens

Dem Congressman Tells Jewish Stephen Miller to Go Back to ’30s Germany

This is who the Democrats are..

To paraphrase the late Freedom Center founder David Horowitz: scratch a tolerant, inclusive, compassionate “liberal” and just underneath the surface you’ll find a raging, totalitarian racist and antisemite. Wisconsin Democrat Congressman Marc Pocan is the latest example of this ugly truth.

On Wednesday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller tweeted in regard to New York City Democrats embracing Muslim socialist Zohran Mamdani, a Ugandan immigrant, as the city’s mayoral candidate: “NYC is the clearest warning yet of what happens to a society when it fails to control migration.”

In response to Miller’s suggestion that America needs to quit importing people who are actively seeking to undermine our nation and civilization, Rep. Pocan, 60, tweeted this intemperate message: “Racist fuck. Go back to 1930’s Germany.”

This is how far our political discourse has degenerated in these politically polarized times. A sitting congressman now has no compunction about abandoning civil, rational debate in favor of hurling vile obscenities and wishing a Jewish political opponent to be thrown to the Nazi wolves.

Needless to say, condemnations of this grotesque outburst – which as of this writing an unrepentant Pocan has left online – flew fast and furious. One commentator wrote, “This is appalling. It blows my mind that you’d even consider speaking like this to someone. Doesn’t matter who it is or what they’ve said, you’d be immediately terminated within the private sector. You’re obviously mentally unfit for your role in congress.”

Another wrote, “Congressman tells Jewish American to go back to a place and time when Jews were sent to ovens and gas chambers. @SpeakerJohnson if this doesn’t merit censure, what does?”

Republican lawmakers were rightly outraged. “What an absolutely disgusting comment from a Congressman to a Jewish WH official,” Anna Kelly, White House Deputy Press Secretary, wrote on X. “@MarkPocan must apologize — not just to Stephen, but to his constituents — and then seek professional help.”

“Wisconsin Democrats must denounce Pocan’s vile rhetoric or be complicit,” the National Republican Congressional Committee posted on X.

But Pocan dismissed his critics on Thursday, declaring that “only people who support Miller’s ultra-extremist views are jumping on” his comment. He stated he was “confident normal people are as troubled by [Miller’s] views as I am.” Claiming that Miller’s commonsense view that a nation has the right to enforce its immigration laws is “ultra-extremist” is as amusing as declaring that Pocan’s fellow Democrats are “normal people.”

“They rounded up people in the ‘30s, just as they are today with zero due process,” Pocan blathered. This is boilerplate Democrat propaganda. The only people being “rounded up” are ones in the country illegally, starting with illegal alien felons, including international gang members, sex and human traffickers, murderers, rapists, and other reprobates whom Democrats are typically passionate about defending. The far-Left, Pocan included, may not like it, but “rounding up” criminals whom they depend on to win elections is part of “due process.” And the vast majority of Americans want immigration laws enforced, the borders secured, and felons deported, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey,.

Who is Marc Pocan, you ask? As noted at Discover the Networks, the Freedom Center’s online encyclopedia of the Left, Pocan is a gay, alphabet activist, co-chair of the Congressional LGBT Equality Caucus, serving as the U.S. representative from Wisconsin’s very blue 2nd congressional district in Madison since 2013. He:

spoke several times at RadFest, an annual gathering of communists, socialists, and progressive activists in Madison, Wisconsin;

supports illegal immigration and a path to citizenship;

strongly opposes Voter ID laws;

supports affirmative action, the DREAM Act, Head Start, regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, ban on offshore oil drilling, destruction of all American nuclear weapons, reduction in the U.S. defense budget, closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center and tax hikes on high-income households;

is a strong supporter of “Palestine”;

introduced legislation to abolish ICE;

defends the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement targeting Israel;

voted for multimillionaire lifelong communist Bernie Sanders in 2020, and

walked out of President Trump’s address to Congress in March, 2025 while Trump was speaking.

While it’s regrettably common for people (myself included) today to let slip a public profanity here and there – an angry President Trump himself told a reporter the other day that neither side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “knows what the fuck they’re doing” – Democrats have turned degrading public discourse into an art form, and I’ve written about the reasons for that. In short,

Swearing sends a thrill up the left’s collective leg because Marxists and their inheritors, Progressives, consider decency to be a contemptable bourgeois value. Even though leftists control the culture, they still think of themselves as counterculture revolutionaries bucking the Establishment, like teenagers rebelling against their parents.

[…]

And that is the crux of the phenomenon: emotion. Leftists cannot win against the right on the playing field of reasoned debate, because they are animated not by logic and evidence but by feelings. They don’t let facts get in the way of their passionate conviction that they are right and the other side is not merely wrong but evil. And nothing displays passionate conviction quite like cursing. The right believes that public profanity is not just uncivil but unprofessional, and that it delegitimizes one’s argument, whereas Progressives feel that it legitimizes their passion.

A statement as despicable as Marc Pocan’s attack on Stephen Miller not only should be grounds for censure, but for dismissal from public office as well. There should be zero tolerance in Congress for the spewing of ugly, antisemitic obscenities. It’s long past time for America to demand that our political and cultural elites take the lead in establishing a public culture of decency, civility, and respectful dialogue.

Mark Tapson, Frontpage Mag

Supreme Court Blocks Slew of Nationwide Injunctions Against Trump

Supreme Court Blocks Slew of Nationwide Injunctions against Trump

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court is siding with President Donald Trump and significantly curbing the authority of federal districts to issue sweeping universal injunctions. On Friday, the justices issued their opinion in Trump v. CASA, a case nominally centered on the president’s actions to eliminate “birthright citizenship.” However, the Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court instead to address the unprecedented number of universal injunctions that district courts have used to halt his agenda. In what administration officials and legal scholars have hailed as a clear restoration of the separation of powers, the Supreme Court declared universal injunctions unconstitutional.

“Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The injunctions before us today reflect a more recent development: district courts asserting the power to prohibit enforcement of a law or policy against anyone,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the majority’s opinion. She added, “These injunctions — known as ‘universal injunctions’ — likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federaleme court

Joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, Barrett observed that the Supreme Court is not addressing the matter of whether the president’s executive order on “birthright citizenship” is lawful, but on whether universal injunctions are constitutional. “The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions,” Barrett wrote.

The Trump-appointed justice noted that universal injunctions and their increasing use by district courts have become a persistent legal problem in recent years. “By the end of the Biden administration, we had reached ‘a state of affairs where almost every major presidential act [was] immediately frozen by a federal district court,’” Barrett observed. She continued, “The trend has continued: During the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, district courts issued approximately 25 universal injunctions. … As the number of universal injunctions has increased, so too has the importance of the issue.”

Barrett observed that Supreme Court precedent stipulates that the equitable relief granted by federal courts must be rooted in or analogous to equitable relief as it was understood and afforded at the nation’s founding. “A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power,” she said, citing again the Judiciary Act of 1789. Combing through English and early American history, Barrett found no measure resembling nationwide injunctions. “In fact, universal injunctions were not a feature of federal-court litigation until sometime in the 20th century,” she observed. The first universal injunction issued is credited to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1963. Barrett wrote, “Yet such injunctions remained rare until the turn of the 21st century, when their use gradually accelerated.” She emphasized, “Nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding, or for that matter, for more than a century thereafter. Thus, under the Judiciary Act, federal courts lack authority to issue them.”

Turning to arguments advanced by the Trump administration, Barrett and the majority agreed that “universal injunctions incentivize forum shopping, since a successful challenge in one jurisdiction entails relief nationwide.” She added, “In a similar vein, the Government observes that universal injunctions operate asymmetrically: A plaintiff must win just one suit to secure sweeping relief. But to fend off such an injunction, the Government must win everywhere.”

Barrett also agreed with the Trump administration that “the practice of universal injunctions means that highly consequential cases are often decided in a ‘fast and furious’ process of ‘rushed, high-stakes, [and] low-information’ decision-making.” She explained, “When a district court issues a universal injunction, thereby halting the enforcement of federal policy, the Government says that it has little recourse but to proceed to the court of appeals for an emergency stay. The loser in the court of appeals will then seek a stay from this Court.” Barrett noted, “This process forces courts to resolve significant and difficult questions of law on a highly expedited basis and without full briefing.”

“Some say that the universal injunction ‘give[s] the Judiciary a powerful tool to check the Executive Branch,’” Barrett wrote in her conclusion. She continued, “But federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

Thomas was joined by Gorsuch in a concurring opinion, warning lower courts that the Friday ruling means that they must “cabin their grants of injunctive relief in light of historical equitable limits. If they cannot do so, this Court will continue to be ‘dutybound’ to intervene.” Alito also wrote a concurring opinion, in which Thomas joined, to point out that the matters of third-party standing and broad class-certification, which were not addressed in the majority’s opinion, would likely become problematic in the wake of an end to universal injunctions. “Today’s decision only underscores the need for rigorous and evenhanded enforcement of third-party-standing limitations,” he wrote, adding, “Today’s decision will have very little value if district courts award relief to broadly defined classes without following” rules and procedures for class certification. Alito warned that “district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23. Otherwise, the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief,’ and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.”

Democrat-appointed Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson all dissented. “The rule of law is not a given in this Nation, nor any other. It is a precept of our democracy that will endure only if those brave enough in every branch fight for its survival,” Sotomayor wrote, concluding a lengthy dissent in which she was joined by Kagan and Jackson. She continued, “Today, the Court abdicates its vital role in that effort. With the stroke of a pen, the President has made a ‘solemn mockery’ of our Constitution. … Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way. Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.”

Throughout the majority’s opinion, Barrett carefully refuted key arguments proffered in Sotomayor’s dissent. Jackson also penned her own dissent, which did not fare quite as well in the estimation of the majority. “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,” Barrett wrote. “No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so,” Barrett wrote, countering Jackson’s wordy dissent. She continued, “Observing the limits on judicial authority — including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789 — is required by a judge’s oath to follow the law. Justice Jackson skips over that part.” Barrett summarized Jackson’s argument, “In other words, it is unnecessary to consider whether Congress has constrained the Judiciary; what matters is how the Judiciary may constrain the Executive. Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: ‘[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.’ … That goes for judges too.”

The Trump administration praised the Supreme Court’s decision as a “monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.” In a Friday morning press conference, Trump said, “Well, this was a big one, wasn’t it? Big decision, amazing decision, one that we’re very happy about.” He recounted, “I was elected on a historic mandate, but in recent months we’ve seen a handful of radical-left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president, to stop the American people from getting the policies that they voted for in record numbers.” Trump continued, “It was a great threat to democracy, frankly. And instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation.”

Referring to universal injunctions as “a colossal abuse of power,” the president shared, “I’m grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem. They made it very simple.” He thanked Barrett by name, saying that she “wrote the opinion brilliantly…” Trump continued, “Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.”

Vice President J.D. Vance wrote in a social media post, “A huge ruling by the Supreme Court, smacking down the ridiculous process of nationwide injunctions. Under our system, everyone has to follow the law — including judges!” Attorney General Pam Bondi said, “Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump.” She added, “This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend [Trump’s] policies and his authority to implement them.”

Samuel Bray, a professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School specializing in remedies and equities, said in comments shared with The Washington Stand that the Supreme Court’s decision “has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch.” Bray observed that the administrations of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Trump have all faced being “frozen” by universal injunctions. “After today, the universal injunction will no longer be the default remedy in challenges to executive action,” he said.

Bray predicted that states involved in cases against the Trump administration — particularly those targeting his executive order terminating “birthright citizenship” — will seek broad relief from courts, and that Trump policies will likely, as Alito warned, be besieged by a host of broad class-action lawsuits. Regardless, Bray concluded, “Today’s decision is a vindication and reassertion of the proper role of the federal courts in our constitutional system.”

Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies Andrew Arthur told TWS, “Nationwide injunctions, particularly in immigration cases, aren’t supported by law and are no more.” But like Alito and Bray, he anticipated that “lower courts might try to sneak around the court’s opinion in CASA by expanding third-party standing or bypassing limits on class-action relief.”

Article III Project senior counsel Josh Hammer told The Washington Stand, “CASA is a tremendous, much-overdue rebuke of the lower-court judicial insurrection that has hamstrung President Trump since January.” He added, “Even better, it is a salutary recalibration of our separation of powers back toward what the Founders intended.”

In a statement shared with The Washington Stand, Hans Von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow in judicial studies at the Heritage Foundation, said, “The Supreme Court’s rebuke of nationwide or universal injunctions is an important step toward restoring the judiciary to its proper constitutional role.” He explained, “Judges have the power to guard the rights of the people who come before them, but they don’t have the power to set or derail nationwide policy. They’re judges, not presidents or legislators, and today’s decision reminds them of that.”

S. A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

Democrats Furious over Supreme Court Decisions

Democratic members of Congress sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling that limited district courts’ use of nationwide injunctions in a case challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The court did not rule on whether the Trump administration has legal standing to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of some immigrants. Yet Democrats warned the decision paves the way for “a vile betrayal of our Constitution,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in a social media post.

“The Supreme Court’s decision today will result in the infringement of Americans’ rights for years to come. Limiting nationwide injunctions will have long-lasting effects on our courts, ceding even more power to the executive branch and providing justice only to those with the means or luck to have a lawyer,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) said in a statement. “The Fourteenth Amendment is clear: if you’re born in the United States, you’re an American citizen.”

The criticisms of the ruling echo Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, in which she argued the court “abdicates its vital role” in upholding the rule of law with its ruling.

“In limiting nationwide injunctions, SCOTUS has — once again — prioritized loyalty to Trump over defense of the Constitution. Deplorable,” Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said on X.

Aaron Pellish, Politico