LAFAYETTE, LA (KPEL) —A Lafayette woman says she was assaulted by a Popeyes manager when she requested a refund for her incorrect order.

Shena Decuir told KLFY News 10 that she suffered first-degree burns after the Popeyes manager allegedly threw freshly fried chicken at her during a disagreement about the mobile order she placed at the Johnston Street location in Lafayette.

I was assaulted. I was belittled. I mean, it was a horrible experience, and no one should have to go through that.

The shocking incident took place once Decuir returned to the drive-thru to inform staff about a mistake with her order.

The victim alleges that once she requested the correct order or a refund, that’s when the manager escalated the situation and became confrontational. Decuir says he was irritated because the store was nearing closing time.

Decuir says the manager demanded she give the food back and then requested a receipt for her order.

He was like, ‘well, give me the chicken’ and I was like, ‘can I have the receipt?’ Because I will be back for my money and to complain, and I don’t think he liked that I said that.

That’s when the manager threw the hot chicken at her, causing burns to her neck, chest, arms, legs, and feet. Decur called Lafayette Police, who arrived on scene with EMS.

According to KLFY News 10, Decuir is already recovering from an unrelated incident and said she felt alone and helpless, but also thankful that the confrontation was caught on camera.

What would’ve happened if there wouldn’t have been cameras? It’s unacceptable.(snip)

The Lafayette Police Department arrested and charged the manager with simple battery.

The Director of Human Resources told KLFY that they are preparing a formal statement in response to the incident.

For now, anyone looking for a job can apply for the manager position that is now listed.

KPEL and KLFY

Just days into his federal takeover of Washington’s police force, President Trump declared the problem solved.

“D.C. was a hellhole and now it’s safe,” he said. On Monday, he said he expected the same results in Chicago, the next city on his list for a federal crackdown on crime.

“We will solve Chicago within one week, maybe less, but within one week, we will have no crime in Chicago,” Trump told reporters on Monday.

Mr. Trump’s bold (and misleading) pronouncements expose a key strategy behind his tough-on-crime swagger. For the president, the idea of sending federal forces into American cities — exclusively in states or jurisdictions led by Democrats — is not so much about the complex and time-consuming work of rooting out crime.

Instead, experts on policing say, it’s about being seen as fighting crime, then reaping the political benefits. Mr. Trump is far from the first politician to use crime as a political issue in an attempt to gain leverage over rivals. But few have done it before in such a way that is so often disconnected from crime statistics on the ground or without a long-term strategy to keep crime down after the show of force goes away.

“He’s not really taking on street crime,” said Jeffrey A. Butts, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “He’s using the crime issue for political posturing and political gain. He’s not alone doing that — a lot of politicians do that. He’s just doing it in ways that are much more dramatic and potentially harmful than other politicians.”

Mr. Trump is approaching the issue of crime with his typical rapid-fire style: issuing orders, deploying law enforcement officers and National Guard troops, taking on Democratic mayors and governors, all while making false and inaccurate statements.

He has claimed that crime in Washington is worse than ever, when statistics show crime has been falling. Mr. Trump claimed those statistics were rigged, but, days later, took credit for the drop in crime. He now says there is no crime in D.C. at all, which also is not true. The city continues to see robberies and motor vehicle thefts, among other crimes.

The problem of crime is all too real for residents who live in violent neighborhoods, but criminologists say the largest problem with Mr. Trump’s strategy is that he has shown little patience for addressing deeply rooted and complex problems or recognizing what cities and states have already achieved.

The Trump administration has canceled grants to local jurisdictions worth more than $800 million for hundreds of justice-related programs, including violence prevention and support for law enforcement — the very type of funding that local leaders say is necessary to keep crime down in the long term. And he has threatened to withhold other funding from leaders who publicly oppose him.

Still, many see Mr. Trump’s actions as smart politics or even long-overdue necessary steps. Adam Gelb, the president and chief executive of the Council on Criminal Justice, a policy think tank, said Mr. Trump’s actions could have a short-term effect, because “removing dangerous people and putting more eyes on the street can help.”

But he cautioned that without a long-term strategy, “whatever gains we’re seeing now will be fleeting.”

High crime rates have persisted in Washington, Baltimore and Chicago for decades. And while homicides in all three cities are down this year, residents readily acknowledge that crime is still too high.

The D.C. Police Union has backed Mr. Trump’s takeover of the police force.

“This town averaged one murder every other day for the last 20, 30 years,” Vice President JD Vance said in the Oval Office, “which means that in two short weeks, the president and the team have saved six or seven lives.”

The Trump administration said its operation in Washington had thus far produced 1,000 arrests, including the seizure of 111 firearms.

Asked whether he would send in the National Guard to cities located in red states, Mr. Trump said he would. “Sure, but there aren’t that many of them,” he said.

Several American cities, like Little Rock, Ark., and Virginia Beach, Va., have experienced a spike in homicides. But none of them, located in states with Republican governors, has yet been the target of federal force.

“The targeted cities are among the most violent in the country, but there are some very glaring omissions, especially Detroit, Memphis and St. Louis,” Mr. Gelb said. “It’s hard to escape noticing that the targets are in solidly blue states, but not in red or purple ones.”

Whenever Mr. Trump has found himself in a tricky political situation, such as blowback over a failure to release the so-called Epstein Files, he has tended to retreat to two issues he sees as political winners: immigration and crime.

Gregg Barak, an emeritus professor of criminology at Eastern Michigan University, called Mr. Trump’s actions “pretty transparent.”

“Crime is performance, crime is diversion,” he said. “If he was serious about crime, he’d restore the billion dollars he’s taken from the city; he would put in more law enforcement personnel; he would put in more local court judges, all of the things that you would do if you really wanted to address crime.”

Luke Broadwater covers the White House for The Times.

By Kevin Finn

These stories remind us that bankruptcy doesn’t have to be terminal — it can be a teacher. Rejecting discouragement unlocks potential. These examples should encourage us: from the depths of defeat, greatness awaits those who refuse to submit to failure.

Some leftists are now claiming that conservatives are foolish to expect President Trump, who once went bankrupt, to turn the economy around. As leftist claims frequently do, it shines a spotlight on their willful ignorance of history.

Our society glorifies overnight successes and flawless trajectories. But it’s worth refamiliarizing ourselves with the stories of individuals who have plummeted to financial ruin only to rebuild their careers and create successful businesses. These serve as powerful reminders of human resilience. Bankruptcy, a word synonymous with defeat, has marked the journeys of countless individuals who have refused to let it define them. Instead of wallowing in despair, they transformed catastrophe into catalyst, embodying virtues like perseverance and adaptability. When we examine the experiences of these figures, we see that failure is not a terminus but a forge for greatness. Learning from setbacks can propel one toward unprecedented achievements.

At the heart of these stories lies the virtue of perseverance — the refusal to surrender in the face of insurmountable odds. The early entrepreneurial venture of Abraham Lincoln, for example, crumbled in 1833. As a young storekeeper in New Salem, Illinois, Lincoln accumulated debts equivalent to about $28,000 in today’s dollars after his business partner died, leaving him solely liable. There were no bankruptcy protections at the time, yet he managed to repay his creditors over 17 grueling years. This ordeal did not deter him. Instead, it ignited his political ascent. From failed campaigns to eventual election as president in 1860, Lincoln’s steadfastness preserved the Union during the Civil War, cementing his legacy as one of America’s greatest leaders. His story demonstrates that perseverance can turn hardship into a foundation for enduring impact.

Similarly, Walt Disney’s story exemplifies perseverance and creative reinvention. Born into humble circumstances in 1901, Disney launched Laugh-O-Gram Studio in 1920, only to file for bankruptcy a year later after losing a financial backer. Despite being unable to pay staff or debts, he was undeterred. He borrowed from his family and began anew in 1923. His ambitious Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs project nearly bankrupted him again in 1937, ballooning to $1.5 million in costs — triple the budget. He acquired a last-minute bank loan that saved the project, which eventually grossed $6.5 million and launched Disney’s iconic empire. By the time of his death in 1966, his net worth soared to an estimated $5 billion (adjusted for inflation). Disney’s ability to pivot from animation failures to global entertainment dominance shows how adaptability — learning from missteps and innovating–can convert bankruptcy into triumph.

Entreprenurial risk taking, another key virtue, shines through in figures like Henry Ford and George Foreman. Ford faced bankruptcy in 1903 after his initial ventures floundered. Yet, this setback refined his vision, leading to the Model T and mass production innovations that revolutionized entire industries. His eventual net worth reached $188 billion (adjusted), proving that bold risks, even when they fail initially, pave the way for success.

After retiring to ministry and youth work, boxing legend George Foreman filed for bankruptcy in 1983. He staged a remarkable comeback at age 45, reclaiming a heavyweight title in 1994 — the oldest ever. After retirement, he pivoted to entrepreneurship with the George Foreman Grill, selling over 100 million units and netting $138 million from naming rights alone. The company is worth approximately $300 million today. Foreman’s journey celebrates risk-taking as a virtue that, paired with resilience, yields great prosperity.

These virtues can also be found in the entertainment realm, where financial mismanagement often precipitates downfall, only for determination to orchestrate revival. MC Hammer, the rapper behind the 1990 hit “U Can’t Touch This,” amassed $33 million at his peak but filed for Chapter 11 in 1996, burdened by $13 million in debt from lavish spending. Despite ongoing IRS woes, he rebuilt to a $1.5 million net worth through persistence in music and projects.

Cyndi Lauper’s 1981 filing preceded her $30 million music legacy, Willie Nelson settled a $16 million IRS debt through music and Elton John rebounded from a 2002 bankruptcy to $450 million.

Even modern icons like Donald Trump, who navigated multiple bankruptcies in the 1990s amid real estate turmoil, exemplify this. Trump’s tenacity rebuilt his empire to a $3 billion net worth, showing that strategic recovery from failure demands courage and vision.

The common thread among these individuals — from presidents and entrepreneurs to athletes and artists — is an early brush with poverty or dysfunction, which instilled determination. Perseverance, imagination, and willingness to experiment may be the “secret qualities” enabling phoenix-like rises. Bankruptcy, often stemming from tax issues or extravagant lifestyles, becomes a “bump in the road” when met with the refusal to quit. This resilience fosters innovation, benefitting not only the individual, but all of society. As these individuals expand their enterprises, they employ more people and ignite the economy.

These stories remind us that bankruptcy doesn’t have to be terminal — it can be a teacher. Rejecting discouragement unlocks potential. These examples should encourage us: from the depths of defeat, greatness awaits those who refuse to submit to failure.

In roughly three years, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has established herself as one of the most recognized members of the Supreme Court — and not in a good way.

Despite being the most junior justice on the high court, Jackson has regularly gone out of her way to thumb her nose at her colleagues for upholding America’s constitutional framework. Whether it be through public comments or poorly written opinions, the Biden appointee has shown little respect for the longstanding traditions and collegiality that have defined SCOTUS for generations.

The latest example of this came on Thursday, when the Supreme Court temporarily stayed (in part) a lower court block on the National Institutes of Health’s bid to terminate DEI-related contracts. The court’s ruling was 5-4, with Jackson joining Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in siding against the Trump administration.

In addition to signing onto Roberts’ opinion, Jackson penned a 21-page screed — which is longer than all the other justices’ opinions combined — denouncing the majority’s decision to partially grant the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court’s order. Employing the writing style of a left-wing activist, the Biden appointee claimed that her colleagues’ decision is the “newest iteration” of the high court’s “lawmaking on the emergency docket.”

“Stated simply: With potentially life-saving scientific advancements on the line, the Court turns a nearly century-old statute aimed at remedying unreasoned agency decisionmaking into a gauntlet rather than a refuge,” Jackson wrote.

While it’s not uncommon for justices to explain their disagreements and problems with the opposing side’s legal rationale in their opinions, Jackson’s dissent (and this isn’t the first time) takes on another level of snide that’s unbecoming of a junior justice. She went on to effectively accuse her colleagues in the majority of abandoning all semblance of proper jurisprudence and respect for the law in order to bend over backwards for the Trump administration.

“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” Jackson wrote. “Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.”

It’s pretty telling that none of the other justices in the dissent signed onto Jackson’s tirade. While they may share ideological similarities, even Sotomayor and Kagan recognize the importance of respecting and getting along with their conservative-leaning colleagues — especially given that these are lifetime appointments.

But for Jackson, that seemingly matters very little.

What’s become vividly clear is that Jackson isn’t writing about her “feelings” to persuade her colleagues — or more importantly, the American people. She’s writing for a wholly unethical media that practically worships the ground she walks on.

The more ill-informed and incoherent her opinions get, the more fawning coverage the media provides her.

Contrast this apparent mindset with that of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who has often spoken about how his primary audience when authoring opinions is the American public. During a 2018 interview at the Library of Congress, for instance, the George H.W. Bush appointee emphasized the importance of using language in his opinions that is accessible to the everyday American, as they have a right to understand how the Court is ruling on any given subject.

“One of the things I say … is that genius is not putting a … 10-cent idea in a $20 sentence. Genius is putting a $20 idea in a 10-cent sentence. It is to make it [as] accessible as possible to average people,” Thomas said. “I think we owe it to people.”

That’s an example Jackson would be wise to adopt if she ever wants to be taken seriously as a justice. Until then, Americans will continue to treat her rambling temper tantrums as the jokes that they are.

The more ill-informed and incoherent her opinions get, the more fawning coverage the media provides her.

Contrast this apparent mindset with that of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, who has often spoken about how his primary audience when authoring opinions is the American public. During a 2018 interview at the Library of Congress, for instance, the George H.W. Bush appointee emphasized the importance of using language in his opinions that is accessible to the everyday American, as they have a right to understand how the Court is ruling on any given subject.

“One of the things I say … is that genius is not putting a … 10-cent idea in a $20 sentence. Genius is putting a $20 idea in a 10-cent sentence. It is to make it [as] accessible as possible to average people,” Thomas said. “I think we owe it to people.”

That’s an example Jackson would be wise to adopt if she ever wants to be taken seriously as a justice. Until then, Americans will continue to treat her rambling temper tantrums as the jokes that they are.

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood

President Trump went on a late-night attack against NBC and ABC News on Sunday, deriding them for what, in his view, was “biased” coverage and said he would be in favor of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revoking their licenses.

The Republican president said the news outlets had given him negative coverage on “97%” of stories.

It wasn’t clear from where Trump was citing the “97%” figure. A study released earlier this year by the conservative media watchdog group, Media Research Center (MRC), found that coverage of the president’s first 100 days in office was “92% negative.”

“IF THAT IS THE CASE,” Trump wrote in his characteristic use of all caps, “THEY ARE SIMPLY AN ARM OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND SHOULD, ACCORDING TO MANY HAVE THEIR LICENSES REVOKED.”

Trump said he would be “totally in favor” of the move because – according to him – these outlets are “so biased and untruthful, an actual threat to our Democracy.”

The president followed up with another post attacking both outlets as “FAKE NEWS” and “two of the absolute worst and most biased networks anywhere in the world.”

Trump questioned why both entities aren’t “paying Millions of Dollars a year in LICENSE FEES.”

“They should lose their Licenses for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or Conservatives, but at a minimum, they should pay up BIG for having the privilege of using the most valuable airwaves anywhere at anytime!!!” Trump wrote. “Crooked ‘journalism’ should not be rewarded, it should be terminated!!!”

Fox News Digital has reached out to both ABC and NBC News for a response to Trump’s posts.

Being national networks, ABC and NBC News do not hold FCC licenses for news content but provide programming for local affiliates across the country.

TV stations pay fees and annual regulatory fees based on station type and market, while cable outlets pay their own regulatory fees. Only congress has the authority to impose and collect such fees, which are deposited in the U.S. Treasury. 

Any move to revoke licenses based on real or perceived news bias would run afoul of First Amendment protections. Similar attempts in the past have been struck down by the courts. 

This is not the first time Trump has attacked broadcast outlets or threatened to strip their licenses. Last year, Trump settled a defamation suit against ABC for $15 million, and he famously hosted “The Apprentice” on NBC before entering the world of politics. 

And earlier this year, Paramount Global and CBS agreed to pay out a settlement over the president’s election interference lawsuit against the network.

Bradford Betz, FoxNews

Francis Menton, Manhattan Contrarian

The accusation that Israel is committing a “genocide” in Gaza has become pervasive on the Left, and particularly in academia. I think that the accusation is absurd, so much so that until now I haven’t thought it worthy of a response. However, the accusation has recently arrived on my own website. In the comment thread on the prior post, one of the commenters (regular readers can guess who) has leveled against President Trump the charge that he “is sending weapons to Israel for the genocide in Gaza.” Really? It’s time for a response.

In my opinion, what’s going on in Gaza is not a genocide, but a war. Deaths in war are not a genocide. On October 7, 2023, the governing entity of Gaza, Hamas, conducted an unprovoked attack on Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people, and taking some 250 hostages. Israel has responded with a military action. This is a classic war. The norm in war is that the parties fight until one of the parties surrenders, or there is an armistice. When the parties are fighting, the whole idea is to kill as many of the enemy as possible. Hamas could end the war by surrendering. It has not done so. Moreover, it continues to hold hostages. Therefore, the normal expectation of war would be that Israel will continue to kill as many of the enemy as possible until there is a surrender.

You may disagree with my characterization that the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel was “unprovoked.” It doesn’t matter. Assume that the attack was provoked. This is still a war. In war, it is entirely the norm that a party that has been attacked tries to kill as many of the enemy as it can until the enemy surrenders.

Is there any other example of the term “genocide” being applied to a full-scale military response to an armed attack by an enemy state actor that has not surrendered? If there is, I don’t know of it.

Consider, for example, the Russia/Ukraine war. In this case I would say that Russia’s attack and invasion were unprovoked. The Russian version of events of course differs, and accuses Ukrainian of provocations that caused the conflict. But again, even if Russia’s invasion was completely unprovoked, the conflict is still a war between enemy state actors, where neither has surrendered. Unlike Israel, which makes extensive efforts to minimize civilian casualties, Russia regularly sends drones to bomb civilian targets and residential buildings in Ukrainian cities. But does anyone call Russia’s conduct toward Ukraine a “genocide”? Not that I’ve seen. Contrast this with the conduct of the Soviet Union toward Ukraine in the 1930s, when it imposed an intentional famine in which millions of innocents starved to death. There was no war going on; Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union. That was a genocide.

Or consider World War II. Today that conflict is quickly fading out of living human memory. But it provides some obvious guideposts to distinguish between “genocide” and deaths from combat in war.

During World War II, Hitler and his minions engineered the deaths of some 6 million Jews and others, selected largely by racial and ethnic criteria, who were noncombatants and residents of either Germany or conquered territories. That is the classic “genocide.”

But there were far more deaths from fighting in the war. Here is a quote from a famous speech given by U.S. General George Patton to the Sixth Armored Division of the U.S. army (under his command) on May 31, 1944 (a few days before D-Day and the Normandy beach invasion):

We’ll win this war, but we’ll win it only by fighting and showing the Germans that we’ve got more guts than they have or ever will have. We’re not just going to shoot the bastards, we’re going to rip out their living g[-]damned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We’re going to murder those lousy Hun c[***]suckers by the bushel-f[***]ing-basket.

(Quoted in Michael Walsh’s recent book A Rage to Conquer.)

In other words, with a war going on, we are going to kill the enemy, and as effectively as possible. And Patton was only talking about killing enemy soldiers. The U.S. and allied war effort was by no means limited to killing soldiers. For example, in 1943 and 1944 the U.S. and England carried out saturation bombing campaigns directed at German cities like Dresden, Bremen, Essen and even Berlin itself. There were many military targets, but these campaigns essentially leveled the cities, with very large numbers of civilian casualties. Indeed, a large part of the reason for these campaigns was the attempt to undermine civilian support for the Nazi regime. Nobody thought that the U.S. or England were under any obligation to deliver food aid to the suffering German civilians.

And then there were the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in these bombings. Shortly thereafter, Japan surrendered unconditionally, at which point the indiscriminate killings ended immediately.

I have no idea how it is that new rules seem to have emerged, applicable only to Israel (or maybe to only Israel and the United States) whereby any civilian casualties in war are now deemed “genocide.” The use of the term seems to be directed at appealing to soft-minded and historically ignorant students and academics in Western countries. But endless repetition of an inapplicable term cannot change a classic war into something else.

Hamas can end the deaths in Gaza by the simple expedient of unconditional surrender. Until then, it can expect large numbers of deaths, many of them civilians.

My office is exactly eleven steps from the waiting room. About a minute ago, I found myself standing out there; utterly clueless as to why I went in the first place. Whatever my perfectly good reason had been for taking those eleven steps simply vanished into thin air. I skulked back to my office and decided to turn my annoyance into something useful — like this week’s column.

Everyone has endured the elusive password, the vanishing keys or that pesky oven that might – or might not – be on. Or the front door that might or might not be locked. What is it about our mental storage and retrieval system that can be so exasperating?

As we try to do more and more in less and less time, what we call “multitasking” actually works against our ability to remember things. For something to be remembered, it has to be exciting or special. Throwing keys on the table is not exciting. Whatever I needed in the waiting room was, I guess, not very special. Based on this, we can come up with some useful tricks for improving our memory.

Dr. Zaldy Tan, author of “Age-Proof Your Mind,” offers a suggestion for episodes like my waiting room incident: Retrace your steps. By walking back to where you started, it’s possible you’ll remember what triggered your decision to go there in the first place. Indeed, pressuring yourself to remember something actually interferes with the recall process.

If I retrace my steps and still come up with nothing, I just tell myself, “Relax. It’ll come back.” This releases the immediate pressure and allows me to go back to other things.

As a mental health professional, I spend countless hours talking with people. In the course of these discussions, many clients will stop and say something like, “I don’t remember what I was going to say.” I remove the pressure by suggesting: “Don’t worry. It’ll come back.” It almost always comes back before the hour is over. Why? Because the stress is released and the subconscious has a chance to retrieve the lost thought, which most likely connects to our conversation.

What about situations where you lose your keys? Or your wallet? You don’t have the luxury to simply “forget about it.” In these more urgent circumstances you obviously have to retrace your steps. In this case, the resulting pressure helps you persevere in your search. If you constantly lose important items, then you’ll need to focus on prevention. Take psychologist Dr. Elizabeth Edgerly’s advice. “If you put your keys [or whatever] in the same place every day, you’ll always, without fail, know where they are.” The more you do something the same way, the more likely you are to remember it.

Association is another memory-enhancing technique. Do you ever worry that you didn’t lock the door? Or that perhaps you left the oven on? There are few things more annoying than going back, only to discover (in 99.99% of cases) that you did do what you thought you didn’t.

Associating something distinctive with an action can be helpful in remembering it. For example, singing a silly tune to yourself as you lock the door will help you remember it later. Dr. Edgerly points out that most people are visual learners, which explains why we rarely forget faces but often forget names. When you meet a new person, she suggests repeating the name to yourself and then using it at least once in conversation. “So, Murlene, how long do you plan to be in town?”

Memory problems can sometimes be a sign of increased stress. In these cases, you have to unlock the underlying causes to help open the door to a better memory and a less anxious life.

Door! Unlock! I just remembered why I walked out into the waiting room!

I left my keys in the front door.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

“How do we keep our inner fire alive? Two things, at minimum, are needed: an ability to appreciate the positives in our life – and a commitment to action. Every day, it’s important to ask and answer these questions: ‘What’s good in my life?’ and ‘What needs to be done?”

― Nathaniel Branden, psychologist & author

The German economy contracted 0.3% on a quarterly basis, according to the Federal Statistics Office. Germany’s stronghold on manufacturing is at risk. The government implemented new provisions to bypass the constitution and spend in perpetuity on the incoming war. Spending is up, revenues are down—the German economy is in a recession.

Annual GDP reached 0.2% in Q2, a 0.1% decline from Q1. Around 10% of all German exports are sent to the US, and some are blaming tariffs for the downfall without seeing that the trend was already in motion. Germany’s economy has been in a multi-year downturn caused by ignorant economic policies that directly damaged Germany’s mercantile stronghold in Europe.

German Net Worth

Politicians suffocated automobile manufacturing through net-zero regulations. Sanctions on Russia caused Germany to lose 50% of its oil imports. Its willingness to bend to Brussels has reshaped the demographic landscape with a spike in the population due to migration.

Lawmakers have adopted a war posture and are pushing to increase military spending while abandoning their austerity policy. Germany may be the wealthiest nation in the European Union, but individual households are not experiencing any benefits. In fact, the average German has far less than those living in countries with a smaller GDP. The cost of living has never meaningfully dropped since the pandemic and lockdowns.

Germany has not experienced such economic weakness since post-World War II. Estimates believe that the economy will decline 0.3% for the year or remain stagnant at best. Manufacturing has dropped 10% below pre-pandemic levels. Construction has shrunk by around 3% in recent quarters due to high costs. Exports, which are 34% of Germany’s GDP, are down as demand from the US and China wanes.

If Germany tanks, then the entire European Union will sink, as Germany alone comprises nearly a quarter of the Union’s entire GDP.

Martin Armstrong, Armstrong Economics

Thursday, the Supreme Court announced its opinion in National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association. The case involved the fate of approximately $783 million in NIH research grants that were tied to DEI initiatives rather than to general scientific research. By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that a single federal judge could not compel the federal government to spend nearly $1 billion on nonsensical pseudo-research it no longer wished to fund.

This case may ultimately prove more important than the money it saved because it indicated the Supreme Court was losing patience with inferior courts and with one of its members.

Neil Gorsuch used a concurring opinion that effectively read the Riot Act to lower courts.

Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.  In Department of Ed. v. California, 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam), this Court granted a stay because it found the government likely to prevail in showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the government to pay grant obligations. California explained that “suits based on ‘any express or implied contract with the United States’” do not belong in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), but in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2) (quoting 28 U. S. C. §1491(a)(1)).  Rather than follow that direction, the district court in this case permitted a suit involving materially identical grants to proceed to final judgment under the APA. As support for its course, the district court invoked the “persuasive authority” of “the dissent[s] in California” and an earlier court of appeals decision California repudiated. Massachusetts v. Kennedy, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ (Mass. 2025), App. to Application 232a (App.).  That was error. “[U]nless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be.”  Hutto v. Davis, 454 U. S. 370, 375 (1982) (per curiam).

He concluded with this summary:

If the district court’s failure to abide by California were a one-off, perhaps it would not be worth writing to address it. But two months ago another district court tried to “compel compliance” with a different “order that this Court ha[d] stayed.” Department of Homeland Security v. D. V. D., 606 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (KAGAN, J., concurring) (slip op., at 1).  Still another district court recently diverged from one of this Court’s decisions even though the case at hand did not differ “in any pertinent respect” from the one this Court had decided. Boyle, 606 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 1). So this is now the third time in a matter of weeks this Court has had to intercede in a case “squarely controlled” by one of its precedents.  Ibid. All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect “the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress.”  Hutto, 454 U. S., at 375.

Red State