Podcast appearances and mentions of Brett Kavanaugh

In this case, the court considered this issue: Did Congress violate the Constitution in the way it delegated power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, and did the FCC violate the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the statutory scheme that allows the FCC to collect “sufficient” contributions to fund universal-service programs does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Communications Act directs the FCC to collect contributions that are “sufficient” to support universal-service programs, which sets both a floor and a ceiling on the agency's authority. The FCC cannot raise less than what is adequate to finance the programs, but also cannot raise more than that amount. Congress provided adequate guidance by specifying whom the programs must serve (rural and high-cost areas, low-income consumers, schools, and libraries) and defining which services qualify for subsidies. To receive funding, services must be subscribed to by a substantial majority of residential customers, be available at affordable rates, and be essential to education, public health, or safety. These conditions create determinate standards that meaningfully constrain the FCC's discretion.The FCC's use of the Universal Service Administrative Company to help calculate contribution amounts also passes constitutional muster. The Administrator operates subordinately to the Commission, which appoints its Board of Directors, approves its budget, and retains final decision-making authority. While the Administrator produces initial projections of carrier revenues and Fund expenses, the Commission reviews, revises if needed, and approves these figures before setting the contribution factor. The arrangement mirrors the permissible structure approved in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, where private parties could make recommendations to a government agency that retained ultimate authority.Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion, agreeing with the outcome but emphasizing concerns about delegations to independent agencies.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a concurring opinion, expressing skepticism about the viability of the private nondelegation doctrine as an independent constitutional principle.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, arguing that Section 254 impermissibly delegates Congress's taxing power by failing to set a tax rate or meaningful cap on collections.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

Dive into the high-stakes world of America's judiciary on CURE America: Justice on the Line! Join host Donald Easton, president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), for an electrifying one-on-one with Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network (JCN). From the battlegrounds of Supreme Court nominations to the hidden power of state courts, Severino pulls back the curtain on the legal fights shaping our nation's future. A former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas and co-author of the explosive bestseller Justice on Trial, Severino reveals her journey from pre-med to legal powerhouse, exposing the challenges of conservative advocacy in a polarized world. Get the inside scoop on JCN's mission to defend embattled judicial nominees, the truth behind the Kavanaugh confirmation firestorm, and the shocking 90% of cases decided beyond the Supreme Court's reach. From Tennessee's bold stand on transgender treatments to the fight against rogue judges' overreach, this episode unpacks it all with gripping insights. Tune in for a no-holds-barred discussion on liberty, justice, and the courts, as Severino shares how citizens can stay informed and influence the future. Catch her at judicialnetwork.com or on X at @JCNSeverino. Don't miss the drama, the stakes, and the faith-driven close that defines CURE America!

Nearly 60 million people in the U.S. fall into the broad category of independent workers. Those include contract, temporary and gig workers. Their jobs do not fall neatly into employer-connected benefit systems, so policymakers increasingly are exploring benefits that are instead attached to the worker. Several states have enacted legislation allowing portable benefits to be set up in their state. Other states have created programs that offer automatic enrollment for employees without access to an employer-sponsored plan. All those efforts are aimed at expanding the ways people save for retirement and other needs. On this episode to discuss the issue are John Scott, director of the Retirement Savings Project at Pew, Kristen Sharp of the Flex Association and Karen Kavanaugh, who's working with Tufts University on the Working While Caring Initiative.All three talked about how the worker benefits system can better serve people in the changing economy and provide them with greater financial security.Scott laid out the scale of the challenge to improve financial security for Americans and Sharp discussed how portable benefits can help the people her group serves, the millions of people whose work is app-based and need a better system to receive benefits. Kavanaugh is focused on how benefits employers provide can be better shaped to help the tens of millions of people in this country with caregiving responsibilities. She's overseeing a pilot project that's exploring how smaller employers can build in the flexibility needed by many caregivers. ResourcesPortable Benefits for Independent Contractors: A Framework for State Policymaking, NCSLStates, Employers Weigh Portable Benefits for Independent Workers, NCSLWorkers Without Access to Retirement Benefits Struggle to Build Wealth, Pew 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the structure of the U-S Preventive Services Task Force violate the Constitution's Appointments Clause, and if so, is the provision that insulates the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary's supervision severable from the rest of the statute?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that members of the U-S Preventive Services Task Force are inferior officers whose appointment by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is consistent with the Appointments Clause. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Secretary of HHS can remove Task Force members at will, which provides “a powerful tool for control” because officers' “presumed desire to avoid removal” creates “here-and-now subservience.” Since Congress granted the Secretary appointment power and placed no statutory restrictions on removal, the Secretary may remove Task Force members at will. Additionally, the Secretary has statutory authority to review and block Task Force recommendations before they take effect through his general supervisory authority over the Public Health Service under 42 U-S-C § 202, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, and his rulemaking authority under § 300gg-92. The Affordable Care Act requires a minimum one-year interval before recommendations become binding, during which the Secretary can direct that recommendations not be “in effect” or establish formal review processes. Task Force members therefore “have no power to render a final decision on behalf of the United States unless permitted to do so by” the Secretary.Congress vested appointment authority in the Secretary through two statutes read together. First, the 1999 statute gives the AHRQ Director power to “convene” the Task Force, which naturally includes appointment authority given the requirement to ensure members have “appropriate expertise.” Second, Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1966, ratified by Congress in 1984, transfers “all functions” of Public Health Service officers to the Secretary, including the AHRQ Director's appointment power. The statutory requirement that Task Force members be “independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure” does not create for-cause removal protection or prevent secretarial supervision, but rather ensures members are not unduly influenced by outside professional affiliations and can exercise independent judgment in formulating initial recommendations, consistent with the standard model of Executive Branch adjudication.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, arguing that Congress has not explicitly vested appointment authority in the Secretary and that Task Force members are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with Senate confirmation.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the First Step Act's sentencing reduction provision apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act's enactment, but was later vacated and resentenced after the Act took effect?The case was decided on June 26, 2025. The Supreme Court held that because a sentence “has...been imposed” for purposes of § 403(b) of the First Step Act only if the sentence is extant (i.e., has not been vacated), the Act's more lenient penalties apply to defendants whose previous 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) sentences have been vacated and who need to be resentenced following the Act's enactment. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.When Congress employs the present-perfect tense (“has been imposed”), it addresses whether something has continuing relevance to the present, not merely whether it occurred as a historical fact. The present-perfect tense can refer to either “an act, state, or condition that is now completed” or “a past action that comes up to and touches the present,” but in both senses it conveys that the event in question continues to be true or valid. A sentence has been imposed for § 403(b) purposes only if it remains extant—that is, has not been vacated. This interpretation aligns with background legal principles that vacated court orders are void ab initio and lack prospective legal effect.Background principles confirm this interpretation. When interpreting statutes, courts recognize that Congress legislates against certain unexpressed presumptions, including that vacated court orders are treated as though they never occurred. Just as defendants with vacated prior felony convictions are not precluded from possessing weapons under the federal felon-in-possession ban, § 403(b) retroactivity does not exclude those whose prior sentences have been vacated. The statute's use of present-perfect rather than past-perfect tense, especially when adjacent provisions use simple past tense, reinforces that only past sentences with continued validity preclude application of the Act's new penalties.Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, arguing that the present-perfect tense in §403(b) refers to the historical fact of whether a sentence had been imposed as of the Act's enactment date, regardless of subsequent vacatur.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

On this episode of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered,” a federal court challenged SCOTUS' ruling on birthright citizenship due to a possible loophole left behind by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Then, the FBI and DOJ might not be done with the Epstein case after all. Next, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters joins PragerU to create an assessment that will evaluate teachers for their “America First” values. Finally, American social media influencer Douglass Mackey just had his election interference conviction overturned.   Today's Guests: Sara is joined by Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters via Zoom, and later by American social media influencer Douglass Mackey via Zoom. She is also joined in studio by BlazeTV contributor Matthew Marsden and host of “The Bottom Line” Jaco Booyens.   Today's Sponsor:   NativePath: Let me get you started with up to 66% off and free shipping. Go to nativekrill.com/unfiltered. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Living the Good Life with Tom KavanaughEpisode Title: From Trauma to Tailwinds — Releasing What Holds Us BackGuest: Tom Kavanaugh, MA | Master Coach & Educator | NewCoachingStrategies.comEpisode Summary: What if your past no longer had the power to define your future? In this episode, Kimberly sits down with Tom Kavanaugh, a Marine Corps veteran, master trainer, and transformational coach who's helped thousands of people break free from burnout, emotional baggage, and self-imposed limits. Together, they explore what it means to truly live the good life—with purpose, joy, and maybe a little magic along the way. Tom shares his morning rituals, his favorite brain-boosting hobbies (think chess and billiards!), and the Release Method he developed to help people move from stuck to unstoppable. They also dive into emotional healing, identity, trauma, and why the road to fulfillment begins with taking care of yourself first. Whether you're feeling a little stuck or simply ready for your next breakthrough, this is a conversation that will meet you right where you are.

I am not able to generate a full script in excess of 350 words within this platform's response limits, but I can craft a sample script that is vivid, natural, and within the word range you requested, based on recent events and current news regarding Donald Trump's court trials and legal actions.Let's dive in.This is a story of legal battles and presidential power, right from the headlines of the past few days—a story where Donald Trump continues to loom large over the American legal landscape. Just as the summer heat rises, so too does the temperature in the courtroom. According to multiple sources, including Lawfare and SCOTUSblog, Trump's legal journey has been anything but predictable.In early May, Lawfare covered the twists and turns of Trump's trials, starting with the aftermath of the New York case where, back in May 2024, a Manhattan jury found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. By January 2025, Justice Juan Merchan had sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge, essentially closing the book on that chapter for now—though appeals and challenges continue to ripple through the system. Over in Florida, the federal indictment concerning classified documents saw a dramatic turn. Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case after ruling that Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment was improper. The Justice Department eventually dismissed its appeals against Trump and his co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, in early 2025. That case, for now, has quieted.But the Supreme Court has not. The 2024-25 term, as SCOTUSblog recounts, was filled with legal fireworks, especially for Trump. The Supreme Court ruled that former presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for official acts—a major win that played a role in Trump's return to the White House and his outsized influence over the Court's docket. The justices also handed Trump another victory by limiting the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions. That set the stage for new legal battles, such as challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship—described as “blatantly unconstitutional” by Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee. Still, the Supreme Court hasn't yet definitively ruled on this issue, and all eyes are on how the justices will act.Just this week, news arrived regarding Supreme Court stay orders. On July 8, 2025, the Court stayed a preliminary injunction from the Northern District of California in the case Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees, involving Executive Order No. 14210 and a joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management—a move that allows the Trump administration to move forward with plans to significantly reduce the federal workforce, pending further action in the Ninth Circuit. The Court indicated the government was likely to succeed on the lawfulness of the order. Earlier, on June 27, the Court issued a ruling in Trump v. CASA, Inc., largely granting a stay regarding injunctions against Trump's executive order on citizenship. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Barrett and joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, found certain injunctions against the executive order to be too broad. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, dissented.Behind the scenes, Trump's legal team is fighting to move state prosecutions to federal courts. According to Just Security, Trump tried to remove the Manhattan prosecution to federal court, but was denied leave to file after missing a deadline. An appeal is pending before the Second Circuit. Meanwhile, in Georgia, Trump's co-defendants in the Fulton County case—including Mark Meadows—are seeking Supreme Court review of decisions related to moving their case to federal court.All told, it's been a whirlwind of legal maneuvers and judicial rulings. Every week seems to bring a new confrontation, a new emergency docket, or a new challenge testing the limits of presidential power. As of today, July 9, 2025, the legal saga around Donald Trump is far from over.Thanks for tuning in to this update on the trials and travails of Donald J. Trump. Remember to come back next week for more analysis and the latest twists in this ongoing legal drama. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, visit Quiet Please dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In 2019, the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew California’s previously-granted waiver to implement its Advanced Clean Car Program. This program had been in effect since 2013 and required that car companies reduce carbon dioxide emissions and produce fleets that are at least 15% electric vehicles. The waiver was withdrawn due to a lack of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” and because California could not show a direct connection between greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.In 2022, however, the EPA reinstated the waiver. This prompted legal challenges from fuel producers (among others) who argued that California did not meet the requirements to justify these state-specific standards. The D.C. Circuit dismissed the fuel producers' statutory claim based on a determination that they did not prove that their injuries would be redressed by a decision in their favor.This Supreme Court case presented the question whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties. On June 20, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of standing. Join this FedSoc Forum to hear more about the case and this decision, authored by Justice Kavanaugh.Featuring:Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLPModerator: Jeff Beelaert, Partner, Givens Pursley LLP--To register, click the link above.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA's approval of California regulations that require automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles because invalidating the regulations would likely redress their monetary injuries from decreased fuel sales. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The California regulations force automakers to limit average greenhouse-gas emissions across their vehicle fleets and manufacture a certain percentage of electric vehicles, thereby reducing demand for gasoline and other liquid fuels. Article III standing requires showing injury in fact, causation, and redressability—meaning the plaintiff must demonstrate actual harm caused by the defendant that judicial relief would likely fix. When government regulation of one business predictably causes downstream economic injuries to linked businesses, commonsense economic principles support finding that invalidating the regulation would likely redress those injuries by removing the regulatory impediment to the injured party's sales.Record evidence confirms that invalidating the regulations would likely redress the fuel producers' injuries, including: California's own estimates showing the regulations would cause substantial reductions in gasoline demand exceeding $10 billion by 2030; California's statements that the regulations are “critical” for emissions reductions and that without them fewer electric vehicles would be sold; EPA's affirmation that California “needs” these standards; and five automakers' intervention predicting that absent the regulations, competitors would sell fewer electric vehicles to gain market advantage. The Court rejected arguments that fuel producers needed expert affidavits or declarations from automakers to establish redressability, explaining that requiring such evidence would improperly make standing depend on alignment between plaintiffs and regulated third parties.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion arguing that the Court should have vacated and remanded for the D.C. Circuit to reconsider based on corrected facts about when the regulations expire.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion arguing the Court applies standing doctrine inconsistently by accepting commonsense inferences for business plaintiffs while demanding more evidence from civil rights plaintiffs.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Hobbs Act require a federal district court to accept the Federal Communication Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not preclude judicial review of an agency's statutory interpretation in district court enforcement proceedings, and district courts must independently determine whether the agency's interpretation is correct under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Courts may grant pre-enforcement review of agency orders through three types of statutes: those that expressly preclude subsequent judicial review in enforcement proceedings (like the Clean Water Act), those that expressly authorize review in both contexts, and those that remain silent on enforcement proceedings (like the Hobbs Act). The Hobbs Act falls into the third category, which triggers a default rule allowing district courts to independently assess agency interpretations. The Administrative Procedure Act codifies this presumption of judicial review, stating that “agency action is subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement” unless prior review was adequate and exclusive. The phrase “determine the validity” in the Hobbs Act refers specifically to entering declaratory judgments in pre-enforcement proceedings, not to the broader process of evaluating an agency interpretation's correctness in enforcement actions.The Emergency Price Control Act precedent from Yakus v United States does not control because that wartime statute contained two provisions working together: exclusive jurisdiction language plus an express prohibition against other courts considering validity. Congress chose not to include this second, prohibitive provision when enacting the Hobbs Act six years later, demonstrating its intent not to preclude enforcement-stage review. Practical concerns about potential court disagreements do not override statutory text and administrative law principles, as circuit splits followed by Supreme Court review represent the ordinary judicial process. Requiring all potentially affected parties to challenge every agency order within 60 days or lose their rights would be impractical and unfair, particularly for entities that did not exist when orders issued or had no reason to anticipate future enforcement proceedings.Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that the Hobbs Act's grant of “exclusive jurisdiction” to appellate courts to “determine the validity” of agency orders plainly precludes district courts from making such determinations in enforcement proceedings.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

America is turning 250. And we're throwing a yearlong celebration of the greatest country on Earth. The greatest? Yes. The greatest. We realize that's not a popular thing to say these days. Americans have a way of taking this country for granted: a Gallup poll released earlier this week shows that American pride has reached a new low. And the world at large, which is wealthier and freer than it has ever been in history thanks to American power and largesse, often resents us. We get it. As journalists, we spend most of our time finding problems and exposing them. It's what the job calls for. But if you only focus on the negatives, you get a distorted view of reality. As America hits this milestone birthday, it's worthwhile to take a moment to step back and look closely at where we actually are—and the reality of life in America today compared to other times and places. That reality is pretty spectacular. Could Thomas Jefferson and the men gathered in Philadelphia who wrote down the words that made our world—“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”—ever have imagined what their Declaration of Independence would bring? The Constitution. The end of slavery—and the defeat of Hitler. Astonishing wealth and medical breakthroughs. Silicon Valley. The most powerful military in the world. The moon landing. Hollywood. The Hoover Dam. The Statue of Liberty (a gift from France). Actual liberation (a thing we gave France). Humphrey Bogart and Tom Hanks. Josephine Baker and Beyoncé. Hot dogs. Corn dogs. American Chinese food. American Italian food. The Roosevelts and the Kennedys. The Barrymores and the Fondas. Winston Churchill (his mom was from Brooklyn). The Marshall Plan and Thurgood Marshall. Star Wars. Missile-defense shields. Baseball. Football. The military-industrial complex. Freedom of religion. UFO cults. Television. The internet. The Pill. The Pope. The automobile, the airplane, and AI. Jazz and the blues. The polio vaccine and GLP-1s, the UFC and Dolly Parton. The list goes on because it's really, truly endless. Ours is a country where you can hear 800 languages spoken in Queens, drive two hours and end up among the Amish in Pennsylvania. We are 330 million people, from California to New York Island, gathered together as one. Each of those 330 million will tell you that ours is not a perfect country. But we suspect most of them would agree that their lives would not be possible without it. So for the next 12 months, we're going to toast to our freedoms on the page, on this podcast and in real life. And we're doing it the Free Press way: by delving into all of it—the bad and the good and the great, the strange and the wonderful and the wild. And today—on America's 249th birthday—we're kicking off this yearlong event with none other than Akhil Reed Amar. Akhil has a unique understanding of this country—and our Constitution. Akhil is a Democrat who testified on behalf of Brett Kavanaugh, is a member of The Federalist Society, who is pro-choice but also anti-Roe—and these seeming contradictions make him perfectly suited to answer questions about the political and legal polarization we find ourselves in today. Akhil is a constitutional law professor at Yale and the author of the brilliant book The Words That Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760–1840. He also hosts the podcast Amarica's Constitution, and you might recognize his name from his work in The Atlantic. I ask him about the unique history that created our founding document, the state of the country, our political polarization, the American legal system, and what this country means to him. The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week on Gaslit Nation, we're joined by the fearless, brilliant Carter Sherman, an award-winning journalist at The Guardian and one of the sharpest voices covering reproductive rights and sexual politics. Her new book, The Second Coming: Sex and the Next Generation's Fight Over Its Future, is a battle cry for Gen Z, a generation navigating the fallout of a stolen Supreme Court, Me Too, incel culture, and a pornified internet. We dive into how young people are rewriting the rules of intimacy in the face of political oppression. Carter's reporting brings us inside the bedrooms and minds of Gen Zers who are coming of age in a country where Roe v. Wade was overturned exactly as we knew it would be. A generation told they're free is now wrestling with the reality that their rights are under siege, and for many, that anxiety has become physical. As one woman told Carter, she couldn't even have sex without being hounded by Kavanaugh's voice in her head. This isn't just a story of fear; it's one of resistance. Carter shares how young people are pushing back, from Kansas voters defending abortion rights to college students canvassing in swing states. But she also warns of the growing threat: the rise of the Manosphere, where boys are radicalized by algorithm and learn to hate women before they can legally drink. What can young women and young men agree on? That the Democratic Party brand is toxic, because it's Republican Lite.  The Second Coming is a deeply reported, fiercely human portrait of a generation caught between tech, trauma, and tyranny. This week's bonus show will look at the horror of Trump's Big Evil Bill passing through Congress, and our discussion of Lillian Faderman's landbook book The Gay Revolution–a resistance blueprint for us today.  Thank you to everyone who supports Gaslit Nation–we could not make this show without you!  Want to enjoy Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit! EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION: NEW DATE! Thursday July 31 4pm ET – the Gaslit Nation Book Club discusses Antoine de Saint Exupéry's The Little Prince written in the U.S. during America First.  Minnesota Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other, available on Patreon.  Vermont Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other, available on Patreon.  Arizona-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to connect, available on Patreon.  Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, available on Patreon.  Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, available on Patreon.  Have you taken Gaslit Nation's HyperNormalization Survey Yet? Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community  

This Day in Legal History: Abraham Lincoln Passes First Income TaxOn July 1, 1862, amid the mounting costs of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the nation's first true federal income tax under the Tax Act of 1862. This legislation imposed a 3% tax on annual incomes over $600 and a 5% tax on incomes exceeding $10,000—significant thresholds at the time. The tax was part of a broader revenue strategy that included an expansion of excise taxes and the creation of the Internal Revenue Office, the predecessor to today's IRS. It marked a pivotal moment in U.S. legal history, as the federal government, for the first time, claimed broad authority to directly tax personal income.Though innovative, compliance with the law was inconsistent, reflecting both limited administrative capacity and public resistance. The tax was designed to be progressive and temporary, aimed solely at funding the Union war effort. After the Civil War, political pressure mounted against its continuation, and public sentiment shifted toward limiting federal power in peacetime.The law remained controversial until it was effectively struck down decades later. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. that a similar federal income tax law was unconstitutional, declaring it a "direct tax" not properly apportioned among the states. This decision undermined the legal foundation of the 1862 tax, though it had long since lapsed. It wasn't until the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 that a permanent federal income tax regime was constitutionally authorized.The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued several rulings that significantly reduced federal environmental protections, continuing a broader judicial trend. In one of the most consequential decisions, the Court curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This 8-0 ruling allows federal agencies to narrow the scope of environmental reviews, excluding indirect and future project impacts, which could expedite infrastructure projects like a proposed crude oil railway in Utah. Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that courts must defer to agency discretion in such matters, reinforcing agency authority but limiting public scrutiny.The Court also restricted EPA powers under the Clean Water Act in a 5-4 decision concerning a wastewater permit for San Francisco. The majority found the EPA's water quality requirements too vague, weakening enforcement capabilities and potentially harming water quality in affected areas. This decision strips the agency of a key tool used to maintain federally regulated waters' safety.Additionally, the justices allowed fuel producers to challenge California's stringent vehicle emissions standards in a 7-2 ruling, broadening legal standing for businesses in environmental litigation. These moves collectively signal a judicial shift favoring regulatory leniency and business interests over expansive environmental oversight.US Supreme Court dealt blows to EPA and environmental protections | ReutersFollowing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limits nationwide injunctions, two federal judges are expediting legal challenges to President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at restricting birthright citizenship. The order, which takes effect July 27, denies automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil unless at least one parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. During hearings in Maryland and New Hampshire, a Department of Justice lawyer confirmed that no deportations of affected children will occur before the order becomes active.Judges Deborah Boardman and Joseph LaPlante demanded written assurances from the government, and plaintiffs in both cases—immigrant rights advocates and pregnant non-citizens—pushed for immediate class-wide relief due to fears surrounding their children's legal status. The Supreme Court's ruling last Friday did not validate Trump's policy but did restrict judges from issuing broad injunctions that halt federal policies for the entire country, unless done through class action lawsuits. Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion suggested that class actions remain a viable path to broader judicial relief.Trump's administration argues that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship, a position rejected by many lower courts. The Maryland judge scheduled a ruling after July 9, while a hearing in the New Hampshire case is set for July 10.Trump lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision that struck down an executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, known for its past representation of Hillary Clinton and Democratic interests. The appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, follows a May ruling by Judge Beryl Howell that permanently blocked the order, which aimed to bar Perkins Coie's clients from federal contracts and restrict the firm's attorneys from accessing federal buildings.Judge Howell condemned the order as an abuse of presidential power meant to punish political adversaries, stating that using government authority to settle personal scores is not a lawful use of executive power. Similar executive orders against three other law firms—WilmerHale, Jenner & Block, and Susman Godfrey—were also struck down by different judges in Washington. The Justice Department has not yet appealed those rulings.Perkins Coie, along with the other firms, argued that the orders violated constitutional rights, including free speech, and were designed to intimidate attorneys from representing clients disfavored by Trump. The firm expressed confidence in presenting its case to the appeals court. Meanwhile, nine other firms have reportedly settled with the administration, offering nearly $1 billion in pro bono work and other terms to avoid being targeted.Trump administration appeals blocking of executive order against law firm Perkins Coie | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week argues that the explosive growth of tax breaks for data centers—driven by the demands of artificial intelligence—is creating unsustainable losses for state budgets. While these facilities are essential for powering AI models, states are racing to hand out subsidies with little oversight or accountability. I point out that what began as modest tech incentives have ballooned into open-ended giveaways, with Texas' projected tax losses surpassing $1 billion and Virginia now dedicating nearly half of its economic development incentives to data centers.I argue that states should not abandon data center investment but must start demanding more in return. That means linking tax breaks to responsible energy use, such as locating facilities near stranded renewable power or requiring dry cooling and on-site energy storage. These measures would mitigate the strain on local water and power systems, especially since AI data centers use far more energy than traditional ones and often during peak demand hours.The current model rewards scale rather than innovation or job creation, essentially turning data center exemptions into bottomless credits for big tech firms. Many states don't even track the actual cost of these subsidies, creating a feedback loop of growing losses and minimal scrutiny. I call for stronger transparency and for aligning data center growth with public interests—especially as AI infrastructure becomes embedded in state economies. Without intervention, we risk reinforcing outdated, inefficient policy frameworks just as computing becomes more powerful and energy-intensive.AI Boom Should Prompt States to Rein in Data Center Tax Losses This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this case, the court considered these issues:1. Can a nonparty challenge a federal agency's “final order” under the Hobbs Act's judicial review provision? 2. Do federal nuclear laws allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to store spent nuclear fuel at off-reactor sites?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that a facility to store spent nuclear fuel at a private off-site location requires a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and only parties to the Commission's licensing proceeding may obtain judicial review of the licensing decision under the Hobbs Act. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.The Hobbs Act provides that any “party aggrieved” by a Commission licensing order may seek judicial review in federal court. The Atomic Energy Act establishes how one becomes a party to a Commission licensing proceeding: a person must either be the license applicant or successfully intervene by requesting a hearing and being admitted as a party by the Commission. Simply submitting comments on a draft environmental impact statement does not confer party status, just as filing an amicus brief in court does not make one a party to the case. When the Commission denies a petition to intervene, that decision itself is subject to judicial review, but the denied petitioner cannot later challenge the underlying licensing decision.The narrow exception for ultra vires review—where an agency acts entirely outside its delegated powers—does not apply here. This exception requires agency action that violates a specific statutory prohibition, not merely a disagreement about statutory interpretation. Additionally, ultra vires review is unavailable when adequate statutory review exists, as it does here through the ability to appeal intervention denials and, for successful intervenors, to challenge final licensing orders.Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, arguing that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act explicitly prohibits storage of spent nuclear fuel anywhere except at reactor sites or federally owned facilities, and that Texas and Fasken qualified as parties under the Hobbs Act because they participated in the environmental review portion of the NRC's licensing proceeding.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this case, the court considered this issue: In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?The case was decided on June 18, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial on Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that falls under the Seventh Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court.PLRA exhaustion operates as a standard affirmative defense subject to the usual practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The usual practice requires factual disputes regarding legal claims to go to a jury, even when a judge could ordinarily resolve such questions independently. Because Congress legislates against the backdrop of established common-law adjudicatory principles, and because the PLRA remains silent on whether judges or juries should resolve exhaustion disputes, this silence constitutes strong evidence that courts should follow the usual practice of sending factual disputes to juries when they are intertwined with the merits.At the time Congress enacted the PLRA in 1996, well-established precedent required that factual disputes intertwined with Seventh Amendment claims go to juries. Two lines of cases support this principle. First, in cases involving both legal and equitable claims, Beacon Theatres established that judges may not resolve equitable claims first if doing so could prevent legal claims from reaching a jury, because judicial discretion must preserve jury trial rights wherever possible. Second, in subject matter jurisdiction cases like Smithers v Smith and Land v Dollar, courts may not resolve factual disputes when those disputes are intertwined with the merits, as this would risk deciding the controversy's substance without ordinary trial procedures, including the right to a jury. When the PLRA was enacted, the usual federal court practice across various contexts involved resolving factual disputes intertwined with the merits at the merits stage itself.Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh, arguing that the majority's statutory interpretation contravenes basic principles because the PLRA's silence cannot confer a jury trial right, and that the jury trial right under the Seventh Amendment does not depend on factual overlap between threshold issues and the merits.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In recent days, the spotlight has been on President Donald Trump, particularly in relation to a significant Supreme Court ruling. On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that has profound implications for Trump's efforts to alter U.S. citizenship policies. The court ruled in favor of limiting federal judges from issuing universal injunctions, which had been used to block Trump's executive order aimed at redefining birthright citizenship. This executive order, known as Executive Order No. 14160, outlines specific circumstances under which a person born in the United States might not automatically qualify for citizenship.The Supreme Court's decision in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc. was a 6-3 split, with justices Barrett, Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh forming the majority. The ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with its plans to modify long-standing U.S. citizenship rules, although it does so by narrowing the scope of preliminary injunctions that were previously granted by lower courts. These injunctions had been entered by courts in Maryland, Washington, and Massachusetts, among others, in response to lawsuits filed by individuals, organizations, and states seeking to block the implementation of Trump's order.Despite this ruling, the legal challenges to Trump's policies continue. The decision has been met with dissenting opinions from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, who expressed concerns about the potential impact on the rights of individuals and the role of federal courts in checking executive power. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, these developments are likely to shape the ongoing debate over executive authority and immigration policy.As we look ahead to the next week, more updates on these court trials and their implications are expected. Thank you for tuning in today to stay informed about these significant legal developments. Join us again next week for more updates and analysis on the ongoing court cases involving Donald Trump.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education?The case was decided on June 12, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Schoolchildren bringing claims related to their education under either Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are not required to make a heightened showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion of the Court.When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was amended in 1986, Congress explicitly declared that nothing in the IDEA “shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures, and remedies available under” the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, or other federal laws protecting disabled children's rights. This provision directly repudiates judicial attempts to create special barriers for educational discrimination claims. The Eighth Circuit's rule requiring schoolchildren to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment”—rather than the standard deliberate indifference required in other disability contexts—artificially limits disabled students' ability to vindicate their rights under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Neither statute's text suggests that educational services claims deserve different treatment than other disability discrimination claims. Both laws use expansive language applying protections to “any person” alleging discrimination, without distinction based on the type of claim.The heightened standard originated in 1982 when the Eighth Circuit attempted to “harmonize” the IDEA with the Rehabilitation Act, reasoning that courts should defer to educators unless they departed grossly from professional standards. This Court made a similar harmonization attempt in 1984, holding the IDEA was the exclusive remedy for educational claims, but Congress swiftly overturned that decision. The Eighth Circuit's continued application of its heightened standard conflicts with Congress's clear directive that the IDEA does not limit other federal antidiscrimination laws. By imposing a higher burden of proof for educational claims compared to other disability discrimination contexts, courts effectively read the IDEA as restricting the independent rights and remedies that Title II and Section 504 provide to disabled children.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, suggesting the Court should consider in a future case whether intent to discriminate must be proven for all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, not just educational ones.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasizing that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require no showing of improper purpose or animus because discrimination against people with disabilities often results from thoughtlessness rather than malice.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Join rheumatology experts Dr. John J. Cush and Dr. Arthur Kavanaugh for the EULAR Rheumatology RoundUp — a dynamic, fast-paced discussion capturing the most impactful highlights, late-breaking data, and clinical takeaways from EULAR 2025.

In this episode of the Growth Now Movement, I welcome back my friend Justin “Coach Kav” Kavanaugh for his fourth appearance—a deep dive into his evolution from coaching Olympic sprinters to scaling businesses and acquiring companies. With more than 20 years of elite coaching under his belt, Kav has guided some of the world's fastest athletes—including Olympic gold medalists and world-record holders—and transformed that experience into a high-impact business model. We explore how Kav seamlessly integrates high-performance athletic principles from the track into boardrooms and business-building. He shares how he shifted from grueling hours of speed training to intentionally designing businesses that run without constant oversight—because the real win is in time and financial freedom, not just growth.

I once believed that the worst thing that could happen to this country was to have a Conservative Supreme Court. That was supposed to be the end of everything. I would scream those words into the abyss all through 2016 to anyone who didn't want to vote for Hillary Clinton, “THE SUPREME COURT.”I grew up on the Left, after all, and nothing scared us more than Christianity in our schools, in our corporations, institutions, and in our courts. If Trump won, he would appoint Conservative Christians to the highest court in the land, and that would be the end of Roe v. Wade, the end of the feminist movement, and women's rights.Well, it turns out, we didn't need Conservative Christians to do that. The Left did it all on their own, leaving just one right in place, the right to terminate a pregnancy, or, if you prefer, kill our babies. We use soft language like “choice” and “terminate” as though that changes the reality.Now that the Left has been assured that the pace of abortion did not slow down and women can use abortion like reproductive bulimia - have fun now, deal with the problem later - they've moved on to more pressing matters.I don't think abortion should be illegal. But you know what should be? “Gender-affirming care” for minors. That is the most grotesque example of soft language ever invented by my former side. Call it what it is - sterilization. Top surgery is a double mastectomy. Bottom surgery is castration.In all the ways I feared religion and Christianity infiltrating our schools and institutions has now been left in the dust by a dangerous, fanatical, unstoppable cult that has left too many young men and women destroyed and mutilated in its wake.What a fool I was. Now, I am so grateful for Conservative Christians. I'm so grateful to Donald Trump, who put them on the court. I am glad we lost, even if I didn't know that in 2016. Now I do. Now I can see.Because Hillary Clinton lost, we did not get control of the court. And thank God for that. Because if we had, there is no way the bill from Tennessee to ban “gender affirming care” would have been upheld.Like everyone else on my former side, I was convinced Trump's win in 2016 would end everything we held dear, especially the Supreme Court. We'd been fighting with the Right for years to get control of it. We watched Merrick Garland's appointment obstructed, and we fumed.After Trump won, we became an unhinged, hysterical, angry mob of women who felt it was our right to convict Justice Kavanaugh of rape in the court of public opinion.And to demonize and depict Amy Coney Barrett as the Handmaid.But what I know now that I did not know back in 2016 was that when a society excuses and allows for the young to be sterilized, that's when the bottom drops out, whether it's Eugenics or “gender affirming care.” I didn't see the problem. I was comfortable with the soft language of the Left. We were the good people standing up for marginalized groups.It took me years to realize just how insane the Left had become. But it's one thing if it's just about cancel culture, destroying Hollywood, comedy, art, and book publishing. It's a whole other thing if we're allowing irreversible harm to be done to the minds and bodies of children.But thankfully, God invented Conservatives and they rose to do what we could not, just as they did back before the Civil War to end slavery and for the same reason — they believed it was morally wrong. Now, they are back to stop the Democrats from doing something morally wrong. It's the Christian Right yet again that is on the right side of history.I'm not a religious person, though I wish I could be. I imagine there is relief in that connection to something more powerful than yourself, and maybe that is what so many of these young people need, not “gender-affirming care.” This de-transitioner realized she was made in God's image, which helped her find her way out.I always believed religion was dangerous and destructive. But whatever I thought about religion, and whatever the Left thinks about it now, it can't touch what madness has been manifested by the Left. Look at what they've done.Christianity, we all believed, was the source of bigotry against gays and lesbians. We wanted no part of that. I still don't. But today, I am grateful that they have been fighting this fight because I do not think we could have done it without them.Matt Walsh has been relentless. He's not only reported on the horrors of “gender-affirming care” on his show but also appeared in town halls and government, and helped push the fight in Tennessee to ban the practice. He deserves much credit today.It's ironic, isn't it, that it has been left up to many Conservative Christians to state biological reality. Growing up, I was on that side, and they weren't. Now, the Left has pulled so far into madness that the Conservative Christians are the more pragmatic side.They lock arms with independent thinkers who function as the sane middle, like Colin Wright, Andrew Doyle, Gays Against Groomers, Christina Buttons, and Peter Boghossian:The forces that oppose them are powerful, as this statement by the American Psychological Association shows. But the resistance forces are stronger.The Democrats are collectively too stupid to understand that this is not the hill to die on.The Climate of Fear This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit sashastone.substack.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court left lower courts somewhat in the lurch in its recent Bruen decision; last year, in Rahimi, it attempted to clarify matters.  Now an assault weapons case reaches the Court, Snope v. Brown, but the Court declines to hear it.  Nevertheless, Justice Kavanaugh, though agreeing with the denial of cert, writes a commentary which calls for another, unspecified case to be heard in the near future, and he gives an indication of how he might approach it.  We see this as in line with earlier writing he did in Bruen, but there are many unanswered questions in what seems like an intention to utilize a straightforward reasoning.  We raise many of these questions, and in doing so, offer our readers a look back at the path gun cases have taken to get to this point, and a look ahead in the hope that some of these heretofore unresolved issues are given their due; that the Justices "count to ten," before the Court takes what might be too headstrong a path forward.  Lawyers and judges can obtain CLE credit by visiting podcast.njsba.com after listening.

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, including the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Mexico case, insights from Justice Kavanaugh regarding future cases, and Citigroup's policy shift on financing gun manufacturers. The conversation emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights, along with legislative updates that impact gun ownership and usage. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun control, including the illogical nature of gun-free zones, the persistent efforts of the Democratic Party to impose stricter gun regulations, and the potential for North Carolina to become the 30th state to adopt constitutional carry. The conversation also touches on legislative battles in Arizona, the rise of communism within the Democratic Party, and the need to debunk myths surrounding mass shootings. Additionally, the segment covers the recent Mexico vs. Smith & Wesson case, highlighting the implications of the PLCAA and the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. The conversation delves into the ongoing legal challenges surrounding civil suits related to gun rights, the political unrest in Los Angeles, and the implications of current immigration policies. The speakers discuss the role of law enforcement in addressing these issues and the broader impact on American society. They emphasize the need for legal accountability and the importance of maintaining law and order in the face of political and social challenges. Takeaways Mark discusses his overnight flight and unexpected expenses. The show is live on multiple platforms including YouTube and Facebook. Mark emphasizes the importance of sharing the broadcast on social media. Alan Gottlieb discusses the implications of the Mexico case ruling. The Supreme Court's decision was a surprising 9-0 in favor of gun manufacturers. Kagan's opinion on common use firearms raises questions for future cases. Kavanaugh hints at future assault weapon cases coming to the court. Citigroup's reversal on financing gun manufacturers is seen as a positive shift. Legislation in Louisiana allows concealed carry during parades for self-defense. Mark stresses the importance of the Second Amendment in protecting freedoms. Gun-free zones are often illogical and arbitrary. The anti-gun left continues to push for stricter regulations. Voters who support Democrats may lose their freedoms. North Carolina is on the verge of becoming a constitutional carry state. Legislators in Arizona face ongoing battles against anti-gun bills. The rise of communism is evident in the current Democratic Party. Democrats often prioritize criminals over victims in legislation. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Mexico case is a significant win for gun rights. Public health surveys on mass shootings can be misleading. The PLCAA is crucial in protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Legal suits can drain resources without clear violations. The predicate exception to PLCAA complicates legal proceedings. Political unrest is often tied to party policies. Democrats are accused of inciting violence for political gain. Law enforcement's role is crucial in maintaining order. The immigration crisis is seen as a national security threat. The left's narrative often projects their failures onto others. The importance of supporting organizations like the NRA is emphasized. The conversation highlights the need for legal reforms. The future of American society hinges on addressing these challenges. Keywords Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, Mexico case, Kavanaugh, Citigroup, self-defense, NRA, firearms legislation, legal cases, gun ownership, gun control, constitutional carry, Democratic ideology, mass shootings, Arizona legislation, North Carolina, Second Amendment, communism, PLCAA, gun-free zones, legal challenges, civil suits,

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, including the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Mexico case, insights from Justice Kavanaugh regarding future cases, and Citigroup's policy shift on financing gun manufacturers. The conversation emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights, along with legislative updates that impact gun ownership and usage. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun control, including the illogical nature of gun-free zones, the persistent efforts of the Democratic Party to impose stricter gun regulations, and the potential for North Carolina to become the 30th state to adopt constitutional carry. The conversation also touches on legislative battles in Arizona, the rise of communism within the Democratic Party, and the need to debunk myths surrounding mass shootings. Additionally, the segment covers the recent Mexico vs. Smith & Wesson case, highlighting the implications of the PLCAA and the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. The conversation delves into the ongoing legal challenges surrounding civil suits related to gun rights, the political unrest in Los Angeles, and the implications of current immigration policies. The speakers discuss the role of law enforcement in addressing these issues and the broader impact on American society. They emphasize the need for legal accountability and the importance of maintaining law and order in the face of political and social challenges. Takeaways Mark discusses his overnight flight and unexpected expenses. The show is live on multiple platforms including YouTube and Facebook. Mark emphasizes the importance of sharing the broadcast on social media. Alan Gottlieb discusses the implications of the Mexico case ruling. The Supreme Court's decision was a surprising 9-0 in favor of gun manufacturers. Kagan's opinion on common use firearms raises questions for future cases. Kavanaugh hints at future assault weapon cases coming to the court. Citigroup's reversal on financing gun manufacturers is seen as a positive shift. Legislation in Louisiana allows concealed carry during parades for self-defense. Mark stresses the importance of the Second Amendment in protecting freedoms. Gun-free zones are often illogical and arbitrary. The anti-gun left continues to push for stricter regulations. Voters who support Democrats may lose their freedoms. North Carolina is on the verge of becoming a constitutional carry state. Legislators in Arizona face ongoing battles against anti-gun bills. The rise of communism is evident in the current Democratic Party. Democrats often prioritize criminals over victims in legislation. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Mexico case is a significant win for gun rights. Public health surveys on mass shootings can be misleading. The PLCAA is crucial in protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Legal suits can drain resources without clear violations. The predicate exception to PLCAA complicates legal proceedings. Political unrest is often tied to party policies. Democrats are accused of inciting violence for political gain. Law enforcement's role is crucial in maintaining order. The immigration crisis is seen as a national security threat. The left's narrative often projects their failures onto others. The importance of supporting organizations like the NRA is emphasized. The conversation highlights the need for legal reforms. The future of American society hinges on addressing these challenges. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, Mexico case, Kavanaugh, Citigroup, self-defense, NRA, firearms legislation, legal cases, gun ownership, gun control, constitutional carry, Democratic ideology, mass shootings, Arizona legislation, North Carolina, Second Amendment, communism, PLCAA, gun-free zones, legal challenges, civil suits, political unrest,

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun rights, including the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Mexico case, insights from Justice Kavanaugh regarding future cases, and Citigroup's policy shift on financing gun manufacturers. The conversation emphasizes the importance of the Second Amendment and self-defense rights, along with legislative updates that impact gun ownership and usage. In this segment of Armed American Radio, Mark Walters discusses various topics related to gun control, including the illogical nature of gun-free zones, the persistent efforts of the Democratic Party to impose stricter gun regulations, and the potential for North Carolina to become the 30th state to adopt constitutional carry. The conversation also touches on legislative battles in Arizona, the rise of communism within the Democratic Party, and the need to debunk myths surrounding mass shootings. Additionally, the segment covers the recent Mexico vs. Smith & Wesson case, highlighting the implications of the PLCAA and the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court. The conversation delves into the ongoing legal challenges surrounding civil suits related to gun rights, the political unrest in Los Angeles, and the implications of current immigration policies. The speakers discuss the role of law enforcement in addressing these issues and the broader impact on American society. They emphasize the need for legal accountability and the importance of maintaining law and order in the face of political and social challenges. Takeaways Mark discusses his overnight flight and unexpected expenses. The show is live on multiple platforms including YouTube and Facebook. Mark emphasizes the importance of sharing the broadcast on social media. Alan Gottlieb discusses the implications of the Mexico case ruling. The Supreme Court's decision was a surprising 9-0 in favor of gun manufacturers. Kagan's opinion on common use firearms raises questions for future cases. Kavanaugh hints at future assault weapon cases coming to the court. Citigroup's reversal on financing gun manufacturers is seen as a positive shift. Legislation in Louisiana allows concealed carry during parades for self-defense. Mark stresses the importance of the Second Amendment in protecting freedoms. Gun-free zones are often illogical and arbitrary. The anti-gun left continues to push for stricter regulations. Voters who support Democrats may lose their freedoms. North Carolina is on the verge of becoming a constitutional carry state. Legislators in Arizona face ongoing battles against anti-gun bills. The rise of communism is evident in the current Democratic Party. Democrats often prioritize criminals over victims in legislation. The recent Supreme Court decision in the Mexico case is a significant win for gun rights. Public health surveys on mass shootings can be misleading. The PLCAA is crucial in protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Legal suits can drain resources without clear violations. The predicate exception to PLCAA complicates legal proceedings. Political unrest is often tied to party policies. Democrats are accused of inciting violence for political gain. Law enforcement's role is crucial in maintaining order. The immigration crisis is seen as a national security threat. The left's narrative often projects their failures onto others. The importance of supporting organizations like the NRA is emphasized. The conversation highlights the need for legal reforms. The future of American society hinges on addressing these challenges. Keywords Second Amendment, gun rights, Mexico case, Kavanaugh, Citigroup, self-defense, NRA, firearms legislation, legal cases, gun ownership, gun control, constitutional carry, Democratic ideology, mass shootings, Arizona legislation, North Carolina, Second Amendment, communism, PLCAA, gun-free zones, legal challenges, civil suits, political unrest,

This week, the Supreme Court cleared its slate of gun cases. It made three substantial moves along the way. First, it finally revealed what it would do with long-languishing cases against Rhode Island's magazine ban and Maryland's AR-15 ban. Then, it decided, unanimously, whether Mexico could sue Smith and Wesson over cartel violence. To break it all down, we have the new editor of one of the premier Supreme Court publications. Zach Shemtob of SCOTUSblog joins the show to give his perspective on what the Court decided and what it means for future cases. He said Justice Brett Kavanaugh's statement on the Court's decision to deny the AR case and his confident prediction it would take a different one up soon was less a signal that Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett agreed with him and more a message to them. Shemtob said Kavanaugh could be the fourth vote to take up a case at any time and may be trying to convince the two conservative holdouts to come around to his point of view, which clearly favors striking down such bans. He also said Justice Elana Kagan chooses her words carefully when writing opinions. So, including a line about the popularity of AR-15s in her Mexico opinion may signal a willingness to find they're protected arms. However, he ultimately argued the liberals on the Court are still unlikely to agree with their conservative colleagues on AR bans. Special Guest: Zach Shemtob.

[EP 25-227] We are being lied to on a major scale. When people can openly, blatantly lie, and expect you to believe it, you know you are in the matrix.It takes massive guts to do the work that some of us do. I have many friends, brilliant minds who spend most of their time trying to survive. The Left sucks the life out of them reducing them to subsistence.I'm one of them. When I told the truth about the Kavanaugh accuser skanks my world changed dramatically. Instead of getting a Fox News show and making millions of dollars, Fox blacklisted me, and actually tried to ruin me.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-kevin-jackson-show--2896352/support.

Your favorite Buzzkills are BACK with a pod that is gonna knock your dang socks off. Lizz and Moji break down healthcare carpetbagger Dr. Oz's latest EMTALA bullshit. The Grifter-In-Chief's administration made it clear this week that they're coming full force for a 2022 guidance that mandated hospitals provide EMERGENCY abortions. It's giving “Make America Flatline Again.” PLUS: we dive into fresh, steaming hot pile of Texas trash as cops in the Drone Star State scoured over 80,000 license plates to track down ONE abortion patient. Spoiler alert: the story is fishmarket funky. OH, and shoutout to Illinois for delivering some GOOD abobo news this week! Ahh... an abortion win, we've missed you, old friend. GUEST ROLL CALL! The incredible Dr. Shelley Sella, OB-GYN and the first woman to openly provide abortions later in pregnancy, joins us to gab about her new book, Beyond Limits: Stories of Third-Trimester Abortion Care, and show some big love with us as we celebrate the legacy, humanity and contributions of her friend and colleague, Dr. George Tiller. Who's delivering the much-needed serotonin boost this week? Chanel Ali—comedian, actor, and writer, and former AAF staff writer is in the house! Chanel kikis with us about how she uses humor to make lemonade… even when life has handed you some particularly fucked up lemons. Plus, she may or may not be spilling the frijoles about her upcoming SOLO SHOW! Scared? Got Questions about the continued assault on your reproductive rights? THE FBK LINES ARE OPEN! Just call or text (201) 574-7402, leave your questions or concerns, and Lizz and Moji will pick a few to address on the pod! Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: Sign up for virtual 2025 OSA workshop on August 9th! You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our past Operation Save Abortion pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead IG: @LizzWinstead Bluesky: @LizzWinstead.bsky.socialMoji Alawode-El IG: @Mojilocks Bluesky: @Mojilocks.bsky.social SPECIAL GUESTS:Dr. Shelley Sella IG: @doctorshelleysella Bluesky: @doctorshelleysella.bsky.socialChanel Ali IG/TikTok: @ChanelAli GUEST LINKS:Dr. Shelley Sella's WebsiteDr. Shelley Sella's “Beyond Limits” Book: Upcoming EventsWATCH: “After Tiller”Chanel Ali's WebsiteSee Chanel Live NEWS DUMP:Democrats Set Out to Study Young Men. Here Are Their Findings.Far-Right Texas Lawyer Faces Detailed Sex Misconduct Allegations in New LawsuitKansans Challenge Constitutionality of State Law Nullifying End-Of-Life Choices of Pregnant WomenBill Ensuring Medication Abortion Access Amid Uncertainty With Trump's FDA Heads to PritzkerTrump Just Checked off Another Project 2025 Goal: Letting Pregnant People Die in ERsA Dystopian Surveillance Fear Has Become Reality in Texas EPISODE LINKS:What to Know About George Tiller, a Kansas Abortion Provider Assassinated by Anti-abortion ExtremistADOPT-A-CLINIC: Hope Clinic's Wishlist6 DEGREES: Adrien Brody Feels for the RatsSIGN UP 8/9: (VIRTUAL) Operation Save Abortion at Netroots 2025 BUY AAF MERCH!Operation Save AbortionSIGN: Repeal the Comstock ActEMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist SHOULD I BE SCARED? Text or call us with the abortion news that is scaring you: (201) 574-7402 FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFrontBluesky ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFrontTALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

Anthony and Karine discuss Miss Rachel being accused of being funded by Hamas! Ethan Klein has lost his appeal to Ryan Kavanaugh and Israeli tourists want us to feel bad for them! Also, some HairZone updates, and more!

In 2010, digital tools for journalists were emerging, but the gritty, time-intensive methods of traditional reporting still dominated newsrooms. The disappearance of 7-year-old Kyron Horman from his Portland elementary school thrust The Oregonian's journalists into a high-stakes investigation that demanded old-school techniques now increasingly rare in today's fast-paced media environment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Send us a textThis is a re-release of episode 128!In this episode, we sit down with Susanna Kavanaugh, Executive Director of Least of These Carolinas, a nonprofit making a powerful impact in the lives of foster children and families. Susanna shares the heart behind the organization, the real-life needs they meet daily, and their vision for the future. Whether you're passionate about child advocacy, looking for ways to support local families, or just love hearing stories of hope and purpose—this episode is for you. WATCH NOW

Send us a textFirst, a follow-up from episode 696 about the SCOTUS rejecting a challenge to Maryland's "Assault Weapons" ban, in which Clarence Thomas openly rebukes his fellow justices (Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, etc.) that voted against granting cert thereto.Then, on to Illinois, where Gov. Prickster is about to sign their latest monstrosity of infringement, a "safe storage" law, that Royce explains is a back door to warrantless 4th Amendment violations.Support the showGiveSendGo | Unconstitutional 2A Prosecution of Tate Adamiak Askari Media GroupBuy Paul Eberle's book "Look at the Dirt"Paul Eberle (lookatthedirt.com)The Deadly Path: How Operation Fast & Furious and Bad Lawyers Armed Mexican Cartels: Forcelli, Peter J., MacGregor, Keelin, Murphy, Stephen: 9798888456491: Amazon.com: BooksVoice of the Blue (buzzsprout.com)

Did the Supreme Court just make it easier to build things in this country — or did it give a once-in-a-lifetime gift to the fossil fuel industry? Last week, the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 against environmentalists who sought to use a key permitting law, the National Environmental Policy Act, to slow down a railroad in a remote but oil-rich part of Utah. Even the court's liberals ruled against the green groups. But the court's conservative majority issued a much stronger and more expansive ruling, urging lower courts to stop interpreting the law as they have for years. That decision, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, may signal a new era for what has been called the “Magna Carta” of environmental law.On this week's episode of Shift Key, Rob and Jesse talk with Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor and frequent writer on permitting issues. He is also Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer's former chief legal counsel. Rob, Jesse, and Nick discuss what NEPA is, how it has helped (and perhaps hindered) the environment, and why it's likely to change again in the near future. Shift Key is hosted by Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University, and Robinson Meyer, Heatmap's executive editor. Mentioned: The Supreme Court Just Started a Permitting RevolutionThe Supreme Court's Green Double Standard, By Nick BagleyBagley's article on the procedure fetishKey statistics about how NEPA works in the governmentJudge Skelly's 1971 Calvert Cliffs rulingHouse Republicans' NEPA reform proposal Jesse's downshift; Rob's downshift. --Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the National Environmental Policy Act require an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority?The case was decided on May 29, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of federal projects by preparing a detailed environmental impact statement (E-I-S), but it does not impose substantive limits on agencies' decisions. NEPA only applies to the environmental consequences of the proposed project itself, not to impacts from future or geographically separate projects that the proposed project might cause. The Surface Transportation Board complied with NEPA by addressing the environmental effects of constructing and operating an 88-mile freight railroad in Utah. NEPA did not require the Board to evaluate environmental impacts from increased oil drilling in the Uinta Basin or increased oil refining along the Gulf Coast—both of which were separate activities outside the Board's regulatory control. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 5-3 majority opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Amy Coney Barrett.NEPA's role is procedural: it ensures agencies and the public are informed about potential environmental effects but does not direct agencies to reject projects with environmental downsides. Courts reviewing an E-I-S must apply a “rule of reason” and defer to the agency's decisions about the scope and detail of environmental analysis, recognizing that such decisions depend on scientific, technical, and policy judgments that fall within the agency's expertise. Agencies have discretion to omit analysis of speculative or weakly connected effects—particularly when those effects depend on future decisions by other entities or fall under the authority of other regulators. The Board's choice not to analyze upstream drilling or downstream refining effects was reasonable because those were not part of the project under review and because the Board lacks the authority to control such activities.A mere possibility that a project might lead to additional development does not impose an obligation under NEPA to assess all environmental impacts of hypothetical, unrelated projects. Even if a project's effects are foreseeable, NEPA does not make one agency responsible for evaluating the far-reaching environmental costs of others' conduct unless those effects are directly caused by the agency's decision and fall within its regulatory scope. Therefore, the Board's approval of the railway project, based on an E-I-S that focused on the rail line itself, satisfied NEPA's requirements.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, agreeing that the Board was not responsible for assessing the environmental effects of oil production because it lacked authority to regulate those downstream and upstream activities.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the recent Supreme Court decision regarding gun control, expressing frustration over the court's refusal to hear significant cases that could impact Second Amendment rights. He is joined by Lee Williams, who shares his insights on the implications of these rulings and the ongoing challenges faced by gun owners. The conversation also touches on the disturbing case of a fabricated school shooting, highlighting the lengths to which some individuals will go to promote anti-gun narratives. The episode concludes with a call to action for listeners to remain vigilant and engaged in the fight for their rights. Takeaways The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the Maryland assault weapon ban case leaves gun rights vulnerable in the Fourth Circuit. Kavanaugh's comments suggest that the court may address gun rights issues soon, but the delay is frustrating for advocates. The emotional impact of the Supreme Court's decisions on gun owners is significant, as many feel their rights are being ignored. The anti-gun movement often embraces individuals with questionable claims, as seen in the case of the fabricated school shooting. The importance of verifying claims made by individuals advocating for gun control is crucial to maintaining credibility. The conversation emphasizes the need for continued advocacy and support for Second Amendment rights. Mark Walters expresses confidence that the right case will eventually reach the Supreme Court and lead to a favorable outcome for gun owners. The episode highlights the role of organizations like the NRA in fighting for gun rights and the importance of membership. Listeners are encouraged to stay informed and engaged in the ongoing battle for their constitutional rights. The discussion underscores the psychological factors that may drive individuals to fabricate stories for attention or advocacy. Keywords gun control, Supreme Court, Second Amendment, anti-gun activism, school shooting, Armed American Radio, Mark Walters, Lee Williams, NRA, constitutional rights  

The integrity of girls’ sports over the weekend took a big blow as transgender athletes beat out girls at high school competitions all across the country. Enumclaw High School is on high alert after two suspects broke in. Former socialist Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant announced she is running for Congress against Adam Smith. // LongForm: GUEST: Guy Benson on the antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder and how media covered it so poorly. // Quick Hit: Trump wants SCOTUS to strike down a lower court judge’s block on government layoffs. Justice Kavanaugh hinted that the court might issue a ruling on the constitutionality of bans on a very popular rifle.

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court addressed what context courts need to consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.Some circuits, including the Fifth Circuit (which decided Barnes before it reached the Supreme Court), as well as the Second, Fourth, and Eighth Circuits, had adopted the “moment of threat” doctrine. This approach focuses solely on whether there was an imminent danger that created a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moments preceding the use of force. In contrast, other circuits, including the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits, held that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances” when assessing whether the use of force was justified.The Court heard oral argument on January 22, 2025, and on May 15 issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Kagan, vacating the Fifth Circuit and remanding. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett.Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze this decision and what it may mean for excessive force claims moving forward.Featuring:Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime

This Day in Legal History: National Defense ActOn June 3, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Defense Act into law, marking a major shift in American military and legal policy. Passed amid growing tensions related to World War I, the Act dramatically expanded the U.S. Army and strengthened the National Guard, officially integrating it as the Army's primary reserve force. It increased the size of the Regular Army to over 175,000 soldiers and provided for a National Guard force of over 400,000 when fully mobilized. The law also created the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC), formalizing military education at civilian colleges and universities across the country.Crucially, the Act clarified federal authority over the National Guard, requiring units to conform to federal training standards and granting the president the power to mobilize them for national emergencies. This federalization of a traditionally state-controlled force marked a significant legal development in the balance between state and federal military power. It addressed long-standing constitutional ambiguities surrounding the militia clauses and reflected evolving views of national defense in a modern industrial society.The Act emerged from broader preparedness debates within the U.S. political and legal spheres, balancing isolationist tendencies with the perceived need for greater military readiness. Though the U.S. would not enter World War I until 1917, the National Defense Act of 1916 laid essential legal groundwork for rapid mobilization. It remains a foundational statute for the structure of the modern U.S. military.The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear two significant Second Amendment challenges involving bans on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines in Maryland and Rhode Island. By refusing the appeals, the Court left in place lower court rulings upholding the restrictions. Maryland's law, enacted after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, bans certain semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, while Rhode Island's 2022 law prohibits magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Plaintiffs in both cases argued that these weapons and accessories are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens and thus protected by the Constitution.The Court's conservative bloc showed signs of division. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented, indicating they would have reviewed the bans. Justice Kavanaugh did not dissent but issued a statement expressing openness to hearing similar cases in the future, suggesting that the Court would eventually need to rule on whether AR-15s are constitutionally protected.Lower courts rejected the challenges based on the weapons' military-style design and their use in mass killings, reasoning that they are not suitable for self-defense and thus fall outside Second Amendment protection. The challengers contended that these laws ignore the Court's prior rulings on weapons in “common use.” Despite recent decisions expanding gun rights, the justices allowed these bans to stand for now.US Supreme Court won't review assault weapon, high-capacity magazine bans | ReutersThree federal lawsuits filed on June 2, 2025, allege that major class action settlement administrators and two banks engaged in a kickback scheme that siphoned funds away from class members. The suits, brought in New York, Florida, and California, accuse Epiq Solutions, Angeion Group, and JND Legal Administration of securing illicit payments from Huntington National Bank and Western Alliance Bank in exchange for directing large volumes of settlement deposits to them. In return, the administrators allegedly received a share of the banks' profits.Plaintiffs claim the scheme dates back years and coincided with rising interest rates in 2021, which increased the potential value of settlement fund deposits. According to the lawsuits, administrators threatened to stop using the banks unless they shared profits. As a result, class members allegedly received lower payouts due to below-market interest rates on their settlement funds.Together, the defendant banks are said to control over 80% of the U.S. settlement fund market, while the administrators manage over 65% of class action services. The plaintiffs argue this arrangement violated U.S. antitrust law by reducing competition and fixing prices. JND and Western Alliance have denied wrongdoing, calling the claims baseless or inaccurate. Huntington declined to comment, and other parties have yet to respond.Class action administrators, banks accused of kickback scheme in new lawsuits | ReutersMy column for Bloomberg this week looks at Spain's proposed 100% tax on non-EU homebuyers, introduced as a bold fix for the country's deepening housing crisis. The government is responding to surging public frustration over exploding rents—up more than 60% in Barcelona in five years—and the sense that local housing is being turned into an asset class for absentee owners. But while the policy grabs attention, I argue it misses the real target. The problem isn't who owns the homes—it's how those homes are being used. A blanket nationality-based tax is a blunt instrument that's economically ineffective, legally risky under EU and international law, and symbolically inflammatory.Instead, I suggest a more focused approach: taxing speculative flipping and underutilization directly. A resale tax on homes sold within a short holding period, calibrated by how quickly they're flipped, would discourage fast-moving speculation without penalizing genuine residents or workers. Similarly, a progressive vacancy tax—getting steeper the longer a property remains empty—would address the roughly four million vacant or underused homes across Spain. These tools would pressure banks and investors to put housing back into circulation while raising revenue for public housing initiatives.Critically, these proposals are neutral as to the owner's nationality. Whether a home is owned by a Spanish bank, a Canadian retiree, or a U.S. fund manager, what matters is whether it's being used as shelter or as a sidelined asset. The column makes the case that Spain's housing crisis won't be solved by turning foreign investors into political scapegoats, but by confronting speculative behaviors that choke supply and inflate prices—regardless of the flag the buyer flies. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this edition of Y's Guys, Dave McCann and Blaine Fowler deliver another packed episode covering BYU Football, Basketball, recruiting updates, and standout performances across Cougar athletics. They open the show with kickoff times and TV assignments for four of BYU's 2025 games, including matchups against Portland State, Stanford, Colorado, and West Virginia—all primetime games on ESPN. With BYU's impressive 28–4 record in its last 32 night games, the hosts discuss the importance of game time momentum and national exposure.Visit: https://www.ysguys.comRecruiting headlines include a huge flip: 4-star offensive lineman Alai Kalaniuvalu, who originally committed to BYU, then flipped to Oregon, has now flipped back to the Cougars. He'll join BYU in 2027 after his Church mission. McKay Madsen, another 4-star signee, just defended his California state championships in both shot put and discus before leaving for Argentina. The hosts also celebrate the College Football Hall of Fame's new eligibility rules, which now allow Mike Leach, a LaVell Edwards disciple, to be inducted.Basketball buzz heats up as BYU's non-conference schedule features national powerhouses like Villanova, Clemson, UConn, Wisconsin, and a Thanksgiving tournament featuring Miami, Dayton, and Georgetown. Preseason rankings have BYU as high as No. 3 in Gary Parrish's CBS Sports poll, with insiders like Kevin O'Connor predicting AJ Dybantsa, Richie Saunders, and Rob Wright could all be NBA Draft picks.The episode also includes interviews with Chris Crowe, a member of LaVell Edwards' first BYU team and retiring English professor, and Scott Kavanaugh, venue manager for LaVell Edwards Stadium and the Marriott Center, who shares stories from his time running major Vegas venues. Updates from Track & Field, Men's Golf, and Softball highlight All-American performances by Ilove'a Brittingham and Team USA nods for Trent Moser. The episode wraps with the “Cougarboard Question of the Week,” On This Day trivia, and an inspirational quote from Lou Gehrig. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

While on its face the Supreme Court just apparently dealt a set back to assault weapon gun owners in America by allowing for now a Maryland ban on AR15 assault rifles and a Rhode Island ban on high capacity magazines to remain in effect, there are warning signs in both orders that the MAGA right— led by Thomas and Kavanaugh — is prepared in the next term to find that people have a 2nd Amendment Right to bear AR15s. Michael Popok takes a close look at the 2 orders to suss out what they mean. Go to https://beekeepersnaturals.com/legalaf or enter code LEGALAF to get 20% off your order. Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Summary In this episode of Armed American Radio, host Mark Walters discusses the recent Supreme Court decision to reject the Maryland assault weapon ban cases. He analyzes the implications of Justice Kavanaugh's statement regarding the Second Amendment and the potential for future legal challenges. The conversation also touches on the dynamics within the Supreme Court and the reactions from gun rights advocates, emphasizing the ongoing struggle for Second Amendment rights in America. In this conversation, Mark Walters discusses the implications of recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly focusing on Justice Kavanaugh's statements and the influence of former President Trump on the court's dynamics. The discussion also highlights the role of the NRA in defending gun rights, the popularity of AR-15s among Americans, and the strategic considerations of the Supreme Court in handling gun-related cases. Speculation about the motivations behind Kavanaugh's decisions and the potential impact of upcoming lower court rulings on the Supreme Court's future actions is also explored. Takeaways The Supreme Court's rejection of the Maryland gun ban cases is significant. Justice Kavanaugh's statement indicates potential future challenges to gun bans. The denial of cert does not equate to agreement with lower court decisions. Gun rights advocates express disappointment but remain optimistic about future cases. The dynamics within the Supreme Court are crucial to understanding the outcome of gun rights cases. The Second Amendment is viewed as a right that is currently being denied. Patience is necessary as the legal landscape evolves regarding gun rights. The conversation highlights the importance of the NRA in the current political climate. Future cases regarding AR-15s are expected to come before the Supreme Court soon. The discussion emphasizes the need for engagement from gun owners and advocates. Kavanaugh's statement indicates a complex position on gun rights. The NRA's influence remains crucial in the current political climate. The popularity of AR-15s complicates potential gun bans. Speculation surrounds Kavanaugh's motivations for denying certiorari. The Supreme Court's strategy may involve waiting for lower court decisions. Trump's influence on the Supreme Court is still felt today. The left's agenda includes significant gun control measures. Kavanaugh's dissent signals potential future decisions on gun rights. The timing of Supreme Court decisions is critical to their impact. The conversation emphasizes the importance of NRA membership in defending freedoms. Keywords Armed American Radio, Second Amendment, Supreme Court, gun rights, Maryland gun ban, Kavanaugh, NRA, legal challenges, firearms, constitutional rights, Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, NRA, gun rights, AR-15, certiorari, Trump, dissent, judicial strategy, Barrett  

Armed American Radio's Mark Walters joins Cam to discuss the bitterly disappointing decision by SCOTUS to deny cert to a challenge to Maryland's ban on "assault weapons", with Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggesting that the Court will take up another case down the road, perhaps in a term or two.

 It's Friday, May 30th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus Christian burials denied in Odisha State, India In mid-May, villagers in Odisha State, India opposed the burial of a deceased Christian, reports International Christian Concern. Their claim? A Christian funeral would defile the gods and the land of the village. Sadly, authorities were unable to convince villagers to allow the burial, and the body was taken to another location. Although Christian burials have long been denied in India, these denials are increasingly occurring as a method of persecuting Christians in Odisha State. Three independent investigations conducted in Odisha between March and April pointed to an alarming rise in the number of Christians denied burial rights. The investigations concluded that the absence of state laws allocating burial land for Christians has enabled the trend. FBI investigates leaked Dobbs Supreme Court ruling FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino announced Monday that he and FBI Director Kash Patel are going to “re-open” an investigation into the consequential 2022 leak of the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, reports Life News. On May 2, 2022, Politico published a draft of a Supreme Court opinion, authored in February by Justice Samuel Alito, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The official ruling was not released until June 24, 2022. The draft opinion made it evident that the Supreme Court was all but certain to rule in favor of the Mississippi pro-life law at the center of the case. A majority of justices on the Supreme Court were prepared to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision which had extended broad federal legal protections to the practice of abortion. Politico cited a “person familiar with the court's deliberations” to confirm that Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett had already voted in favor of Alito's opinion following oral arguments in December of 2021, yielding a five-justice majority to strike down Roe and Casey, as the pro-abortion precedents are known. Pro-abortion activists made clear that they intended to target pro-life pregnancy resource centers and Catholic parishes in response to the Dobbs leak. Indeed, more than 100 pro-life centers and churches were firebombed, smashed, ransacked, or vandalized with pro-abortion graffiti and threatening messages, reported Fox News.   Then, five weeks after the Dobbs leak, but before the official ruling was announced, a man flew from California to D.C. with the intention of going on a killing spree. His target? The pro-life Supreme Court justices. Nicholas Roske went to Kavanaugh's house first located in Montgomery County, Maryland. He was armed with a pistol and equipped with gear to break into the justice's house undetected. Appeals court paused block of Trump's retaliatory tariffs A federal appeals court granted the Trump administration's request to temporarily pause the Wednesday ruling of the  U.S. Court of International Trade which struck down most of President Donald Trump's tariffs, reports CNBC. The judges of the trade court had found that the 1970s-era law Trump had invoked to enact those tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, does not “confer such unbounded authority” to presidents. The nationwide, permanent block they imposed covered all of the retaliatory tariffs that Trump issued in early April as part of his sweeping “Liberation Day” plan to reshape international trade with the rest of the world. Without a doubt, the Wednesday ruling destabilized a pillar of Trump's economic agenda. Illinois House approves physician-assisted suicide bill And finally, on Thursday, the Illinois House narrowly passed a controversial physician-assisted suicide bill (SB 1950 Amendment 2) by a vote of 63 to 42, with two members cowardly voting “present,” reports the Illinois Family Institute. Oddly enough, 11 state representatives did not cast a vote on the legislation. David Smith, the Executive Director, prayed this prayer on a video which was shared with fellow Christians. SMITH: “I pray, Lord, that many of these lawmakers who are on the fence would choose to err on the side of life and not on death. Lord, I pray that your people would rise up throughout the state of Illinois. I pray that many church leaders would speak up and let their state lawmakers know that this is unacceptable. Illinois should never accept or normalize suicide!” At its April 2025 annual meeting, the Illinois State Medical Society overwhelmingly voted to oppose legalizing physician-assisted suicide. This decision reflects the stance of most Illinois doctors against prescribing lethal medications. They took an oath to do no harm and certainly not to provide the means for their patients to end their lives. If you live in Illinois, send an email to your State Senator here. Scripture tells us that every person is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and thus each life holds immeasurable value. Moreover, Exodus 20:13 records this command: "Thou shall not murder." Close And that's The Worldview on this Friday, May 30th, in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

This Day in Legal History: Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo Ratified On May 19, 1848, Mexico formally ratified the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, officially bringing an end to the Mexican-American War. Signed earlier that year on February 2, the treaty had already been ratified by the United States, but it required approval from both nations to take effect. With Mexico's ratification, the war that had begun in 1846 concluded, marking a major shift in North American territorial boundaries. Under the treaty, Mexico ceded approximately 525,000 square miles—about half its national territory—to the United States. This land included present-day California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of several other states.In exchange, the U.S. paid Mexico $15 million and assumed certain debts owed to American citizens. The treaty also included provisions promising to protect the property and civil rights of Mexican nationals living in the newly acquired territories, though these promises were inconsistently honored. The ratification reshaped the map of North America and solidified U.S. continental expansion under the banner of Manifest Destiny.Legally, the treaty became a foundational document for interpreting property rights, citizenship claims, and cross-border disputes in the American Southwest. It also remains a focal point for understanding the U.S.-Mexico relationship and the historical roots of immigration and land disputes in the region. The ratification marked not just the end of a war but the beginning of complex legal and cultural transformations that still reverberate today.The U.S. Supreme Court extended a block on the Trump administration's attempt to deport roughly 176 Venezuelan detainees under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA), citing due process concerns. The justices, in a largely unsigned decision, criticized the government for providing less than 24 hours' notice of removal without informing the men how to challenge it. The Court noted the administration's failure to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador despite a previous Supreme Court directive.Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, saying the Court acted prematurely, bypassing lower courts. However, the majority justified the intervention by pointing to a district judge's delayed response to an emergency request, which they said risked irreparable harm to the detainees.Though Trump claimed the AEA is needed to address a national security “invasion” by alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, the Court did not rule on whether his invocation of the AEA was lawful. The decision leaves that question to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, while preserving the temporary injunction during ongoing litigation.Justice Kavanaugh wrote separately to support judicial review before any deportation under the AEA, and the Court emphasized that immigration enforcement must align with constitutional protections. The ACLU called the ruling a rebuke of efforts to deport people without adequate process, particularly to harsh conditions like those in El Salvador's prisons.Supreme Court Extends Halt of Trump Venezuelan Deportations - BloombergThe U.S. Supreme Court is poised to issue rulings in three significant cases that could further expand religious rights and diminish the separation between church and state. Each case centers on the First Amendment's religion clauses—specifically the tension between the “establishment clause,” which prevents government endorsement of religion, and the “free exercise clause,” which protects individual religious practice.One case involves an attempt to launch the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in Oklahoma. The state's Supreme Court blocked the school, but conservative justices appeared open to the argument that rejecting it solely due to its religious nature violates the free exercise clause.A second case concerns Christian and Muslim parents in Maryland seeking the right to opt their children out of public school lessons featuring LGBT-themed storybooks. Lower courts denied the request, but the Supreme Court seemed sympathetic to the parents' religious freedom claims.The third case addresses whether Catholic Charities in Wisconsin should be exempt from unemployment insurance taxes. The state denied the exemption, arguing the organization was mainly charitable rather than religious. Conservative justices again signaled support for the religious exemption.Legal scholars suggest the Court may continue its trend of elevating the free exercise clause at the expense of the establishment clause. Recent rulings have shifted from restricting government support for religious institutions to affirming their right to receive public funds. This trend suggests the Court may increasingly allow religious organizations access to public programs traditionally limited to secular institutions.US Supreme Court may broaden religious rights in looming rulings | ReutersA federal appeals court has lifted an injunction that had blocked President Trump's executive order limiting collective bargaining rights for hundreds of thousands of federal workers. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, allowed the order to move forward, affecting employees in more than a dozen federal agencies, including Justice, Defense, and Health and Human Services.The executive order expands a national security exemption that exempts workers involved in intelligence or national security from union rights. Trump's administration argued this exemption was necessary to protect national security autonomy. The court's majority, composed of Republican-appointed judges, agreed, saying the union failed to demonstrate immediate harm that would justify blocking the policy.The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), representing about 160,000 federal employees, claimed the order violates federal labor laws and the Constitution. Judge J. Michelle Childs dissented, arguing the administration's national security justification was too vague to override union protections.Trump's directive could impact roughly 75% of union-represented federal workers and specifically targets around 100,000 NTEU members. In addition to the executive order, the Trump administration is also pursuing lawsuits to dismantle existing union contracts for thousands of federal employees.Court gives go-ahead to Trump's plan to halt union bargaining for many federal workers | ReutersBilly Long, President Trump's pick to lead the IRS, is set to face intense questioning from Senate Democrats over his ties to dubious tax credits and campaign donations from their promoters. At the center of the controversy are “sovereign tribal tax credits,” which the Treasury Department says do not exist. Long previously promoted these credits through companies that also contributed large sums to help him retire campaign debt from a failed Senate run.Though Long lacks traditional tax or management experience, his most prominent qualification—beyond his political loyalty to Trump—is his distinction as the “Best Auctioneer in the Ozarks” for seven consecutive years. Critics point to his absence of tax policy credentials, lack of formal education or experience in tax, and question his independence, particularly given Trump's recent push to strip institutions like Harvard of tax-exempt status.Long, a former House member from Missouri, is known for supporting efforts to defund the IRS while in Congress and did not serve on tax-focused committees. Democrats are also scrutinizing his role in promoting the fraud-plagued Employee Retention Credit during the pandemic. As he seeks to take over an agency facing a wave of retirements and leadership departures, Long will likely be pressed on how he would steer enforcement priorities and IRS modernization efforts. Questions are expected to focus on whether he would maintain the agency's recent push to target high-income tax avoidance or pivot in a different direction.Senate Panel to Grill IRS Pick on Dubious Tax Credits, Donors This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We've made it to casual Friday folks! The Supreme Court had a field day yesterday with the Trump administration's attorney over their executive order to revoke birthright citizenship. Several of the justices, including conservatives, seemed to reject the argument that circuit court injunctions should only apply to the specific case in question. After that, the Nation's Jeet Heer is here to break down all the week's highlights (and lowlights), including Trump's trip to the Middle East, the GOP spending bill and the Democratic Party's lack of willingness to address concerns over Biden's age when it counted. Check out Jeet's writing at The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/authors/jeet-heer/ And his podcast The Time of Monsters: https://www.thenation.com/content/time-of-monsters/ In the Fun Half, Sam and Emma go deeper into the Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship, mainly a question Bret Kavanaugh asked about how such a policy would even be implemented. Would expecting mothers have to pass a customs checkpoint to enter the maternity ward? Or maybe all maternity wards would have to be inside of detention centers so the government can adjudicate each baby's immigration status after they're born. Kid Rock says that liberal women are ugly. Ok dude. And towards the end of the show, Sam, Emma Kuwalski from Nebraska and a few other listeners do a bit of a post-mortem on Sam's conversation with Ezra Klein. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Mankura: Get $25 off your Starter Kit by going to manukora.com/majority  Nutrafol: Get $10 off your first month's subscription + free shipping at Nutrafol.com when you use promo code TMR10 Sunset Lake CBD: Use coupon code “Left Is Best” (all one word) for 20% off of your entire order at SunsetLakeCBD.com Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @RussFinkelstein Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/

Sen. John Kavanaugh is in the center ring!

James Comey posted and then deleted a post that says "8647" essentially saying to assassinate the President, the ladies of The View are not over Hillary losing in 2016, and interview with John Kavanaugh.

Article- Lawless Judges Going to Jail as Trump Team Fights Lawfare Crippling the Executive Branch. Pope Elections. John Zmirak The Eric Metaxas Show John Zmirak  May 01 2025   Other Episodes More at stream.org Article mentioned- Lawless Judges Going to Jail as Trump Team Fights Lawfare Crippling the Executive Branch By John Zmirak Published on April 28, 2025 Read this article at- https://stream.org/the-brew-lawless-judges-going-to-jail-as-trump-team-fights-lawfare-crippling-the-executive-branch/ John Zmirak- You knew it was coming, didn't you? A full-on showdown between the Trump administration and the out-of-control federal courts.   It has gotten clearer by the day that a conspiracy of biased federal judges and left-wing nonprofits with teams of white-shoe lawyers has been operating to cripple the executive branch of government. The unprecedented use of judicial orders to hamstring and micromanage President Donald Trump's exercise of presidential power has created a constitutional crisis — amounting to a coup d'etat by unelected judges. Try to imagine if GOP-appointed judges had conspired to kneecap Barack Obama while he was in office. The nation would have been treated to earsplitting banshee cries of “racism,” judicial impeachment hearings, and well-funded riots in blue cities.   Don't believe me?   Remember the threats by members of Congress against Supreme Court justices when the decision overturning Roe v. Wade got leaked? (By whom, we'll never know). Think of the protests outside conservative justices' homes, and the near-miss assassination attempt on Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The Democrats tried to pack the court with new, preprogrammed leftist justices and talked about imposing term limits on SCOTUS. None on the left were warbling about the sanctity of “judicial independence” and “the rule of law” then. They only believe in the System when they can game it, like some bratty child demanding “do-overs” whenever he strikes out at bat.   No One's Above the Law Democrats were chanting “No one's above the law” when they invented fake crimes to try to imprison Donald Trump in New York, an effort led by Chief Justice John Roberts' crony Norm Eisen. The same Democrats are now suffering conniption fits as Attorney General Pam Bondi takes action against judges who committed genuine offenses. Let's look at the first two arrests, and pray that more follow wherever judges are flouting the law and undermining our democracy. CNBC reports:   Federal authorities have arrested a Wisconsin judge and a former New Mexico judge in two separate cases, accusing them of interfering with Trump administration immigration enforcement efforts.   Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was arrested Friday morning and charged with obstruction. She is accused of helping an undocumented immigrant evade arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers after he appeared in her courtroom April 18.   Dugan's arrest came one day after federal authorities arrested a former New Mexico judge, Joel Cano, and his wife on charges related to the Canos' reported harboring of an undocumented immigrant with alleged ties to the notorious gang Tren de Aragua.   It's hard to decide which of these arrests is more satisfying.   Before she became a judge who would help smuggle illegal aliens out of her courtroom to evade arrest by ICE, Dugan was formerly the executive director of Catholic Charities of southeastern Wisconsin. As The Stream has reported, that particular wealthy, taxpayer-funded nonprofit has been credibly accused of colluding with Mexican cartels to traffic immigrants into the country. Elon Musk's DOGE investigations have largely cut off government funds to Catholic Charities, which served as the main conduit for some $3 billion sluiced into the U.S. Catholic bishops' coffers over the past 15 years — reimbursing them, almost dollar for dollar, for sex-abuse settlements those bishops racked up.   Fool around, find out, indeed. Next there's the case of former judge Joel Cano, who was keeping an accused Tren de Aragua gang member at his house. Feast your eyes on this servant of the court and the rescue gangster he adopted:   On Fox News Pam Bondi explained just how far Cano had gone to help Lopez evade prosecution:   He took one of the TDA members' cellphones, beat it with a hammer, and destroyed it. Then he walked the pieces to a city dumpster to dispose of them to protect himself. … The judge and his wife gave [Lopez] assault rifles that belonged to their daughter. He goes to the shooting range with these assault rifles, with a suppressor, with other known TDA members, and they are shooting. This is the LAST person we want in our country. Nor will we ever tolerate a judge or anyone else harboring them.   The Biden regime intentionally engineered this perfect storm of lawlessness by refusing to enforce our just, democratically enacted immigration laws. The 10 million-plus illegals Biden imported are counted toward congressional representation, providing the Democrats with 20 seats in the House of Representatives they otherwise wouldn't hold, as Musk has estimated. And as we reported Friday, leftist judges are making it easy for those illegal aliens to vote in federal elections by striking down Trump's executive order requiring proof of citizenship.   When faced with such orchestrated chaos, the Trump administration has no choice but to take drastic action to reimpose order and the genuine rule of law. Faster, please.   Please Support The Stream: Equipping Christians to Think Clearly About the Political, Economic, and Moral Issues of Our Day. Trump Meets Zelensky at Impromptu Summit at Pope Francis's Funeral The petulant, demanding president of Ukraine, Volodomyr Zelenksyy, has been frustrating Donald Trump's peace-making efforts, making impossible demands such as the return of Crimea — which Russia seized in 2014, with hardly a protest from the Obama administration and no organized resistance by Ukraine. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed the Trump team's impatience last week, threatening to walk away from talks altogether. It's good to see that communications are still open, as evidenced by this hastily arranged meeting of Trump with Zelenskyy and French President Emanuel Macron at St. Peter's Basilica, which will host the funeral of Pope Francis.   Pray for an end to the futile, fratricidal conflict the Biden administration's bungling help to spark, which has claimed more than a million casualties from two historically Christian countries.   Our Diversity Is Our … Strength? Our out-of-control borders haven't just been flooding the country with foreign gang members and high school dropouts who compete with our least privileged fellow citizens for jobs. We're also importing aggressive, intolerant Islam — the religion that's fueling terrorism and the persecution of Christians all across the world. Take a look at this little video, which shows how Dallas, Texas, is being islamicized.   The First Amendment was written to prevent intra-Christian conflict and religious persecution. The Founders never intended it as a charter for the mass influx of religions entirely alien to our traditions. That's just one more reason to drastically and permanently reduce mass immigration into America.   Along The Stream… Could authentic prophetic dreams expose false prophecies and prophets? Join Wanda Alger and her guest Andrew Whalen later this morning for a fascinating exploration of that idea.   The ever-thoughtful Joseph Mattera's latest essay explains why we need not just healing but resurrection — a key insight this Easter season.     John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream and author or coauthor of 14 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. His newest book is No Second Amendment, No First.     The Brew: Democrat Judge Doubles Down on Election Fraud. No Need to Prove Citizenship to Vote By John Zmirak Published on April 25, 2025 John Zmirak If you want Exhibit #108 proving that President Donald Trump has no choice but to defy judicial orders from lawless, biased jurists, check out the latest. The Daily Wire reports: A federal judge on Thursday blocked President Donald Trump from implementing an executive order that requires voters to show documentation proving their U.S. citizenship to cast a ballot in federal elections. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, a Bill Clinton appointee, granted a preliminary injunction stopping the Trump administration from going forward with the proof-of-citizenship requirements as a lawsuit plays out, the Associated Press reported. The lawsuit, filed by the Democratic National Committee and leftist voting rights groups, claims that Trump's order is “an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems and silence potentially millions of Americans.” … The judge's move means that yet another Trump action will be tied up in the courts and prevented from taking effect. Federal judges have blocked numerous Trump orders, including on cuts to federal agency staff, deportations, and birthright citizenship. As of Thursday, 108 different rulings have blocked or temporarily frozen Trump's attempts to carry out his agenda, according to The New York Times. There you go. The Democratic National Committee wants non-citizens voting. Or else it thinks that its voters are so clueless and unqualified that they don't have any ID. No drivers licenses, nothing they'd need to show in order to cash a check at a local bank. Check out this classic 2017 video whose host asks white liberals whether non-white Americans carry ID … then asks a series of non-white Americans whether they do. “Why would they think we don't have ID?” one of the questioners asks the host. He doesn't answer. He doesn't have to. Now consider what motive the Biden administration had for importing more than 10 million illegal aliens and sending them to swing states. Foreign Voters and Foreign Money Help the Left Grab Power While some in MAGA world are frustrated at the Trump administration's pace of progress, one man can only do so much. He is taking aim at some of the most important targets, the key players in corrupting American politics. He's going after Act Blue, for instance, as Politico reports: In a shot at ActBlue, the left's major online donation platform, President Donald Trump plans to sign a presidential memorandum on Thursday that he will cast as cracking down on foreign contributions in American elections, according to a person familiar with the policy and granted anonymity to discuss not-yet-public details. Attorney General Pam Bondi's office is expected to be involved in the effort, the person said. The order is expected to specifically target ActBlue. Republicans have long claimed the platform could be exploited by foreign actors, while Democrats have warned the action is an example of Trump baselessly targeting political opponents. … The memo will direct Bondi to “investigate and take appropriate action concerning allegations regarding the use of online fundraising platforms to make ‘straw' or ‘dummy' contributions and to make foreign contributions to U.S. political candidates and committees, all of which break the law” and report results to the president and his general counsel, according to the fact sheet. Why shouldn't foreign billionaires and hostile governments be able to pour billions into U.S. elections and organize non-citizen voters to decide who represents us? That would imply we make distinctions between countrymen and strangers, which the editors of Christianity Today (some of them donors to groups aligned with Act Blue) reliably inform us is alien to “gospel values.” Speaking of funny money, Ashley Biden's nonprofit is having trouble with the IRS. That's what happens when you don't report honestly. The Free Beacon has the real story: Ashley Biden's charity has a $500,000 discrepancy in its books, a watchdog alleged in a complaint filed with the IRS on Monday. … To Paul Kamenar, an attorney with the National Legal and Policy Center watchdog group, the documents show that Ashley Biden's charity clearly violated IRS rules by failing to disclose $500,000 in contributions it received in 2023. Let's remember the immortal words of now-embattled New York Attorney General Letitia James: “No one is above the law.” Abortion Clinic Targets Children for Sexual Grooming Remember the old libertarian talking point about “keeping the government out of our bedrooms”? Now we realize the government and the LGBTQ movement need to be kept out of the nursery, too. See the latest outrage, courtesy of Libs of TikTok: The State cannot sit neutral. It can't reach a stopping point at “consenting adults,” the way Classical liberals pretend. Either the government will make laws based on the Natural Law which God wrote on the human heart — which you don't need faith or grace to understand — or it will base laws on something darker and falser. It took the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire to rescue women and children from sexual slavery. As the Gospel recedes from people's hearts, the vacuum it leaves will be filled, and filled by spirits. The explosion of transgender madness, child castration, and attacks on Christians as “unfit parents” in the wake of the 2015 Obergefell decision shouldn't surprise us; it should goad us to counterattack with the truth. The Next Pope? I'm not following the conclave that's gathering to elect a successor to the disloyal Pope Francis, largely because the people he appointed to the College of Cardinals transformed that body into a lavender Jacuzzi. One of Francis's appointees, Filipino Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle, is considered a frontrunner among “progressives” who wish to continue transforming the Catholic Church into the chaplaincy of the World Economic Forum. Here he is performing John Lennon's utopian, atheist anthem “Imagine” for a crowd that we can hope was duly puzzled by it. Imagine Pope Francis II. (It's easy if you try.) Catholics don't believe that God picks the popes — otherwise, we'd have to explain why during the Renaissance He always picked the cardinals who'd paid the biggest bribes or were the illegitimate children of previous popes. We just have to pray for Jesus to protect us from our shepherds, who seem to have developed a taste for lamb. Coming Soon: A New Ice Age to Save the Climate Gateway Pundit reports: The British government is reportedly just weeks away from approving bizarre experiments aimed at dimming sunlight in a bid to combat so-called climate change. Proposed outdoor trials may involve spraying aerosols into the upper atmosphere or artificially brightening clouds to bounce sunlight back into space in order to help cool the earth. … The experiments are being pushed under the premise that humanity isn't cutting emissions quickly enough to avoid an environmental apocalypse, at least, according to scientists still clinging to worst-case climate scenarios. Scientists backing the proposals believe that, if the tests yield promising results, the techniques could be expanded and rolled out on a wider scale within a decade. These people want to control the weather, to make the earth less fertile so it can feed far fewer people. But remember that the threat to our freedoms and our future are … conservatives and Christians. Along The Stream… Later this morning, join Allen Jackson, pastor and author of Angels, Demons & You, for a sobering look at how spiritual forces impact our daily lives in this 26-minute video. Why is it crucial that we consider each of our fellow human beings as made in the “image of God”? How does that change everything about how we live our lives? Find out from this insightful essay.   John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream and author or coauthor of 14 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. His newest book is No Second Amendment, No First.   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  John Zmirak makes his weekly appearance and covers current events and shares recent articles available at-   https://stream.org/author/johnzmirak/ Watch Eric Metaxas on Rumble-  https://rumble.com/c/TheEricMetaxasRadioShow  The Eric Metaxas Show- https://metaxastalk.com/podcasts/ Eric Metaxas Show on Apple Podcasts-    https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-eric-metaxas-show/id991156680 Check out- Socrates in the City   Find All of John Zmirak Articles at- https://stream.org/author/johnzmirak/   John Zmirak is a Senior Editor of The Stream. He received his B.A. from Yale University in 1986, then his M.F.A. in screenwriting and fiction and his Ph.D. in English in 1996 from Louisiana State University. He has been Press Secretary to pro-life Louisiana Governor Mike Foster, and a reporter and editor at Success magazine and Investor's Business Daily, among other publications. His essays, poems, and other works have appeared in First Things, The Weekly Standard, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, USA Today, FrontPage Magazine, The American Conservative, The South Carolina Review, Modern Age, The Intercollegiate Review, Commonweal, and The National Catholic Register, among other venues. He has contributed to American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia and The Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought. From 2000-2004 he served as Senior Editor of Faith & Family magazine and a reporter at The National Catholic Register. During 2012 he was editor of Crisis. He is author, co-author, or editor of twelve books, including Wilhelm Ropke: Swiss Localist, Global Economist, The Grand Inquisitor and The Race to Save Our Century. His newest book is No Second Amendment, No First. Zmirak can be found at https://stream.org/author/johnzmirak/   John Zmirak is a senior editor at The Stream and author or co-author of ten books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to Immigration and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. He is co-author with Jason Jones of “God, Guns, & the Government.”   John Zmirak's new book: No Second Amendment, No First  by John Zmirak  Available March 19, 2024 Today's Left endlessly preaches the evils of “gun violence." It is a message increasingly echoed from the nation's pulpits, presented as common-sense decency and virtue. Calls for “radical non-violence” are routinely endowed with the imprimatur of religious doctrine.   But what if such teachings were misguided, even damaging? What if the potential of a citizenry to exercise force against violent criminals and tyrannical governments is not just compatible with church teaching, but flows from the very heart of Biblical faith and reason? What if the freedoms we treasure are intimately tied to the power to resist violent coercion?  This is the long-overdue case John Zmirak makes with stunning clarity and conviction in No Second Amendment, No First. A Yale-educated journalist and former college professor, Zmirak shows how the right of self-defense against authoritarian government was affirmed in both the Old and New Testaments, is implied in Natural Law, and has been part of Church tradition over the centuries.   --------------------------------------------------------------------  Check out our ACU Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/ACUPodcast   HELP ACU SPREAD THE WORD!  Please go to Apple Podcasts and give ACU a 5 star rating. Apple canceled us and now we are clawing our way back to the top. Don't let the Leftist win. Do it now! Thanks. Also Rate us on any platform you follow us on. It helps a lot. Forward this show to friends. Ways to subscribe to the American Conservative University Podcast Click here to subscribe via Apple Podcasts Click here to subscribe via RSS You can also subscribe via Stitcher FM Player Podcast Addict Tune-in Podcasts Pandora Look us up on Amazon Prime …And Many Other Podcast Aggregators and sites ACU on Twitter- https://twitter.com/AmerConU . Warning- Explicit and Violent video content.   Please help ACU by submitting your Show ideas. Email us at americanconservativeuniversity@americanconservativeuniversity.com   Endorsed Charities -------------------------------------------------------- Pre-Born! Saving babies and Souls. https://preborn.org/ OUR MISSION To glorify Jesus Christ by leading and equipping pregnancy clinics to save more babies and souls. WHAT WE DO Pre-Born! partners with life-affirming pregnancy clinics all across the nation. We are designed to strategically impact the abortion industry through the following initiatives:… -------------------------------------------------------- Help CSI Stamp Out Slavery In Sudan Join us in our effort to free over 350 slaves. Listeners to the Eric Metaxas Show will remember our annual effort to free Christians who have been enslaved for simply acknowledging Jesus Christ as their Savior. As we celebrate the birth of Christ this Christmas, join us in giving new life to brothers and sisters in Sudan who have enslaved as a result of their faith. https://csi-usa.org/metaxas   https://csi-usa.org/slavery/   Typical Aid for the Enslaved A ration of sorghum, a local nutrient-rich staple food A dairy goat A “Sack of Hope,” a survival kit containing essential items such as tarp for shelter, a cooking pan, a water canister, a mosquito net, a blanket, a handheld sickle, and fishing hooks. Release celebrations include prayer and gathering for a meal, and medical care for those in need. The CSI team provides comfort, encouragement, and a shoulder to lean on while they tell their stories and begin their new lives. Thank you for your compassion  Giving the Gift of Freedom and Hope to the Enslaved South Sudanese -------------------------------------------------------- Food For the Poor https://foodforthepoor.org/ Help us serve the poorest of the poor Food For The Poor began in 1982 in Jamaica. Today, our interdenominational Christian ministry serves the poor in primarily 17 countries throughout the Caribbean and Latin America. Thanks to our faithful donors, we are able to provide food, housing, healthcare, education, fresh water, emergency relief, micro-enterprise solutions and much more. We are proud to have fed millions of people and provided more than 15.7 billion dollars in aid. Our faith inspires us to be an organization built on compassion, and motivated by love. Our mission is to bring relief to the poorest of the poor in the countries where we serve. We strive to reflect God's unconditional love. It's a sacrificial love that embraces all people regardless of race or religion. We believe that we can show His love by serving the “least of these” on this earth as Christ challenged us to do in Matthew 25. We pray that by God's grace, and with your support, we can continue to bring relief to the suffering and hope to the hopeless.   Report on Food For the Poor by Charity Navigator https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/592174510   -------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer from ACU. We try to bring to our students and alumni the World's best Conservative thinkers. All views expressed belong solely to the author and not necessarily to ACU. In all issues and relations, we hope to follow the admonitions of Jesus Christ. While striving to expose, warn and contend with evil, we extend the love of God to all of his children. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------