Democrat Senate Nominee Shocked Anyone Would Ban Sharia Before the Camels Arrive

Leave it to a Michigan Democrat running for the U.S. Senate to discover that noticing a legal system with a documented track record of amputations, stonings, and second-class status for women and non-believers is the actual hate crime. 

Abdul El-Sayed, the party’s nominee, took to Fox News’s Jesse Watters Primetime in late August 2026 to explain that “preemptively” banning Sharia is discriminatory because it singles out a tiny, totally unremarkable community that just happens to be different.

The Visegrad24 graphic [above] making the rounds is a compressed, partisan summary of those comments. The underlying statements are real; the framing and visuals are designed to maximize alarm. 

Sharia itself ranges from personal religious rules (prayer, diet, finance, marriage, property, and punishment) to, in some interpretations and countries, criminal and family law that conflicts with U.S. constitutional rights. U.S. courts already cannot enforce foreign or religious rules that violate the Constitution. 

El-Sayed would like you to stop talking about the second part. 

His exact phrasing from the interview: “When people preemptively go out there and start preemptively passing laws to ban something that’s not happening, what you’re trying to do is target a very small community because they’re different.” Efforts like Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s “seem to me to be deliberately targeting the Muslim community because they’re different.”

He compared personal/religious observance of Sharia to Catholic canon law and said no one is trying to impose Sharia on others, just as no one should impose canon law. 

The Washington Examiner summarized it as El-Sayed saying “‘preemptively’ banning sharia is discriminatory.” This is the same fellow who, in a 2022 speech to CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter, treated a 2010 ballot measure that simply told state courts they could not consider Sharia or foreign law as the moral equivalent of the Trail of Tears, the Tulsa massacre, and the Oklahoma City bombing. He blamed “white supremacy” and “the same exact forces.” 

Fact-checkers (Reuters, PolitiFact) noted he did not call for implementing Sharia as U.S. civil law. They did not note that comparing an anti-Sharia amendment to ethnic cleansing and a fertilizer bomb is the kind of rhetorical flourish that usually gets a man invited back to CAIR events.In 2009, as a young medical student, he told the New York Times he felt a religious “obligation” to live in a Sharia-compliant way (he used a Sharia-compliant mortgage to avoid interest). 

His campaign now insists he supports separation of church and state and opposes writing any religion’s rules into civil law. The rest of us are expected to believe that bull crap and treat the 2009 version and the 2026 version as the same man who has never once noticed that some versions of Sharia do not stay in the prayer rug lane. 

The 1 percent figure gets deployed like a magic shield: How dare you even discuss a legal tradition followed by a sliver of the population? Never mind that slivers have a habit of becoming neighborhoods, then demands for parallel courts, then “sensitivity” training for judges. Catholics have canon law. They have not spent the last twenty years producing headlines about honor violence, polygamy prosecutions, or no-go zones in Western cities. The comparison is doing a lot of work. 

El-Sayed’s position is internally consistent if you accept the premise that any preemptive defense of the Constitution against a specific religious legal code is bigotry by definition. The rest of the country is still allowed to notice that “it’s not happening” is the traditional opening line before it starts happening.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

SCOTUS Gives Trump Ballroom Project a 5-4 Green Light, Roberts Apparently Not Invited to the Grand Opening

WASHINGTON, D.C. | The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to continue construction of the White House ballroom, delivering a 5-4 ruling that apparently means America’s highest court has decided that, yes, presidents are allowed to build things.

In an unsigned 5-4 order, the majority granted an emergency application from the Trump administration, blocking lower court rulings that would have stopped construction on the aboveground portion of the project. At this preliminary stage, the justices concluded that the preservation groups challenging the project had not established that they had standing to sue.

“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief,” the high court wrote.

In other words, the Supreme Court did not declare Trump’s ballroom legal. It simply decided that the people suing over it had not yet demonstrated that they were legally entitled to stop it.

Four justices disagreed, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the court’s liberal wing consisting of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and D.E.I. employee Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Roberts argued that Congress never gave the president permission to undertake the project, an argument that apparently places the White House ballroom somewhere between an unauthorized federal building and an international incident.

“That construction is likely unlawful,” Roberts wrote. “Pursuant to its plenary constitutional authority over the District of Columbia and federal property, Congress has explicitly prohibited the construction of any “building or structure . . . on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”

Roberts had previously issued an administrative stay on Aug. 21, temporarily blocking the district court’s injunction while the full Supreme Court considered the administration’s request.

Monday’s ruling, however, left Roberts on the losing side of a 5-4 decision, marking another occasion when the Chief Justice found himself standing with the court’s liberal justices while the conservative majority proceeded without him.

“The White House is not just any building, and—when it comes to historic preservation—Hoagland is not just any person. In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue,” Roberts argued with the liberals.

“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” he added.

The administration, meanwhile, considered the ruling a rather substantial victory, particularly since crews are already well into the project and apparently have little interest in waiting around for the judicial system to finish debating whether they are allowed to hold a shovel.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the project in a filing as an “integrated military complex” that includes a secure ballroom space that is “vitally required by national security.”

The administration has also argued that the White House needs additional security infrastructure capable of protecting the president and other officials from potential attacks.

Critics, naturally, remain unconvinced.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation argued that Trump cannot simply demolish portions of the White House and construct a 90,000-square-foot addition without congressional authorization and the appropriate reviews.

The trust has accused the administration of attempting to “outrun judicial review,” presumably by doing the radical thing known as actually building the building while the lawyers are still arguing about it.

The administration says construction is already approximately 65% complete, with crews working 20 hours a day, seven days a week.

That schedule may explain why the legal battle has become something of a race between construction workers and the federal judiciary.

About $200 million in private donations has reportedly already been spent or committed to the project. Trump initially announced the ballroom after returning to the White House, describing it as a roughly $400 million project financed primarily through private donations.

The administration subsequently demolished the White House’s East Wing last year to make room for the project.

For now, Trump gets to keep building, as will future POTUSs.

And Chief Justice Roberts gets to keep writing dissents.

Somewhere, a ballroom contractor is probably hoping the next Supreme Court order arrives after the drywall goes up.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

JD Vance blasts El-Sayed after he goes after Usha Vance: "Way out of your league"

Vice President JD Vance did not come to metro Detroit to play nice. After Michigan Democratic Anti-Semitic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed decided to take a swipe at the second lady, Vance told him to knock it off and talk about something that actually matters to voters.

Vance implored El-Sayed to focus on policy instead of attacking his wife. 

At a MAGA Inc. rally Monday, JD made it clear he thinks the Democrat’s personal shot is not just cheap. It is strange."I actually think that the people of Michigan think it's kind of weird when you talk about another guy's wife," Vance said. "I think the people of Michigan would like you to talk about the public policy ideas …I think the people of Michigan would like you to talk about how you're going to protect auto workers when you're supporting every single policy that has undercut the wages and jobs of Michigan auto workers your entire life in public service."

Then came the closer. "But whatever you want to talk about, Abdul, keep my wife's name the hell out of your mouth because she's way out of your league," the vice president added.

That was not some random zinger. It was a response to El-Sayed saying "do we think JD is taking Usha with him back in time to meet Papaw, or no" after Vance suggested that Sharia law would have been an alien concept to his grandfather. 

Critics said the post appeared to take aim at Usha Vance’s Indian heritage. El-Sayed later claimed his point was that Vance seemed to be suggesting some people are "more American" than others because their families have been in the country longer, noting that Vance’s own in-laws are immigrants. Sure. That is the cleanup. 

The original post still read like a cheap ethnic jab at the vice president’s wife. Conservative commentator Ryan Girdusky cut through the spin. "If you’re a rural White American living in Michigan, just remember El-Sayed believes you’re a racist." 

That is the problem with this guy. Instead of explaining why Michigan auto workers should trust a candidate who has spent his public life backing the policies that undercut their jobs, he went after another man’s wife. Vance was happy to bring it back to substance. 

Earlier in his speech, Vance accused El-Sayed of undercutting his support for working people by taking liberal positions on immigration.

"We're here to talk about protecting Michigan truck drivers, but also protecting the safety of every single person who drives on the road with a semi truck, which is all of us," Vance said. "Here's the crazy thing. Just a few years ago, Abdul El-Sayed said that we need to make sure that illegal aliens have driver's licenses in this country. He would love to undercut the wages of American truckers."

In 2018, El-Sayed expressed support for allowing illegal immigrants to obtain standard driver's licenses, though he did not specifically push for those in the country illegally to receive the commercial driver's licenses necessary to operate long-haul trucks. 

Vance still landed the broader point. You do not get to pose as the champion of Michigan truckers while floating licenses for people who should not be here. The two men do overlap on one thing. While Vance and El-Sayed differ in their approaches to immigration, both agree, in principle, that tariffs should be used to benefit American industry. That is about where the common ground ends. 

El-Sayed won the Democratic primary for Michigan's open U.S. Senate seat and will face Republican Mike Rogers in the general election. If Monday was any indication, he would rather talk about Usha Vance than explain how his record helps auto workers. Vance was not having it.The El-Sayed campaign did not respond to a request for comment when reached by Fox News Digital on Monday.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Nation's Journalists Confirm 98 Percent Win Rate in Trump Administration Qualifies As Mixed Results

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- After a tense "Meet the Press" interview that ended about as warmly as a frozen turkey in January, President Donald Trump announced that NBC host Kristen Welker would be reported to the Federal Communications Commission for the grave journalistic crime of describing a 100 percent Senate endorsement record and a 98 percent House endorsement record as "mixed results."

Trump said the remark was not merely sloppy. It was, in his telling, a purposeful assault on the public airwaves themselves.

"Kristen Welker, the Unpopular ‘Hostess’ of the once great Meet the Press, now considered Meet the Fake Press, just stated that Donald Trump has ‘mixed results’ on his Endorsements of Candidates, when the recent WINS of Darline Graham and Mike Mazzei, stand at 100% for the U.S. Senate, and 98% for the U.S. House, recently and over the longterm," Trump posted on Truth Social.

"How can anyone be allowed to say this, working for freely given Public Airwaves? Results are attached," Trump continued. "Because of this purposeful inaccuracy, she will be reported to the FCC for rebuke or punishment. Unfortunately, she is not the only one." 

Media mathematicians immediately sprang into action. According to sources inside several newsrooms, a batting average of .980 is now officially categorized as "a little up and down," "kind of a wash," and "not that impressive if you really think about it." One producer explained that if a quarterback completed 98 of 100 passes, the responsible thing would be to lead with the two incompletions and then ask whether the sport of football even works anymore. 

NBC News stood by its host with the kind of institutional loyalty usually reserved for a beloved intern who just set the building on fire. "Kristen is one of the best in the business and we stand by her," an NBC News spokesperson said. 

The remark that triggered the federal complaint did not even occur during Sunday's "Meet the Press" broadcast. Welker offered it earlier that morning on NBC4 Washington, where she predicted Trump would dominate the midterms and then described his endorsement slate as mixed, before citing the Graham win in the next breath. "He’s going to loom large over these midterms. There's no doubt about that. He, of course, has endorsed a slate of candidates in the primaries. He's had some mixed results, but most recently, his pick of Senator Darline Graham, of course, the sister of the late Senator Lindsey Graham, was successful in her primary battle, so now she takes on Dr. Annie Andrews in South Carolina," Welker said.

CNN chief media ANALyst Brian Stelter warned that asking a regulator to notice a journalist's wording was a dangerous new chapter in American life, one in which presidents might someday object to being described as losing when they are, inconveniently, winning. 

"Trump is getting more explicit about weaponizing the FCC. This morning he said @kwelkernbc will be ‘reported to the FCC for rebuke or punishment’ for saying something he didn’t like about his endorsement record. (By law, the FCC can’t punish Welker.) And that’s not all..." Stelter posted to X.

A Fox News Trump Primary Endorsement Tracker published Thursday found Trump-backed candidates had won all 24 Republican Senate primaries in which he endorsed and 214 of 218 House primaries, producing a 100 percent Senate success rate and a roughly 98 percent House rate. The two victories Trump highlighted came Tuesday. Graham defeated Rep. Ralph Norman in South Carolina’s Senate runoff, while former state Sen. Mike Mazzei defeated Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond by approximately 2,000 votes for the Republican gubernatorial nomination.

The same tracker recorded victories for 16 of Trump's 21 gubernatorial picks. His five defeated candidates included Pamela Evette in South Carolina, Mike Lindell in Minnesota and Megan Degenfelder in Wyoming, a combined record that newsrooms treated as proof the era of MAGA dominance was over, hanging by a thread, and also somehow still looming large.

Trump accused news organizations of mining the handful of losses in order to recast a historically lopsided record as a coin flip. "Their new weapon is to say that my 99% SUCCESS Rate on Endorsements, 100% on Senatorial Endorsements (Many of whom were not even given a shot of winning until I Endorsed!), is either a mixed result, or not very good. In actuality, it is, without question, the strongest Endorsement in the History of Politics," Trump said.

He closed by appealing directly to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, the one man in Washington still expected to treat a 98 percent win rate as something other than a tragedy."The Press is a Disgrace to our Nation, and I hope that Chairman Brendan Carr, and the fine people of his Commission, will take this Threat to our Country very seriously," Trump said.

Carr has previously warned broadcasters that news distortion could affect license renewals. The FCC, however, licenses individual stations rather than networks such as NBC, and its published policy requires evidence that a report was deliberately intended to mislead viewers [which it obviously was designed to do], distinguishing deliberate distortion from an inaccuracy or a difference of opinion. 

Newsroom sources said they were already preparing the next day's coverage, in which a 100 percent Senate record would be described as "complicated," a 98 percent House record as "uneven," and the remaining 2 percent as the only number that still counts.

Can anyone seriously believe the media anymore?

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Islamic charity does verbal calisthenics to find a way to blame the Jews for 911

WASHINGTON, D.C. , In what education experts are calling a bold new approach to history, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has reportedly released a school resource guide suggesting that the September 11 terrorist attacks were less about Islamic terrorism and more about America's unfortunate habit of supporting Israel, you know, the Jooooooze!

The guide, released as part of CAIR's “Back to school resource guide,” was apparently designed to help teachers explain the 2001 attacks to a new generation of students who might otherwise make the historically outrageous mistake of believing that terrorists were responsible for the terrorism. 

How Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of them, eh.

Thankfully, the guide appears to have been removed shortly after its publication, presumably after someone remembered that telling American children that their country basically had it coming for supporting Israel might not be considered traditional civics education. But I bet it wasn't Randi Weingarten who had the guides removed.

Among the guide's more creative historical formulations was the claim that the attacks were carried out not by Islamic terrorists, but by a “group self-identifying as Al Qaeda hailing from the mountains of Afghanistan.” In fact, some of them may have even looked Jewish.

This distinction is important. After all, if a group calling itself Al Qaeda hijacks four airplanes, murders nearly 3,000 people and attacks the Pentagon and World Trade Center, the least we can do is carefully avoid jumping to conclusions about whether it might have had anything to do with Islamic terrorism.

The guide also cited American support for Israel and the U.S. military's involvement in the Gulf War as grievances that supposedly helped justify attacks against the United States. In other words, we had it coming. 

Apparently, the terrorists had grievances, America had foreign policy, Israel existed, and therefore everyone can go home with a B-plus in History.

The guide's explanation of the aftermath of 9/11 was even more remarkable. According to the materials, the Global War on Terror helped create an “Islamophobic” culture in which the words “terrorism” and “terrorist” were supposedly applied primarily to Muslims.

“While Islamophobia and anti-Muslim racism existed long before the 9/11 attacks, this time period marked a stark shift in US policy and state sponsored Islamophobia in the U.S. and abroad. There was immediate backlash against anyone perceived to be Muslim,” the propaganda read.

Of course, there was also an immediate backlash against people who flew airplanes into buildings, murdered civilians and attacked the Pentagon. But apparently that distinction was considered too nuanced for the back-to-school crowd.

The guide also included terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden's “Letter to America” as “resource material,” apparently because nothing says "educational enrichment" quite like assigning students the writings of the man responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans.

Among the gems included in bin Laden's letter was this passage:

“Your law is the law of the rich and wealthy people, who hold sway in their political parties, and fund their election campaigns with their gifts. Behind them stand the Jews, who control your policies, media and economy.”

Somewhere in Israel, a history teacher is presumably preparing a lesson explaining that this is definitely not antisemitic, but merely another example of America's complicated relationship with foreign policy.

Nicholas Haros Jr., whose mother Frances was killed on 9/11, wasn't buying it.

“The further we get from 9/11, this new generation of kids will learn to blame our country. These kids are going to be poisoned – and that’s the intent.”

Sen. Tom Cotton had already warned about CAIR's efforts to influence American schools nearly a year earlier.

“I write to alert you to the Council on American-Islamic Relations’s (CAIR) efforts to influence K-12 schools … It is well documented that CAIR has deep ties to pro-Hamas terrorist organizations and publicly supports Hamas’s terrorist activities,” Cotton wrote in part.

“Such an organization should never have access to our nation’s children,” he asserted, adding, “The organization offers ‘educational’ materials on its website that perpetuate pro-terrorist, anti-Israel rhetoric. CAIR Philadelphia recently issued guidance for educators titled ‘Remembering and Reflecting: Teaching September 11, 2001, in Diverse Classrooms.’ The guide directs teachers to avoid using ‘inaccurate and inflammatory terms such as ‘Islamic terrorists,’ ‘jihadists,’ or ‘radical Islamic terrorists,’’ when describing the September 11 terrorists.”

“The U.S. Department of Education must ensure that CAIR is not given an opportunity to push its radical, pro-terrorist, anti-Israel ideology on American schoolchildren,” he concluded.

The whole episode raises an important question for American parents: When their children come home from school saying that Israel somehow caused 9/11, should parents correct them, or simply congratulate them for successfully completing Advanced Blame-America Studies?

Fortunately, there remains one group that cannot be blamed for the attacks: Israel.

But give the education establishment another semester and somebody will probably assign that possibility as extra credit.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Mississippi Mayor Suggests America Survive One Week Without Lowering Flag for Dolly Parton

President Donald Trump has apparently committed the grave offense of believing Dolly Parton was important enough to warrant lowering the American flag, prompting one Mississippi mayor to ask a question that could get him permanently banned from several country music Facebook groups:

What if we stopped lowering the flag every time a beloved celebrity dies?

Olive Branch Mayor Ken Adams (R) has pushed back against the decision to fly American flags at half-staff following Parton’s death, arguing that the honor should retain some actual meaning rather than becoming the national equivalent of changing your Facebook profile picture.

"I believe lowering the American flag to half-staff should mean something very significant," Adams wrote on the city’s Facebook page Friday.

"In my opinion, it should be reserved for our military heroes, fallen first responders, presidents and other major national leaders, or events that have had a tremendous impact on our country.

"If we lower the flag every time a well-known or beloved person passes away, I believe we eventually lessen the meaning of the gesture."

Naturally, this position immediately placed Adams in the dangerous political territory known as "having an opinion about Dolly Parton."

Adams went out of his way to praise the country music legend, describing the "9 to 5" singer as a "great person" who "brought happiness to millions of people and has done tremendous things for others throughout her life."

He also emphasized that he had "nothing but respect for her."

Apparently, however, respect does not automatically include lowering the Stars and Stripes every time someone with a platinum record dies.

The mayor explained that he was not attempting to disrespect either the president or the governor, noting that Mississippi’s home rule system gives local governments broad discretion.

"The President can make the decision for the country. The Governor can make the decision for the State of Mississippi. I believe a mayor should have the ability to make a decision for his or her city," Adams continued.

"I also don’t believe residents elected me to be a ‘salute and execute’ Mayor but to lead with conviction."

That last sentence may have caused several people to drop their casseroles.

President Trump and Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves ordered U.S. and state flags to be flown at half-staff for one week following Parton’s death at age 80.

Trump defended the decision while also explaining that the honor was not intended to diminish the significance of the flag.

"The President can make the decision for the country. The Governor can make the decision for the State of Mississippi. I believe a mayor should have the ability to make a decision for his or her city," Adams said.

Trump stressed that the decision wasn’t about "disrespecting Dolly Parton. It isn’t about politics. And it certainly isn’t about saying she wasn’t a great American."

"It’s simply my belief that the American flag at half-staff is one of the highest honors we can give, and I believe that honor should be reserved for truly extraordinary circumstances," he said. "Sometimes preserving the meaning of an honor means being selective about when we use it."

Unfortunately for Adams, the internet has determined that there is apparently no greater crime than insufficient enthusiasm for Dolly Parton.

One commenter informed him:

"She did more for children than any politician ever has. That should raise her status in your eyes from ‘just a celebrity.’"

Another declared:

"I’d lower it for Dolly before any politician."

A third commenter apparently decided the mayor needed to be reminded that Dolly Parton is essentially a one-woman federal agency.

"When you said 'it's simply my belief', I guess you said it all. Doesn't matter to you what the President, the Governor or your residents believe. And 'reserved for people who made a tremendous impact?' Well...she was probably the most unifying figure of the past 40 years; and she donated 325 million books to kids. Sounds like an impact."

A veteran and first responder also disagreed with Adams, writing that he was "100% ok with lowering the flags for Dolly. She gave her time and money to the military and multiply organizations. She earned this."

And there lies the great American flag debate of 2026:

Is the Stars and Stripes supposed to honor the people who built, defended and led the nation, or is it now America's official participation trophy?

Adams never clarified whether his statement meant the flag actually would not be lowered in Olive Branch.

Which means the city may soon face its most dangerous civic emergency since someone suggested canceling the annual Fourth of July fireworks.

The Dolly Parton Incident has officially begun.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

The DOJ sues NY for giving illegal aliens discounts on college tuition and the middle finger to US citizens

I asked Grok, the AI tool of X whether the above meme is factual as there are myriad false claims made on X, formerly Twitter. I was slightly surprised to discover the statement is true, except for the characterization that illegal aliens are living lavish lifestyles from the tax dollars.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed lawsuits on August 10th this year against New York, along with Connecticut and Vermont, regarding policies and laws that provide in-state tuition rates and related financial scholarships and aid to "illegal aliens" at public colleges.

As Grok explains: 

This is part of a broader Trump administration campaign that has now targeted around 17–21 states. The DOJ argues these policies violate federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1623(a)) and the Supremacy Clause because they confer residency-based postsecondary benefits on people not lawfully present while denying the same rates to U.S. citizens from other states.

nytimes.com

New York law (including provisions tied to the 2019 Senator José Peralta New York State DREAM Act) allows qualifying illegal immigrant students who attended a New York high school for a set period, graduated, and applied to college within a certain window to pay in-state rates at SUNY and CUNY campuses and access some state financial aid. 

Typical figures cited: roughly $7,070–$7,700 in-state versus $17,730 or more (sometimes much higher, e.g., over $30,000 at some campuses) for out-of-state students. Public colleges receive state taxpayer subsidies, so the discounted rate is a taxpayer-supported benefit.

As Grok explains, "Living lavish off our tax dollars" is rhetorical exaggeration. In-state tuition is a discount relative to out-of-state rates, not free luxury living; the students still pay tuition.

So the legal issue highlighted by the DOJ is the unequal treatment of out-of-state U.S. citizens versus in-state illegal alien residents. New York residents who actually are citizens get the same in-state tuition rate.

There is another caveat: eligibility isn't automatic for all illegal aliens; they must meet specific high school and residential criteria.

The meme shows New York City Mayor and comrade  Zohran Mamdani and Attorney General Todd Blanche. While Blanche is involved in this issue, Mamdani is not, but probably wishes he was. The photo is only being used to politically frame rather than being a literal scene from the lawsuit.

New York officials have said they are reviewing the suit and expect the state's policies to be upheld. Similar cases in other states have produced mixed court results so far. The meme's wording is partisan and hyperbolic, but the underlying news event it describes happened.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

ICE Bags Visa Overstayer Milo Yiannopoulos, Prepares to Send Him Home

The law finally caught up with Milo Yiannopoulos. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested the 41-year-old British citizen Thursday at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, and the Department of Homeland Security says he will stay in custody until he is removed from the country.

Yiannopoulos entered the United States legally through New York City on May 14, 2019. Then he stayed. 

An immigration judge issued a final order of removal on July 22 after he failed to show up for his hearing. That is not a paperwork mix-up. That is a man who decided the rules did not apply to him.

“On August 27, ICE arrested Milo Yiannopoulos, an illegal alien from the United Kingdom,” DHS said. “He chose to overstay his welcome in violation of our nation’s laws.” DHS added that he will remain in ICE custody pending removal and used the arrest to advertise the administration’s self-deportation program. 

In other words, the government is doing what voters asked it to do: enforce immigration law, even when the offender used to be a conservative media celebrity. 

TMZ first reported that officers grabbed him at the airport ahead of a Kanye West concert Friday night in New Orleans. Yiannopoulos once served as West’s chief of staff and political director. He also did an unpaid summer internship in 2022 for former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. None of that is a visa.

His public unraveling began in 2017, when video surfaced of him arguing that relationships between older men and younger boys could be a positive “coming-of-age” experience. He stated that such relationships could “help those young boys discover who they are and give them security and safety and provide them with love and a reliable sort of rock, where they can’t speak to their parents.”

That same year, footage emerged of Yiannopoulos in 2016 singing at a Dallas bar while people in the crowd threw Nazi salutes. The owner said staff started ejecting the group once the “Neo-Nazi type stuff” started and that the bar did not condone it. He also waved away statutory rape laws, saying people can “get quite hung up on this child abuse thing” and that sexual relationships between 13-year-olds and adults could be “perfectly consensual” and beneficial under certain circumstances. 

Conservatives who once treated him as a free-speech mascot had every reason to show him the door. In recent years, prominent right-wing voices have said Yiannopoulos was not building the coalition. He was picking it apart. They accuse him of working with the Left to slander MAGA figures, including the late Charlie Kirk.

“Milo is not ‘Far-Right.’ Milo was working for the Left to divide, slander and lie about Trump’s coalition to break it apart,” conservative podcaster Benny Johnson said on X. “Days after Charlie Kirk was murdered, he accused Charlie of being gay and cheating on Erika. Evil, sick lie. Zero remorse. Zero evidence. Pure sewage and slander. It happened systematically to nearly everyone of prominence in the America First movement.”

Laura Loomer, who has been waving the immigration-status flag for years, celebrated the arrest and repeated her claim that he arranged a “sham marriage” with a man to stay in the United States.

“When Milo called for me to be assassinated, I reported him to ICE and the FBI,” Loomer said, accusing him of overstaying his visa. “I told you all that Milo was an illegal alien. Milo is going to be deported back to the UK where he can live among the Muslims he has recently chosen to embrace.”

Last year, talking to Tucker Carlson, Yiannopoulos called “mainstreaming homosexuality in the Republican Party” one of his biggest regrets.

“It has given rise to horrors I never imagined,” he told Carlson. “Well, the gay horrors I’ve given birth to — Lady MAGA and Nick Fuentes — they keep me up at night.” 

The conservative movement does not owe a visa overstayer a farewell tour. ICE made an arrest. A judge already ordered him removed. The United Kingdom can have him back. America First starts with American law.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet