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

CNN says they're sorry for using Dolly Parton impersonator when announcing Dolly's passing

In a display of journalistic excellence so dazzling it could only have been achieved after several intern-led Google Image searches and a solemn prayer to the Getty algorithm, CNN used its prestigious Laura Coates Live platform to honor Dolly Parton roughly twelve hours after her death. They did this by airing a photograph of Kelly Vohnn, a 58-year-old Las Vegas tribute artist whose entire professional existence is built on looking enough like Dolly Parton that tourists will pay money to watch her do it on purpose.

This was not, to be clear, a conceptual statement about fame, simulation, or the death of authenticity. It was just CNN grabbing the wrong blond.

The internet, which has never once failed to notice when a cable network confuses a national treasure with a woman who does her at the Palms, erupted. CNN then issued the sort of apology that newsrooms keep laminated next to the fire extinguisher: “We regret the error and apologize to the Parton family.” 

Four words of regret, one family, zero indication that anyone in the control room can tell a living impersonator from an 80-year-old icon who had just died. 

Vohnn, whose phone immediately became a group chat from hell, told interviewers that friends began texting to inform her she was on CNN. She was already heartbroken. Dolly had given her a career, a look, and apparently enough cultural gravity that a global news network could not tell them apart. Then she watched herself appear in a memorial montage, which she described, with admirable understatement, as “just weird.”

“Somebody at CNN really messed up and didn’t do their research,” she said, a sentence that future media historians may one day chisel onto the network’s tombstone. She added that she felt sorry for Dolly, because the woman left behind decades of actual photographs — concert shots, movie stills, philanthropy portraits, the works — and CNN selected the one that said, in rhinestones, close enough.

Vohnn was also careful to note that she has never claimed to be Dolly Parton. She is a tribute act. People buy tickets knowing this. CNN, apparently, did not.

Meanwhile, the actual news was that Dolly Parton had died after a brief battle with cancer at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, surrounded by loved ones. 

Her representatives released a statement so overflowing with generosity it made the surrounding media circus look even cheaper: joy, laughter, hope, integrity, hundreds of millions of books through the Imagination Library, research that helped produce a vaccine used around the world. Unconditional love as a guiding force. The usual Dolly thing, except now it was an obituary.

The death itself had been announced Monday in a video by her nephew Bryan Seaver, longtime head of security, son of the previous head of security, and the man Dolly had asked years earlier to deliver the news if the unthinkable ever stopped being theoretical. He called her sister, sis, Aunt Granny, Gigi. He said he had imagined the heaviness of the moment for more than two decades and still was not ready for it. It was the kind of announcement that deserved better than a stock-photo fiasco twelve hours later.

Variety, doing the unglamorous work of remembering actual events, noted that Parton’s health had become public in the fall of 2025, when she canceled a long-awaited six-show return to Caesars Palace. The body, it turned out, was not as immortal as the wig. 

So the week ended as all great American weeks now end: a legend gone, a family grieving, a tribute artist fielding texts, and a cable network apologizing for being unable to distinguish the woman who wrote “I Will Always Love You” from the woman who performs her in Las Vegas. 

Somewhere, presumably, an editor is still staring at two photos, whispering, “But they both have the hair.”

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

CBC Orders Reporters to Stop Calling 9/11 Terrorism, Says “Some Very Unfortunate Aviation-Related Things Happened”

Canadian public broadcaster unveils new journalistic standard requiring typists to avoid words that might accidentally describe reality.

TORONTO, Canada — The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has issued a stern warning to its typists: under no circumstances should they refer to the September 11, 2001 attacks as “terrorist attacks,” because that would risk introducing dangerous quantities of meaning, politics, emotion and, worst of all, facts into the story.

Instead, CBC typists have been instructed to describe 9/11 as “a situation where some folks did stuff in America as a prescient sign that one day Donald Trump would be President.”

The memo, authored by CBC News senior director of journalistic standards and public trust Basem Boshra, was considerably less colorful but no less bewildering.

“Do not refer to the Sept. 11 attacks as terrorist attacks,” the memo said.

The directive instead recommends describing the attacks as hijackings that led to passenger jets crashing in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan.

The World Trade Center was also destroyed, apparently by forces that CBC typists are not at liberty to characterize.

CBC officials defended the policy by explaining that the word “terrorist” is simply too emotionally loaded.

“It is the practice of the CBC to exercise extreme caution before using the words ‘terrorist’ and ‘terrorism,’” CBC Public Affairs Director Kerry Kelly said.

This is understandable.

After all, imagine the emotional trauma a CBC reporter might experience by typing the words “19 al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes and deliberately murdered nearly 3,000 people.”

That is an awful lot of adjectives.

Much safer to write:

“Nineteen individuals participated in an aviation-related disagreement that unfortunately resulted in several buildings becoming unavailable for future occupancy.”

CBC editors reportedly rejected the phrase “mass murder” because it was considered “judgmental.”

“Death,” meanwhile, is apparently acceptable because it can happen naturally.

“Premeditated murder” remains under review.

“Islamist terrorism” has been referred to the CBC’s Department of Extremely Careful Feelings.
CBC: We Don’t Call Terrorists Terrorists Because That Would Be Taking Sides

CBC News general manager and editor-in-chief Brodie Fenlon previously explained that the organization prefers to “bear witness” rather than independently determine whether acts are terrorism.

“We bear witness. But CBC News does not itself designate specific groups as terrorists, or specific acts as terrorism, regardless of the region or the events, because these words are so loaded with meaning, politics and emotion that they can end up being impediments to our journalism,” Fenlon said.

Which is an impressive position for a news organization.

It is roughly equivalent to a weather forecaster saying:

“We don't independently designate rain as wet because ‘wet’ is such a loaded term.”

Or a hockey announcer saying:

“We cannot characterize the puck as having entered the net because the phrase ‘goal’ carries political and emotional implications.”

Or a coroner saying:

“We can confirm that the individual is no longer participating in the ongoing experiment known as life.”

The CBC is simply committed to maintaining neutrality.

Even when neutrality requires pretending everyone else hasn't already figured out what happened.
New CBC Style Guide Released

Sources say CBC editors are now considering a comprehensive update to their style guide.

Under the proposed rules:

Terrorist attack: “An event involving unexpected violence.”

Suicide bomber: “A person experiencing a severe disagreement with mortality.”

Hostage-taking: “An involuntary relocation experience.”

Murder: “An unauthorized termination of another person's biological processes.”

Massacre: “A gathering that ended with an unusually high number of people no longer gathering.”

Hamas: “A group whose designation as a terrorist organization should be attributed to Canada, Israel, the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and approximately half the planet.”

9/11: “The Sept. 11 attacks.”

Actual terrorism: “Please consult Legal.”

The CBC is particularly sensitive about the word “terrorist” because it might imply that someone who deliberately murders civilians for political purposes is, in fact, a terrorist. And once journalists start making those kinds of obvious connections, there is simply no telling where it could lead.

Soon they might start saying that criminals commit crimes.

Or that people who intentionally kill innocent civilians are responsible for killing innocent civilians.

Then civilization itself could collapse.

There is, admittedly, one small problem with the CBC's position. The FBI describes 9/11 as the most lethal terrorist attack in history.

Nineteen al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airplanes, killed nearly 3,000 people and triggered the largest investigation in FBI history.

Canada itself lists al Qaeda as a terrorist entity and states that the organization perpetrated the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. But CBC journalists remain bravely unwilling to reach the same conclusion without first consulting someone who has already reached it.

This creates the fascinating possibility that a CBC reporter could stand outside the wreckage of a terrorist attack and say:

“According to witnesses, the FBI, the Canadian government, the American government, the Israeli government, the British government and virtually everyone who has ever looked at this event, this may have been terrorism.”

“But I wouldn't want to speculate.”

New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino condemned the guidance, accusing the broadcaster of disregarding the victims and deliberately undermining the historical record.

“The CBC guidance is frankly outrageous and insulting, but it stands as a stark warning for what happens when you allow institutions of public trust to be taken over by leftists and foreign interests,” Paladino said.

“This is not merely a callous disregard for the memory of those who perished on 9/11, it is a deliberate effort to undermine the fundamental truth of what happened that day in direct service to Islamism, as Europe, Canada, and the United States become increasingly overwhelmed by Islamist politics. We must not tolerate it any longer and dedicate ourselves to fighting this poison with every tool we have available before it’s too late,” she continued.

Conservative Canadian MP Rachael Thomas called the guidance “absolutely shameful.”

“The CBC is choosing to redefine terrorism in a way that downplays the atrocity of 9/11. Refusing to call it an act of terrorism dishonors the victims, their families, the survivors, and the first responders who witnessed the horrors of that day. 9/11 was an act of terrorism. Full stop,” Thomas said.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs likewise accused the CBC of “sanitizing” history and presiding over a “collapse of journalistic standards.”

CBC responded that it was merely following its longstanding policy.

Because apparently the collapse of a building is tragic, but the collapse of a journalistic standard is merely a longstanding practice.

The policy is not limited to 9/11. CBC faced similar criticism following Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, when journalists were instructed not to independently call militants or soldiers “terrorists” and instead treat the designation as an attributed opinion.

Which raises an obvious question:

If Hamas murders civilians, kidnaps children, takes hostages and deliberately attacks Israeli communities, when exactly does CBC believe the word “terrorist” becomes appropriate?

Apparently, after the reporter has obtained a notarized affidavit from someone willing to accept responsibility for the adjective.

Perhaps the CBC could establish a new editorial hotline.

CALL 1: “Was someone intentionally trying to terrorize civilians?”

CALL 2: “Did they kill people?”

CALL 3: “Does Canada officially designate the organization as terrorist?”

CALL 4: “Is the answer to all three yes?”

CALL 5: “Sorry, we can't make that determination. Please hold for 45 minutes while we locate a sufficiently neutral adjective.”
CBC's New Definition of Journalism

The CBC's position ultimately leaves Canadians with a remarkable picture of modern journalism.

The journalist sees the plane.

The journalist sees the building.

The journalist sees the fire.

The journalist sees the bodies.

The journalist sees the terrorist organization that planned the attack.

The journalist sees the government's official designation.

The journalist sees the FBI's determination.

And then the journalist looks directly into the camera and says:

“Some things happened.”

This is apparently what “bearing witness” means in Canada.

Not telling people what happened.

Not describing what happened.

Certainly not using words that might help people understand what happened.

Just standing there solemnly while history happens nearby.

And if anyone asks whether 9/11 was terrorism, the answer is simple:

According to the FBI, yes.

According to the Canadian government, yes.

According to the historical record, yes.

According to the victims, their families and the first responders, obviously yes.

According to the CBC?

“The Sept. 11 attacks.”

Because apparently after 25 years, nearly 3,000 deaths, four hijacked aircraft and the destruction of the World Trade Center, the most dangerous thing about 9/11 is still the possibility that a CBC reporter might accidentally call a terrorist a terrorist.

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

Judge Reminds Democrat Congresswoman She Does Not Have a Congressional Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card

She looks like a Flip Wilson fan

NEWARK, NJ--A federal appeals court has delivered a devastating blow to Jersey girl Rep. LaMonica McIver’s innovative legal theory that being a member of Congress comes with a complimentary immunity package.

The three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that McIver is not immune from prosecution over her memorable May 2025 encounter at Delaney Hall, an ICE detention facility that left federal immigration officers allegedly getting a little too much congressional “oversight.”

McIver had argued that her arrest interfered with her legislative duties, apparently under the increasingly popular Washington doctrine that congressional oversight means showing up at a federal facility and allegedly getting physical with the people guarding it. Yeah, getting arrested tends to interfere with the arrestee's job.

The court was not impressed.

In a statement, McIver said the court “got it wrong” and that she is “exploring every possible option.”

“To protect the people, their elected representatives must be authorized to conduct oversight of the executive branch without fear of retaliation,” the socialist said.

McIver was indicted on three counts stemming from her May 2025 visit to Delaney Hall with other leftist lawmakers. Prosecutors allege that she physically clashed with law enforcement officials during the confrontation.

The facility had already become something of a pilgrimage site for activists determined to demonstrate that the best way to protest immigration enforcement is to try to interfere with it.

McIver now faces the unfortunate realization that federal law does not contain a special congressional exemption reading, “Members of Congress may do whatever they want, particularly if they are really passionate about it.”

If convicted on all three counts, McIver faced up to 17 years behind bars. Fortunately for her, she will likely receive the traditional Washington welcome package of suspended sentences, probation and enough community service to make everyone feel that justice has been served without anyone having to miss too many congressional votes. 

Consequences for thee, but not for she.

The ruling serves as a useful reminder to lawmakers everywhere: Congressional immunity may protect you from certain things you say on the House floor.

It apparently does not protect you from the consequences of allegedly assaulting federal agents in the parking lot. But we will need to wait and see what the consequences are for her illegal actions.

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

James "with a nutsack' Talarico trashes "neighbors with a uterus"

Democratic Senate nominee James "With A Nutsack" Talarico has apparently discovered the secret to progressive theology: if you reduce a woman to a reproductive organ, you can then explain why protecting unborn children is somehow oppressive.

The Texas state representative and failed Presbyterian seminarian has repeatedly referred to women as “neighbors with a uterus” while defending the killing of babies in the uterus, apparently deciding that “women” was simply too biologically specific for the modern progressive vocabulary. What kind of Christian believes that garbage?

In one clip addressing a congregation after the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Talarico declared: “Every one of our neighbors with a uterus became the property of the state.”

This is, of course, a rather creative interpretation of what the Supreme Court actually did. The Court didn't announce that women had suddenly become government property. It simply returned the abortion question to the states, allowing voters and their elected representatives to decide whether unborn children should be legally protected. That's why we call our country is a republic, specifically a democratic republic.

Apparently, in Talarico's fake theological universe, allowing citizens to debate whether unborn babies should be protected constitutes government ownership of women. Somehow the unborn child, who is actually the one being killed, manages to disappear entirely from the argument--how convenient.

Talarico has also declared that he wants “our neighbors with a uterus to be able to control their own body.”

The phrase is certainly useful if the objective is to discuss abortion without mentioning the inconvenient biological reality that there are two bodies involved, much like the two tiny nuts in his sack.

A 2024 recording provides another glimpse into Talarico's linguistic gymnastics. While discussing the morality of abortion, he began to say “woman” before correcting himself and returning to his preferred leftist terminology.

Apparently, even the word “woman” has now been placed on the progressive theological watchlist.

Talarico later shared a version of his remarks on X in November 2022, accompanying video of himself bloviating: “This summer, more than half our population became second-class citizens. Every one of our neighbors with a uterus became the property of the State. And nothing is more un-Christian.”

Talarico replaces “woman” with a description from a medical textbook and then declares that anyone who disagrees with you is violating Christianity is contradicts Christian theology.

Jimmy with a nutsack has used the phrase repeatedly when discussing biological women and has even declared that “our trans community needs abortion care too,” apparently overlooking the minor biological inconvenience that men who claim to be women do not become pregnant simply because a progressive politician says they can.

Pro-life observers have condemned the language as demeaning and dehumanizing, arguing that reducing women to a single body part is hardly the great feminist breakthrough progressives claim it to be. Apparently, the movement that once insisted women should be valued as complete human beings has now decided that “uterus” is the preferred substitute for “woman.”

Religious and political figures have also sharply criticized Talarico's theological arguments, accusing him of bending Scripture to accommodate progressive political orthodoxy.

Islam much?

Evangelist Franklin Graham rejected Talarico's claim that Scripture is silent on abortion, saying: “Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico couldn’t be more wrong! The Bible is not silent on abortion as he claims—that’s an absolute lie. God commands us, ‘You shall not murder’ (Exodus 20:13). Abortion is taking a life—it is murder.”

Graham further warned: “Don’t be deceived by wicked politicians spouting lies like this.”

Daily Wire host Matt Walsh has likewise accused Talarico of twisting biblical teaching concerning life in the womb, describing him as a “creepy-looking heretic and fake pastor who pathologically lies to Christians over and over again about what the scripture says… he is completely insane.”

And evil, if you really consider what he spouts.

Blaze Media host Allie Beth Stuckey has also challenged Talarico's theological arguments, calling his use of Scripture to justify abortion “absurdly evil” and “demonic.”

The controversy, originally amplified earlier this year by groups supporting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, has resurfaced as the Senate race heats up.

And if Talarico's rhetoric is any indication, voters can apparently look forward to a Senate campaign in which the Democratic nominee explains that women are actually “neighbors with a uterus,” unborn children are apparently a secondary consideration, and the Bible becomes considerably more flexible whenever progressive politics needs a little divine assistance.

At this rate, the Ten Commandments may soon require a progressive translation. “You shall not murder” could become “Please respect everyone's reproductive choices,” while “Honor thy father and mother” will presumably be replaced by “Ask your neighbors with a uterus.”

Progressive theology has never sounded so strangely anatomical. 

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

PP told Dem AGs to shut down pro-life centers

Democrats Took Notes: Planned Parenthood Handed State Attorneys General a Post-Roe To-Do List

Apparently, overturning Roe v. Wade was not supposed to end the abortion industry’s relationship with government. It was merely supposed to move the relationship into the states, where Democrat attorneys general could continue doing what Washington had been doing for decades.

Just a month after the Supreme Court overturned Roe, Planned Parenthood circulated a 14-point memo giving state attorneys general a handy-dandy checklist for fighting back against the Dobbs decision. The document essentially amounted to an abortion-industry field manual, complete with instructions for targeting crisis pregnancy centers, pressuring federal regulators, enforcing state abortion laws and issuing abortion-friendly legal opinions.

And, according to documents obtained by the Daily Signal, several blue-state attorneys general appear to have read the memo and thought, “Excellent. Where do we sign?”

On July 25, 2022, Brittany Jenkins, policy director of the Progressive State Leaders Committee, forwarded the Planned Parenthood memo to attorneys general and their staffs. Jenkins informed them that Rachel Sussman, Planned Parenthood’s vice president of state policy, would brief them the following day “to continue our discussion of continued actions AGs can take in response to the Dobbs decision.”

The memo declared war on pro-life crisis pregnancy centers, organizations that provide expecting mothers with food, clothing, shelter, counseling and other assistance while encouraging them not to abort their children.

Planned Parenthood apparently considered all that assistance suspicious.

“Provide information to the public about CPCs and take steps to curb their misleading and deceptive practices. For example, CA issued a Consumer Alert,” the memo stated. It also urged attorneys general to ask the Federal Trade Commission to “target misinformation perpetuated by crisis pregnancy centers regarding medication abortion.”

In other words, if someone is offering a pregnant woman diapers instead of an abortion, the government may need to investigate.

Less than a month later, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a “consumer alert” targeting crisis pregnancy centers because, apparently, “pregnant people” needed the government to explain which pregnancy-related organizations they were allowed to trust.

New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin followed in December 2022 with his own consumer alert. He later subpoenaed First Choice, a crisis pregnancy center, demanding the names, phone numbers, addresses and places of employment of its individual donors.

Unfortunately for the subpoena, the First Amendment has an annoying habit of getting in the way.

In April of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that donors have a First Amendment right to contribute anonymously.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state Planned Parenthood had already held up as an example, went even further, suing several crisis pregnancy centers. In October 2023, Bonta joined 15 other Democrat attorneys general in an open letter attacking the centers.

“We have watched with increasing concern in recent years as anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) have proliferated in our states, outnumbering abortion clinics by a three-to-one ratio,” the letter said.

Apparently, having three times as many places offering women an alternative to abortion is considered a crisis.

And the abortion industry was not merely making suggestions from the sidelines. According to documents obtained by the Daily Signal through a public records request to the office of Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, Planned Parenthood was coordinating with multiple state attorneys general.

That would be quite a coincidence, except that the memo helpfully provided the blueprint.

The Planned Parenthood memo urged states to use their own versions of the FACE Act, the federal law governing access to abortion clinics, pregnancy centers and houses of worship.

“States should utilize all state laws, including state FACE Acts, to protect health care facilities that provide abortion.”

Eight days later, Platkin announced a partnership with the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New Jersey and issued guidance to state prosecutors concerning enforcement of clinic-access laws.

But Planned Parenthood was not finished handing out assignments.

The memo also encouraged attorneys general to issue legal opinions resolving abortion-related questions, including “guidance explicitly asserting consent to abortion rights for minors.”

According to the Center for American Progress, attorneys general in Arizona, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania subsequently issued guidance concerning abortion and medication abortion.

Planned Parenthood also urged states to coordinate legal representation for women seeking abortions, abortionists and abortion funds. Arizona, California, New Jersey and New York later established task forces for that purpose, according to the Center for American Progress.

At this point, calling the document a “memo” seems almost quaint. It looks more like a corporate franchise manual.

Step one: Target crisis pregnancy centers.

Step two: Pressure federal regulators.

Step three: Encourage state prosecutors to enforce abortion-friendly laws.

Step four: Issue legal opinions supporting abortion.

Step five: Establish task forces.

Step six: Hope nobody notices that the supposedly independent government officials are following the abortion industry's homework.

The revelations come after the Biden administration's Justice Department released an 882-page report detailing coordination between the administration and major abortion-industry groups, including Planned Parenthood, in efforts to use federal law enforcement against pro-life activists.

The documents now suggest that the strategy did not stop at the federal level.

Some attorneys general had already begun taking action before the Supreme Court handed down Dobbs. But Planned Parenthood's memo provided a remarkably specific roadmap that closely resembled policies subsequently adopted by several blue states.

Kaul’s office, which fulfilled its legal obligation to provide the records, did not respond to inquiries for this story.

A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood did not respond to phone and email inquiries.

Neither a spokesperson for the Progressive State Leaders Committee nor the Democratic Attorneys General Association responded to inquiries.

The Progressive State Leaders Committee is a 501(c)(4) advocacy group founded in 2005 that shares an address with the Democratic Attorneys General Association and, according to the Capital Research Center, lists no paid staff on its tax filing.

So there you have it.

The Supreme Court overturned Roe, Planned Parenthood produced the homework, and Democrat attorneys general apparently showed up to class prepared.

The only thing missing from the memo was a note at the bottom saying, “Please remember to turn in your assignment by Friday.”

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

Hasan Piker Discovers the Jews Are Somehow Responsible for Antisemitism

Hasan Piker, the multimillionaire socialist who has somehow managed to turn complaining about capitalism into a very lucrative career, is facing backlash after suggesting that American Jews could be responsible for the anti-Semitism directed at them. 

During his Aug. 20 stream, Piker offered a novel solution to anti-Semitism: Apparently, Jews should stop being so Jewish about Israel, or someone might decide to attack them.

“People don’t f–k with Israel any longer. And if Jews in America keep putting this idea out there that they’re singularly invested in Israel, eventually someone will come around and take action not against Israel, mind you, but against American Jews,” Piker, a blatant anti-Semite said.

The remark immediately drew criticism from people who apparently missed the memo informing them that blaming Jews for the hatred directed at Jews is not, in fact, a groundbreaking new analysis of anti-Semitism.

Piker, a caviar socialist with a multimillion-dollar home in West Hollywood and a $200,000 Porsche, has become an increasingly prominent surrogate for Democratic Socialists of America congressional candidates. Here's the dude saying "workers of the world unite" from his luxury sports car. 

Among those unwilling to join Piker's latest intellectual adventure was Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI), who blasted the streamer over what she called “talk of violence” targeting Jewish Michigan State Sen. Jeremy Moss.

Scholten, a Christian, called Piker “a hack who thrives on hate, shock and awe because he lacks substance.”

“Hasan Piker’s talk of violence against American Jews, and directly naming a Michigan elected official, and future member of Congress, Jeremy Moss, is unacceptable. Full stop,” Scholten’s statement read.

“We should all be calling out this disgusting rhetoric so it loses its grip on our politics once and for all. It has no place in Michigan, and no place in our country.”

Piker responded in the traditional manner of the modern political intellectual: by attacking Scholten personally and labeling her an “Israel 1st congresswoman.” 

“if i was an israel 1st congresswoman with a possible cheating scandal with a republican in the state, i wouldn’t spend so much time vying for the spotlight by actively defaming a prominent antizionist voice to harm the dem senate majority chances over a 90/10 issue,” Piker wrote on X. He evidently can'tsee how truth is truth, and has nothing to do with her personal life.

The exchange comes as Piker has become a regular presence on the campaign trail in Michigan, where he backed Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, another Jew-hating jihadi who would be a danger to America if he wins in November.

El-Sayed defeated Rep. Haley Stevens in the Democratic primary earlier this month, despite criticism over his association with Piker and the streamer's increasingly inflammatory rhetoric.

Even El-Sayed felt compelled to distance himself from Piker's comments, although apparently without quite reaching the point of actually condemning the man whose political support he had eagerly accepted.

“I believe all Americans deserve the right to advocate for what they believe without fear of violence. This is particularly true for communities that have been intimidated for their beliefs in the past,” El-Sayed wrote.

He also emphasized that Piker does not speak for his campaign, but clearly they speak the same hateful language. But who doesn't think that political candidates will say anything to get elected?

“nobody speaks for this campaign besides me and my campaign spokespeople.” 

Jewish organizations were considerably less diplomatic.

The Jewish Federation of Detroit called Piker's remarks “repugnant and anti-Semitic,” noting that he had discussed violence against Jewish Americans while displaying an image of a Jewish Michigan lawmaker.

“We call on all responsible leaders to condemn this extremist, attention-seeking conduct which divides Americans, foments hate, and makes our Jewish community less safe,” the organization said.

The American Jewish Committee similarly accused Piker of putting a target on Jewish Americans and Jewish candidates and officeholders.

“Blaming Jews for the anti-Semitism directed at them is itself antisemitism,” AJC wrote on X. “Every public official who has shared his platform now has a choice: denounce this and walk away, or be complicit. There is no third option.”

Hillary Scholten 

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt also weighed in, wondering whether elected officials who associate with Piker actually watch his streams or simply notice his enormous audience and decide that the rest is someone else's problem.

“The Jewsplaining is extraordinary: Piker appoints himself an authority on anti-Semitism, lecturing Jews about what is and isn’t anti-Semitic while blaming the Jewish community for the hatred directed against it,” Greenblatt said.

Piker's comments came amid controversy over an audio clip circulating online that purportedly featured Moss saying the “entire purpose” of his congressional campaign was to ensure America's continued support for Israel.

Moss denied making the remarks and said the audio was fabricated, and personally, I believe him.

“We are in a dangerous era of disinformation. Circulating a lie because it affirms your bias or belief is equally bad whether it comes from the left or the right. We all have a choice not to spread fabricated images, videos, and audio about candidates and campaigns. We all have a role in stopping the erosion of our democracy,” Moss said.

Thus, in the latest installment of the Hasan Piker School of Advanced Political Thought, we have learned that anti-Semitism is apparently the Jews' fault, fabricated audio is apparently useful when it advances your argument, and socialism works best when financed by a multimillion-dollar mansion and a $200,000 Porsche.

Karl Marx may have envisioned the proletariat seizing the means of production.

Piker appears to have seized the means of streaming, and anyone believing the garbage he spouts is a fool.

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