Conservatives Finally Find Yet Another Reason to Cancel Netflix

Netflix Discovers That Mocking a Murdered Conservative on the Anniversary of His Assassination Is Apparently Not Great for Customer Retention

Conservatives' latest Netflix boycott didn't exactly come out of leftist field [pardon the pun]. It's the result of years of cultural grievances, political battles, questionable children's programming, and now a social-media post that somehow managed to combine a much-loved murdered conservative activist, a neck wound, and a promotional campaign for a British gangster show.

What could possibly go wrong?

On September 10, 2026, the one-year anniversary of Charlie Kirk's assassination, Netflix's UK & Ireland account decided it was the perfect time to promote The Gentlemen Season 2 with the caption:

“Nearly did himself a neck injury.”

Charlie [I cannot bring myself to formally calling him Kirk], of course, was shot in the neck while speaking at Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025.

Conservatives on social media responded with the traditional consumer feedback mechanism of the modern age: canceling their subscriptions and posting screenshots to prove they had done it.

Figures including Libs of TikTok, Jack Posobiec, and Rudy Giuliani called for a boycott. I didn't because I was oblivious of the situation at the time since I have a life and don't live on social media.

Netflix, apparently realizing that this was not going to be one of those promotional campaigns where everyone simply shrugs and watches the show, insisted conservatives had gotten the joke completely wrong. Both sides of the aisle apparently have their own scolds who scour the internet to find the latest offense.

Anyway, the company called the interpretation “inaccurate and ludicrous,” explaining that the caption referred to a scene in which a character whips his head around at a wedding.

Which is certainly one explanation.

The post was not taken down.

And while Netflix may have been technically correct about what the caption referred to, the timing turned out to be about as strategically brilliant as announcing a half-price fireworks sale outside a gasoline station. What a pile of dolt bags.

For Charlie's supporters, September 10 was already a painful anniversary. Seeing Netflix use the phrase “neck injury” in a promotional post that landed on that exact date understandably struck many conservatives as another example of a company that simply does not understand why people are angry.

And Then There's the Rest of the Netflix Problem

The funny thing is that conservatives didn't need Netflix to post the “neck injury” line.

They already had a pretty substantial file folder labeled Reasons We Don't Like Netflix.

For years, conservatives have complained about the company's approach to children's programming and LGBTQ themes, in the spirit of a grooming maneuver. 

Critics, including Elon Musk in 2025, pointed to shows such as Dead End: Paranormal Park, The Baby-Sitters Club, and certain CoComelon episodes that include transgender or non-binary characters or themes. One can imagine Veggie Tales' Larry The Cucumber transitioning into a female cucumber named Loretta as this woke nonsense continues.

Loretta [formerly Larry] the Cucumber

Conservative reports have claimed that a significant share of Netflix's G- and Y7-rated programming contains LGBTQ content. 

And so the plot sickens.

Republican Senators Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt brought similar complaints to a February 2026 Senate hearing, describing Netflix's children's programming as “woke” and accusing the company of promoting a “transgender ideology.”

Netflix co-CEO Ted Sarandos has rejected the idea that the company has a political agenda, arguing that its enormous catalog simply reflects a wide range of stories.

Because apparently the solution to a culture war is to make approximately 7,000 television shows and then insist nobody should notice any patterns.

Netflix also has a multi-year production deal with Barack and Michelle Obama's Higher Ground Productions, originally signed in 2018.

Susan Rice, a former Obama administration official, sits on Netflix's board of mind controllers.

Conservatives became even more suspicious during the proposed 2025-2026 Warner Bros. Discovery acquisition, with some MAGA influencers portraying the deal as “the Obamas taking over media.”

The bid ultimately failed amid political pressure and a competing offer.

But by then, conservatives had already filed the transaction under Things That Somehow Make Netflix Even More Netflixish--say that three times fast on helium.

The Politics Don't Help

Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings has donated heavily to Democratic causes and candidates.

Critics have also pointed to Netflix's statements following former thug and drug addict George Floyd's death and what they regard as a catalog heavily tilted toward progressive positions on race, gender, family, and other cultural issues.

From the conservative perspective, the problem isn't simply that Netflix has left-wing programming. It's that conservatives believe Netflix has spent years behaving as though there is only one acceptable political worldview and that anyone who disagrees can simply go watch something else. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what millions of people can now do with the press of a button.

Remember Cuties? The 2020 French film generated a massive boycott campaign over its sexualized depiction of young girls. That controversy never completely disappeared from conservative memory.

Apparently Netflix has discovered that people on the internet possess something remarkably dangerous: Screenshots.

Adding another layer to the situation, a Florida attorney general lawsuit filed around the same time as the Kirk anniversary controversy alleges deceptive data collection involving minors.

That case is focused primarily on privacy and advertising rather than the culture-war programming dispute, but it gives conservatives yet another reason to look at Netflix and wonder whether perhaps they would rather spend their $20 somewhere else.

At this point, Netflix may want to consider changing its corporate slogan from “Watch What You Want” to “Please Stop Canceling.” The “neck injury” post didn't create conservative anger toward Netflix, it merely poured gasoline onto a fire that had been burning for years.

For many conservatives, Netflix represents something much larger than a streaming service. It represents a culturally progressive institution that they believe has used entertainment, children's programming, political relationships, and corporate influence to push ideas they reject.

Netflix's response remains essentially the same: We're an entertainment company, not a political organization, and our library contains lots of different stories. 

So cut out the damn wokeness. Every hero in every movie doesn't need to be a person of color, or a woman who, in spite of weighing 100 pounds can beat the snot out of guys twice her size.

Conservatives' response is also essentially the same: That's nice. Here's the unsubscribe button. Buh-byeee.

The only question now is whether Netflix can survive the horrifying consequences of its latest promotional campaign.

Namely, conservatives discovering that canceling a streaming service is considerably easier than canceling cable and that dinner date at your in-laws. [Just kidding.]

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

Declassified 9/11 Docs Reveal Government Had Apparently Heard About Hijacking Thing

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Trump administration has released a batch of previously classified documents showing that the Clinton and Bush administrations had been warned for years that Al Qaeda was interested in attacking the United States, including the apparently revolutionary concept of hijacking an airplane.

The documents, declassified on the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, reportedly contain more than 100 pages of intelligence briefings seen by Presidents Clinton and Bush between February 1998 and September 2001.

Among the revelations is the stunning discovery that American intelligence agencies had actually received information suggesting that terrorists might use passenger aircraft as weapons.

In other words, the government apparently had some idea that something bad could happen involving airplanes, terrorists, and America.

Unfortunately, the information seems to have remained safely inside the federal government, where intelligence warnings are traditionally placed in a secure location where nobody has to do anything about them.

One 1998 intelligence report warned:

"Reporting suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh 'Umar' Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that as of late October, the IG has completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking."

Apparently, "perhaps including an aircraft hijacking" was intelligence-speak for "there is a possibility that terrorists could hijack an airplane," a concept that would become considerably less hypothetical three years later.

The documents also reportedly stated that:

"IG leader Islambouli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the 'next couple of weeks' to free 'Abd al-Rahman and the other prisoners,"

The same source reportedly warned that:

"Bid Ladin might implement plans to hijack a US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport."

That last detail seems particularly encouraging, since it suggests terrorists were not merely discussing hijacking airplanes over coffee. They were apparently conducting practice runs at American airports.

The documents further warned that members of Bin Ladin's "network" had "received hijack training."

They also said Bin Ladin and his allies "are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft."

At some point, one imagines, the government had accumulated enough warning signs to fill an entire filing cabinet.

And yet here we are.

On September 11, 2001, 19 Al Qaeda terrorists ultimately hijacked four passenger planes. Two were flown into the World Trade Center in New York City, another struck the Pentagon, and passengers aboard the fourth plane fought back against the hijackers before it crashed in Pennsylvania.

More than 3,000 people were killed.

Among the dead were hundreds of firefighters, police officers, emergency workers, and other first responders who ran toward the danger while everyone else was desperately trying to get away from it.

Twenty-five years later, the release of these documents provides yet another painful reminder that the warning signs were there.

For decades, Americans have debated whether the government knew something was coming, whether intelligence agencies adequately connected the dots, and whether more could have been done to prevent the attacks.

The newly released documents are unlikely to settle every question.

They do, however, provide another remarkable glimpse into the world of pre-9/11 federal intelligence, where warnings about terrorists planning to hijack American aircraft could apparently make it all the way into the President's Daily Brief without making it quite as far as the people who needed to do something about them.

Because apparently the one thing nobody in Washington had thought to classify was the possibility that terrorists might actually mean what they were saying.

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

Candidate Who Compared 9/11 To COVID Now Says Murdering Innocents Is Bad

LANSING, MI — Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed released a somber 9/11 video Friday after apparently discovering that crashing planes into buildings and killing thousands of Americans is, in fact, a bad thing.

El-Sayed, who hopes to become the first Muslim U.S. senator, told viewers the country should not forget the victims or the first responders who died. In other words, this America-hating slug would say anything to get elected.

The message marked a sharp change from earlier comments in which he compared 9/11 deaths to COVID and warned about “the rise in white supremacist violence.” 

“A cruel act of terror took the lives of more than 3,000 kids, women, men, including brave first responders who ran into the rubble to save lives that day,” El-Sayed said with a forked tongue in the new video. “Thousands more were injured. Many continue to suffer the consequences even today.”

The video arrived as El-Sayed works to put some distance between himself and a pile of old anti-American positions. He has deleted dozens of posts, including 9/11 comments, calls to defund the police, and arguments against the Second Amendment. 

Thus began more BS: “Today, on 9/11, we honor the lives that were taken from us in a terrible act of terrorism. Nothing can justify the murder of innocent civilians, nothing.  And on this day, we mourn the victims, their families, and the destruction those terrorists caused,” El-Sayed added.

That victim-first tone stood in contrast to posts from recent years that he later deleted. Conservative outlet Townhall archived several of them. 

“Today, I mourn the 3K lives, 6K injuries, & infrastructural devastation in NYC, perpetuated ignorantly in the name of my faith. Tomorrow, I’ll mourn ~1M lives, millions of injuries, & infrastructural devastation in 3 countries, perpetuated ignorantly in the name of my country,” he wrote on September 11, 2021. 

On September 11, 2020, he compared the government’s 9/11 response to the COVID-19 pandemic. “19 yrs ago, 2977 lives were taken from us on 9/11. We mourn them. To avenge their deaths, our country launched harmful wars that took lives,” he wrote. 

“Since the #pandemic, we’ve lost the equivalent of 64 9/11s. That’s one EVERY 3.5 DAYS. Why is there no war on #COVID to SAVE lives?” 

That same day he said he “feared” for his family’s safety for the first time on 9/11 and claimed “white supremacist violence” was “blooming” under President Donald Trump after germinating under President George W. Bush.

After more than 3,000 Americans reportedly died of COVID, El-Sayed posted that more lives had been lost than on 9/11.

“I hope that means we’ll spend the next ten years fighting a war for public health & against climate change & poverty… like we launched a global #WaronTerror after 9/11,” he wrote on X. “We could save lives, rather than take them.” 

Campaign aides said the new message reflects growth, maturity, and a sudden realization that Michigan voters can still read the internet. Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers has spent weeks highlighting El-Sayed’s old rhetoric and his close ties to activist and co-Jew hating Hasan Piker, who once said America “deserved 9/11.”

At press time, El-Sayed was said to be reviewing which remaining posts still needed to vanish before November. He is clearly a disgusting piece of human garbage.

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 Widow Who Refused the Official Silence

Twenty-five years on, the commemorations of September 11 have a settled rhythm. Names are read. Bells are struck. Officials look grave. 

Then a widow stepped forward at Ground Zero and declined to play her assigned part.

Terry Strada's husband, Tom, was murdered in the North Tower of the World Trade Center. He had been at work on the 104th floor when American Airlines Flight 11 struck the building. On Friday, at the ceremony marking a quarter-century since that morning, she said that Saudi Arabia still evades responsibility for the attacks, and that the United States has helped it do so.

Terry is national chair of 9/11 Families United. She did not waste the occasion on atmosphere. 

"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia fomented a rancid culture of anti-American terrorism around the globe, and then sent its agents to support the radical Islamist hijackers so they could attack you and all of our loved ones," Strada said.

Then she turned from the kingdom to the governments that have found it convenient to look away. 

"But for 25 years, administration after administration, including leaders in front of us here today, chose to protect the Saudis instead of standing with the 9/11 families." Vice President JD Vance was in the audience in Lower Manhattan, the most senior official of the Trump administration present. 

President Trump spoke separately at the Pentagon. Strada addressed both. 

"It has been one betrayal after another. President Trump can still change that. Tell the Saudis to stop lying. Tell them that if they want to be friends with the USA, they cannot continue to deny all of this," she said. "Vice President Vance, thank you for being here today. Please carry that message back. Stand with the families. Stand with the survivors. Stand with Americans."

Tom Strada was 41 and worked at Cantor Fitzgerald. Days before the attacks, he and his wife had brought their third child home from the hospital. After the plane hit, he called her and said he was heading toward the stairwell. 

That is the human fact over which the diplomacy has been conducted. Nearly 3,000 people were killed at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and aboard the hijacked aircraft. Since then Strada has become one of the most persistent advocates for something rarer than remembrance: an accounting. She is among the thousands of family members and survivors who sued Saudi Arabia, alleging that the kingdom provided material support to the al Qaeda hijackers. 

Saudi Arabia has repeatedly denied the allegations. Denial has been its posture for a generation and they are liars, plain and simple.

Last August a federal judge, George B. Daniels, ruled there was "reasonable evidence" that two Saudi government employees supported two future al Qaeda hijackers who entered the United States in early 2000 and took flight lessons. The judge allowed the case to proceed and rejected the kingdom's attempt to have it dismissed.

For more than a decade after the attacks, sovereign immunity made such a suit almost impossible. That changed in September 2016, when Congress passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, known as JASTA, permitting Americans to sue foreign governments accused of providing material support for terrorist attacks on American soil.

President Barack Hussein  Obama vetoed the bill. 

He argued that it threatened "to strip all foreign governments of immunity from judicial process in the United States based solely upon allegations by private litigants." 

Congress overrode the veto within days. The lawsuit against Saudi Arabia was filed in March 2017. It remains pending. 

These clowns laughed while families gave tribute to their dead loved ones

So the scene on Friday was not merely ceremonial. A woman whose husband died on the 104th floor told the officials in front of her that friendship with Riyadh has been purchased, year after year, at the expense of the dead and of the people left to bury them. Whether anyone in power intends to treat that as more than an awkward interlude at a memorial is another question. Strada, at least, declined to pretend that time had settled it.

She has bigger cajones than all the politicians who attended the memorial. Every one of them.

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

Is this Lindsay Clancy 2.0? Another MA mother kills her kids claiming "mental illness"

What the freak is going on in Massachusetts?

The state that has already given us the legal circus surrounding the Lindsay Clancy case now has another mother accused of murdering her own children, and apparently the Massachusetts justice system has been handed another opportunity to debate whether consequences are still a thing.

Janette MacAusland, 49, is facing charges in connection with the deaths of her two children. Her attorney is now asking the judge to dismiss the case because of "mental illness." [And anyway, now that Massachusetts has voted for no gestational-age cutoff, it just like abortion, right?]

Because apparently the criminal justice system's latest feature is letting people commit horrific crimes and then asking whether society is being a little too judgmental about it.

"I would suggest that given my client has no record, given the fact that we are now at the four-month mark and we still can't even have a projected exact date of presentation or follow-up presentation, that the court, within its duty and obligation, has to either dismiss or set a reasonable bail with conditions," said her attorney. "I would suggest that reasonable bail would be $25,000."

Yes, $25,000. That's a mere $12,500 per child.

That is less a bail request and more of a "Please remember to check in with your parole officer" starter package.

Later, her attorney appeared to address reporters outside the courtroom.

"This is not Lindsay Clancy 2.0," he lied. "Janette MacAusland is her own woman. But there's been a discussion, a discourse that's opened up in this country about whether or not we wanna criminalize mental illness. And I'm hoping that this district attorney's office and the new district attorney-elect takes a look at this and takes a different approach in how we prosecute women suffering from profound mental health problems."

Fair enough. Mental illness is real, serious and deserving of treatment.

But there is a rather enormous difference between treating mental illness and pretending that mental illness somehow makes the victims of a horrific crime less dead.

Apparently, we are now supposed to have a national conversation about whether prosecuting someone accused of killing her children is "criminalizing mental illness." That's bullcrap.

At some point, maybe we could have a conversation about criminalizing murder. That used to be kind of a popular position.

And if this approach continues, perhaps Massachusetts can simply replace its criminal courts with a wellness center.

Did you murder your children?

No judgment here. Let's talk about your feelings.

Are you a danger to society?

Let's explore that together.

Have you demonstrated that you might kill again?

Wonderful. Here's a $25,000 bail hearing and directions to the nearest mental health clinic. ["Hey, why not go out and kill another child--we're having a special this week."]

Meanwhile, anyone still foolish enough to believe that committing a horrific crime should result in prison time can apparently be dismissed as hopelessly unenlightened.

The real danger, of course, is that eventually the system decides that the people who were harmed are less important than the psychological comfort of the person accused of harming them.

And that is where this gets truly insane.

Mental illness should not automatically mean someone is guilty. It should not automatically mean someone is innocent, either. If someone is genuinely so mentally unstable that she is capable of killing her own children, the obvious question is whether she can safely be allowed back into society.

That isn't cruelty. It's what we call protecting the public.

And no, the answer shouldn't be to lock up every mentally ill person. Nor should it be to pretend that mental illness somehow transforms murder into a therapeutic misunderstanding.

Because if your defense is that you were so profoundly mentally ill that you might suddenly snap and murder children, perhaps the appropriate government response isn't, "Congratulations, you're free to go."

Perhaps it is, "You're going to need some serious supervision." Prison much?

Otherwise, we are going to end up with a justice system where everyone is responsible for everything except the person who actually committed the crime.

And eventually, we will all stand around wondering how this happened.

What could possibly go wrong?

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

Woman Who Called ICE “Nazis” Punches State Trooper, Later Admits She “Messed Up Really Ugly”

JACKSONVILLE, FL — A local woman conducting important First Amendment work from behind the wheel of a moving Dodge Ram has pleaded guilty after punching a Florida Highway Patrol trooper in the face during a joint immigration operation, then kicking several more officers for good measure.

Jennifer Susan Cruz of Jacksonville was driving on Beach Boulevard near Mi Pueblo on January 13, 2026, when she spotted Florida Highway Patrol and federal immigration officers conducting a traffic stop.

 Sensing history, and perhaps personal fame unfolding, she began recording on her phone while tailgating, an act authorities later described as unsafe and unlawful cellphone use. 

A trooper approached her about that. Cruz grew argumentative, referred to ICE as “Nazis,” and asked the trooper not to shoot her in the face.

Officials say her license was suspended. 

She then drove off a short distance until troopers boxed her in. Once stopped, Cruz refused to surrender her keys and announced she was “ready to fight.” When officers tried to take the keys, she punched an FHP trooper in the face with a closed fist. The trooper was injured in the nose and fingers. 

Cruz then resisted, kicked officers including an ICE officer who injured a hand and a CBP agent, and was tased. She later apologized and said she “messed up really ugly.” [Not surprisingly, she has lived with ugly for the best part of her adult life.]

Cruz faced state charges plus a federal charge of assaulting officers conducting an immigration operation. She pleaded guilty in June 2026. Prosecutors have cited a statutory maximum of 20 years. Sentencing is scheduled for late September 2026. 

Actual prison time, if any, will be decided by the judge and is typically far below the maximum because in large part, law and order has been canceled in our nation.

Online commentators immediately identified the real issue: she must have mistaken the state trooper for an ICE agent, which would have made the punch principled, albeit illegal and deserving of incarceration.

Official DOJ and police accounts do not say that. She was interacting with a clearly identified state trooper assisting ICE. ICE vehicles and officers were present. The punch occurred during the key-surrender struggle after the suspended-license stop, not because she thought the trooper was ICE.

The popular photo pairing of Cruz next to an ICE-marked vehicle reflects the joint operation. It does not prove a case of mistaken identity. It does prove she managed to assault both the people she thought were “Nazis” and the people she did not. 

In short, she punched an FHP trooper during an ICE-assisted operation, she pleaded guilty, and 20 years is the stated maximum, with the likelihood of it being imposed on par with finding the Holy Grail. 

The “mistook him for ICE” framing remains meme editorializing, not what the charging documents describe. At press time, Cruz had not yet released a statement clarifying whether punching a state trooper counts as punching 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

NYPD Commissioner reminds New Yorkers who the heroes were on 9/11

THE LARGE APPLE — New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch appeared to deliver a subtle but unmistakable reminder to Mayor Zohran Mamdani Wednesday that there is, in fact, a difference between the people who attacked New York City and the Americans who ran toward the danger to save their fellow citizens.

Tisch made the apparently controversial observation during the unveiling of a new 9/11 Memorial Wall at One Police Plaza honoring more than 469 NYPD members who have died from illnesses connected to their service following the terrorist attacks.

“Preserving that history also means preserving its moral clarity,” Tisch said. “The men who attacked this city were terrorists. The men and women who ran into the towers to save innocent lives were heroes. Twenty-five years cannot be allowed to blur that distinction and shame on those who do.”

In what must have been an absolutely shocking development for modern New York politics, the police commissioner suggested that terrorists are bad and firefighters, police officers and other first responders are good. 

What an incredible reveal!

Many observers immediately suspected Tisch was speaking directly to Mamdani, despite the fact that she never actually used his name.

“Jessica Tisch said this with Zohran Mamdani sitting beside her. Public officials must show ‘moral clarity’ about 9/11 and never blur the distinction between heroes and terrorists. ‘Shame on those who do.’ She didn’t say his name. She didn’t have to,” former financial exec Sam Antar posted.

The timing was particularly interesting.

Just days earlier, Mamdani had signed official orders designating September 11 as a Day of Remembrance and addressing security concerns ahead of the 25th anniversary events.

Afterward, Mamdani gifted the ceremonial pen to his chief counsel, Ramzi Kassem, who has been directly linked to al-Qaeda terrorists and is considered by many decent patriots to be a scumbag who has no business being within a thousand miles of Ground Zero.

Unfortunately for everyone involved in the ceremony, Tisch happened to be standing between Mamdani and Kassem.

Mamdani therefore first handed the pen to Tisch and asked her to “pass it” to Kassem.

Tisch then reportedly made an abrupt exit from the room, presumably after realizing that New York's latest diversity initiative had somehow become a game of Hot Potato involving a ceremonial pen and an al-Qaeda-linked lawyer. She had another place in mind as to where the pen should be shoved.

Critics immediately accused comrade Mamdani of deliberately creating the bizarre optics and argued that he knew exactly how the gesture would look.

“This childish, calculated display of passive aggression was missed by no one, and will not be forgotten by Tisch or by NYC’s millions of 9/11 survivors,” Fox Business anchor David Asman said.

Matthew Hennessey wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, “Everyone deserves a lawyer. But by deliberately handing his ceremonial pen to this man, Mr. Mamdani mocked the loss his city suffered on 9/11. And he forced Ms. Tisch to participate in that mockery. He might as well have turned to the cameras and winked.”

Fortunately, Commissioner Tisch apparently decided that 25 years was long enough to remember the basic facts.

The men who flew airplanes into buildings were terrorist scum. 

The people who ran toward those buildings were heroes.

And apparently, in 2026, someone still has to explain the difference.

But you know and Mamdani knows the difference and he seems to be on the side of his 'brothers' who flew into those buildings 25 years ago.

Wake up, America and lose your suicidal empathy, to use the words of the great Gad Saad.

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

Historic First Openly LGBT Judge In Bexar County Forever Disqualified After Handcuffing A Lawyer Who Argued With Her

I honestly do not care who she sleeps with

SAN ANTONIO — Rosie Speedlin-Gonzalez, a Bexar (pronounced "Bear") County Court-at-Law No. 13 judge described in reporting as the first openly lesbian-identified judge elected in the county, agreed in April 2026 to resign immediately and accept a lifetime disqualification from judicial office in Texas. This marks what local observers called a rare moment in which a barrier-breaking career and a pair of handcuffs occupied the same résumé.

The deal followed a crazy December 2024 courtroom incident in which this judge ordered defense attorney Elizabeth Russell handcuffed and placed in the jury box during a heated argument over a plea in a domestic-violence probation case. 

Court records later confirmed that the argument had left the judicial process and the attorney's wrists in roughly the same condition. 

Speedlin-Gonzalez was later indicted on charges of official oppression and unlawful restraint. 

She was suspended without pay, lost her March 2026 Democratic primary, and then reached an agreement with the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct. 

Criminal charges were dismissed “in the interest of justice.” She did not admit guilt, fault, or liability, a formulation that allowed every party to leave the room without having to explain the jury box. Under the agreement she is “forever disqualified” from sitting as a judge, running for or accepting appointment to judicial office, or performing judicial duties in Texas. 

Officials did carve out one remaining public function: she may still officiate straight and gay weddings if she does not wear a robe or invoke judicial authority, a rule apparently designed to keep the phrase "by the power vested in me" from making a surprise comeback.

A viral image reduced the episode to “banned for life,” “LGBTQ judge,” and “do you stand with this?” The phrasing is partisan and simplified. 

Multiple news outlets, including the San Antonio Express-News, Texas Public Radio, KSAT, the ABA Journal, and others, reported the same sequence of events and the terms of the deal. The handcuffing order, the resignation, and the lifetime bar from the bench in Texas are accurate.At press time, Texas still permitted the former judge to join two people in matrimony, provided nobody in the room could tell she used to run a courtroom.

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