NJ Mayor Says Sanctuary Policies Need a Tune-Up After Baby Killed in Crash

Apparently, there are limits to how many “condolences” a grieving family can use in place of actual government policy.

Jackson Township Mayor Jennifer Kuhn is asking New Jersey to reconsider its sanctuary policies after authorities say an illegal immigrant without a driver's license allegedly plowed into a family in a grocery store parking lot, killing a 9-month-old boy.

Because nothing says “well-functioning immigration system” quite like discovering that someone allegedly driving without a license was apparently not supposed to be driving in the first place.

"If our police pull somebody over and they're undocumented... they can't call the federal agencies, they can't call ICE. That needs to change," Kuhn told Fox News Digital. "Condolences at this point are not enough. At this point, leadership needs to step in. And we have to do something."

That last sentence may come as a shocking concept in New Jersey: do something.

Authorities say Maria Cobon-Guzman, a 20-year-old Guatemalan national who did not have a driver's license, struck a mother pushing a stroller with her 9-month-old son and 5-year-old daughter on Aug. 28 in the parking lot of a kosher grocery store in Jackson.

Maria Cobon-Guzman, 

The baby was killed. The mother and 5-year-old were critically injured.

Kuhn says the tragedy illustrates the consequences of policies that restrict cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

"These issues shouldn't happen whether you're illegal or legal. But the problem is that we can't hold them accountable if they're not documented and they're illegal aliens," she said.

This apparently remains a controversial position in a state where asking too many questions about someone's immigration status can make government officials nervous.

Cobon-Guzman has been charged with manslaughter. Prosecutors also charged Ariadna Lazaro-Flores, alleging that she allowed Cobon-Guzman to drive her vehicle despite knowing she did not have a driver's license.

Lazaro-Flores, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, was charged with endangering the welfare of an incompetent person, according to an inmate report.

And the immigration history makes the situation even more difficult to explain away.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, both women illegally entered the United States during the Biden administration. Lazaro-Flores allegedly entered five times in October 2023 and was removed each time.

Cobon-Guzman entered once in October 2023 but was released into the interior of the country. On July 31, an immigration judge issued an order of removal against her.

So apparently there were multiple opportunities for the immigration system to say, “Perhaps this person should not remain here.”

The system apparently had other plans.

At the center of Kuhn's criticism is New Jersey's Immigrant Trust Directive, implemented under former Gov. Phil Murphy in 2018.

Among other provisions, the directive generally restricts police from asking about a person's immigration status, notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement when someone is released from custody, or sharing certain non-public personal information for civil immigration enforcement.

Current New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed legislation codifying the directive into state law in March.

Kuhn wants the Jackson Township Council to pass a resolution demanding that New Jersey roll back such policies.

"I know that there's other towns around in Ocean County and in other counties that are also doing the same. Something needs to change," Kuhn said.

Naturally, supporters of sanctuary-style policies disagree.

They argue that restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities builds trust with immigrant communities and encourages victims and witnesses to report crimes.

Because apparently one of the great achievements of modern government is making sure people who are here illegally feel sufficiently comfortable that nobody checks why they are here.

Dan Prochilo, a spokesperson for the New Jersey Attorney General's Office, defended the Immigrant Trust Directive and other sanctuary-style reforms signed by Sherrill.

According to Prochilo, county jails and state prisons can notify ICE when someone is being released if they are charged with or convicted of certain violent or serious crimes.

Those crimes include assault, stalking, criminal sexual contact, arson and burglary.

New Jersey jails can also notify ICE if a suspect has been convicted of a felony within the past five years or is under a final deportation order from a federal immigration judge.

"Such notice has been provided regularly in appropriate cases by New Jersey law enforcement agencies since the Immigrant Trust Directive took effect in 2019," Prochilo added.

Which is certainly reassuring.

Just ask the grieving family how reassuring it feels.

Mayor Kuhn's complaint is not particularly complicated. If local police encounter someone who is in the country illegally, lacks a driver's license and may be violating the law, she believes local authorities should be able to communicate with federal immigration authorities.

This revolutionary proposal is known in some parts of America as law enforcement.

In New Jersey, however, it apparently requires a mayor to launch a campaign to convince the state that federal immigration officials should be allowed to know when an illegal immigrant is in police custody.

Perhaps next year they can tackle the really radical stuff, like checking whether someone is legally allowed to drive before handing them the keys.

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

Iran Discovers U.S. Navy Has Opinions About Being Shot At With A Tit-for-Tat

TEHRAN, IRAN: Iran apparently learned an important lesson about international diplomacy Saturday after the United States responded to Iranian ballistic missile attacks on American warships by blowing up three Iranian oil tankers.

We've a lot more tits than they have tats.

U.S. Central Command announced that two Iranian oil tankers had been “permanently disabled” and a third was “completely destroyed” after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated terrorist organization composed of misguided Muslims who think they'll be getting 72 brown-eyed virgins rather than goats. They apparently decided that firing missiles at U.S. Navy ships was a reasonable foreign-policy strategy.

The IRGC may now wish to revisit that strategy.

“A U.S. aircraft carrier and guided-missile destroyer successfully evaded multiple unprovoked Iranian attacks. No American personnel were harmed,” CENTCOM said.

The United States then proceeded to make sure that some Iranian personnel had a considerably worse day.

U.S. forces “permanently disabled” the Iranian oil carriers MT Downy, located off the coast of Kharg Island, and MT Stark 1, which was struck near the Iranian coastal city of Jask.

The U.S. also “completely destroyed” the unladen crude oil carrier MT Kylo in the Gulf of Oman.

The Kylo, also known as the MT Noxen, was struck in “multiple critical locations to render it inoperable after the crew was directed to abandon ship.” This was the first time many of the crew bathed in months, reports say.

This is generally what happens when you fire ballistic missiles at American warships and discover that the other side has access to a calculator.

“The three Iranian crude oil tankers are part of a multibillion-dollar shadow network that funds the IRGC and its regional proxies. Iran has no means by which to defend them,” CENTCOM said. 

Iran's shadow fleet has apparently discovered that being a shadow fleet does not actually make a ship invisible. Perhaps we should consider not waiting for a tit-for-tat before destroying these type vessels.

“Let the message to the IRGC be clear: If you shoot at two of our ships, we will impose an even higher economic cost — taking out three of yours,” said CENTCOM commander Adm. Brad Cooper.

“We will not hesitate to defend American forces, and if necessary, destroy Iran’s limited and exposed oil fleet,” he added.

Iranian state-run Tasnim news agency had reported earlier Saturday that explosions were heard near Kharg Island, with an oil tanker, presumably the Downy, struck by four U.S. missiles.

Tasnim reported no casualties from the strikes, presumably because everyone involved had already received the helpful instruction to abandon ship and get the heck out of Dodge.

The strikes came after Iranian forces launched ballistic missiles at U.S. Navy warships patrolling in “regional waters.”

The two U.S. carriers currently deployed in the region are the USS George H.W. Bush and USS George Washington, which relieved the USS Abraham Lincoln two weeks ago.

The George Washington is reportedly sailing with a single destroyer escort, meaning Iran may have chosen to discover what happens when it picks a fight with a carrier group that is very much aware of what is happening.

For years, Iran has invested heavily in missiles, terrorism, proxy armies and a multibillion-dollar shadow oil network.

On Saturday, it apparently invested in three fewer oil tankers.

There are, one imagines, cheaper ways to learn that the United States Navy is still open for business and the United States of America is not a country to mess with.

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

"Gays for Gaza" gay guy activist killed by Muslim Migrant outside gay bar

TUCSON, AZ — In a shocking turn of events that no one could have possibly seen coming, a Muslim immigrant from Gambia fatally shot two men in the parking lot of a Tucson gay bar Monday before killing himself, in what police have confirmed was a premeditated hate crime targeting the homosexual community.

Tucson police say Ousman Ceesay, 44, opened fire on Vincent Anthony Siqueiros, 42, and Cameron Davis Capara, 33, around 12:30 a.m. outside Venture-N, a longtime gay bar near the University of Arizona campus. Both victims died at the scene. 

Ceesay then turned a 9mm handgun on himself, perhaps hoping to be rewarded with 72 virgins, and later died at a hospital.

Investigators said Ceesay had no known connection to either victim and had only recently relocated to Tucson from Oklahoma City. 

He was carrying a written list of other LGBT-associated businesses in the area, though surveillance footage reviewed by detectives showed he never attempted to enter Venture-N itself during the attack. A search of Ceesay’s home turned up a separate note that police say confirmed he acted alone and that the shooting was deliberately aimed at the gay community, as is the religious mandate of Islam.

Tucson Police Chief Monica Prieto called the killings “especially heinous” and said bias-motivated violence has no place in the city, a totally useless statement that sounds as if it came from a flashcard. 

Officers have since made contact with every business named on Ceesay’s list and increased patrols nearby, though authorities say there is no known ongoing threat. 

Ceesay had no criminal record in Pima County and was legally permitted to own firearms, police said. According to his cousin, interviewed by the Arizona Daily Star, he had worked as an Uber driver and was, believe it or not, a practicing Muslim who prayed five times daily. 

Ceesay and his wife filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2018 after accruing more than $76,000 in debt, and the couple faced eviction [much like Karl Marx] over unpaid rent as recently as last year. 

Capara, a photographer, had spent years documenting the gay scene, campus life, and pro-Palestinian demonstrations and anti-ICE rallies around Tucson. His father, Jeff Capara, separately told the Star his son cared deeply about people he considered marginalized, which is weird since you can't swing a dead penguin without hitting an LGBTQ demonstration or rainbow flag.

Siqueiros’s sister, Kate Marquez, told mourners at a vigil this week that her brother had wondered aloud just days before his death whether anyone would show up for him if something happened. She said the outpouring of support since the shooting had answered that question.

Community organizations, including Tucson Queerstory and the Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation, held a candlelight vigil at a local park, and a memorial of flowers, candles and photographs has grown outside Venture-N in the days since the attack. 

The investigation remains ongoing. 

Local activists are expected to respond by demanding more diversity in immigration and a strongly worded statement against Republicans.

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 Mayor Who Cannot Name the Murderers

There are occasions when a politician is required to say what happened. September 11 is one of them.

Nearly 3,000 people were murdered by Islamist terrorists. They were not unfortunate extras in some abstract pageant of global suffering. They were not incidental casualties of an unspecified “war that followed.” They were murdered by men who hijacked passenger aircraft and flew them into buildings on purpose. It is hard to think of a historical fact that requires less interpretation.

Yet the words of New York City’s Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, have raised the awkward question of whether he means to mark the day as an act of remembrance or as another occasion to lecture the public about the consequences of American foreign policy.

A post from 2023 has resurfaced. “Nearly 3,000 New Yorkers died on 9/11; 22 years later, the death hasn't stopped. We mourn our neighbors who died that day. The hundreds of thousands who died in the wars that followed. The unknown millions injured & displaced. In their memory, we work toward a better world,” Mamdani wrote on X in 2023.

There is nothing objectionable in mourning civilians killed in later wars. There is nothing objectionable in wanting a better world. There is something peculiar, however, in commemorating the greatest terrorist attack in American history without mentioning the terrorists.

The sentence contains the dead. It contains the wars. It contains the injured and the displaced. It contains the pious hope of a better world. What it does not contain is the word “terrorists.” Nor does it say that the nearly 3,000 New Yorkers were murdered. This may appear a small matter of wording. To the families of the dead it is not.

Some of those families are now asking that Mamdani stay away from New York’s 25th-anniversary commemoration. Their unease has only grown after his interview with Hasan Piker, who said in 2019, “America deserved 9/11.”

Mamdani first declined to condemn the remark. He later called it “objectionable and reprehensible.” One might have thought that identifying as reprehensible the claim that America deserved to be attacked by terrorists would be the easy part. Apparently even that required a pause for reflection.

Marc Thiessen, who was inside the Pentagon when the planes hit, was less given to philosophical hesitation. “As someone who was in the Pentagon when the planes hit, this is absolutely disgraceful. You have no business ever setting foot at Ground Zero, much less on 9/11. If you dare show up, I hope you are greeted with such a Bronx cheer that you slink away in shame,” wrote Thiessen.

New York City Councilwoman Inna Vernikov was no more impressed. “I guess they all just ‘died’ in an accident? And then you wonder why the families of 9/11 victims don’t want you at the ceremony. Stay home, Mamdani,” wrote Vernikov.

Florida Rep. Randy Fine was blunter still. “Nearly 25 years later, NYC’s Mayor is in bed with Muslim terrorists and refuses to call out evil for what it is. Unfortunately, it seems the city forgot when they elected Jihadi Mamdani mayor. But we never will,” wrote Fine.

Fox News contributor and former NYPD officer Paul Mauro offered the mayor some advice. “You've made this easy. Don't show up on 9/11 this year -- or any year. We're not interested in your moral equivalency, nepo baby. Stick to the parlor communism daddy taught you. You and your buddy Piker can spend the day practicing Mandarin,” he said.

Michael La Rosa, a former spokesman for first lady DOCTOR Jill Biden, captured the general reaction with economy. “Is this real?”

Nancy Mace had no interest in economy of that kind. “Americans were MURDERED by TERRORISTS in the most horrific way,” she wrote.

Joey Jones, co-host of “Big Weekend Show,” put the matter more personally. “What a coward. They were murdered and sleep well at night knowing I and thousands of my brothers did our part to even the f—–g score,” he wrote.

The argument is not about whether wars produce suffering. Everyone knows that they do. It is about whether September 11 can be spoken of without first stating the most elementary moral fact of the day.The terrorists did this. They chose their targets. They chose their victims. They chose to murder thousands of people. And those who died were not responsible for the wars that followed their deaths.

That is why the language used to commemorate September 11 matters. There are many days in the year for arguing about American foreign policy. There are fewer for remembering 3,000 people who were murdered because Islamist terrorists decided they should die.

Mamdani says he intends to attend the commemoration to honor the victims, survivors, families and first responders alongside Vice President JD Vance and former presidents, including Biden and Bush. Some of the families would prefer that he think again.

A petition organized by several victims’ families asks the organizers to consider whether his presence is appropriate to the purpose of the ceremony. “We respectfully ask that the organizers carefully consider whether Mr. Mamdani’s participation would align with the intention of the ceremony and the expectations of the families most directly affected by the tragedy,” a Change.org petition states.

It is a reasonable question.

There is a difference between remembering that thousands of people were killed and remembering why they were killed. The first requires memory. The second requires moral clarity.

On September 11, 2001, New York did not suffer an unfortunate episode in the general history of human misery. It was attacked. And nearly 3,000 people were murdered. For the families who lost them, that remains difficult to forget. One would hope the mayor of New York could manage the same.

I will always remember the soot from office papers that ended up in the gutters of my Brooklyn home.

What do you remember about that day 25 years ago?

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

Another Knife-Wielding Maniac Charges Police In NYC, Because Progressive Utopia Is Going Great

Police had to confront and kill a knife-wielding maniac in New York City on Friday. This came just days after a different maniac went on a stabbing rampage, killing one person and wounding another in Times Square. 

City leaders remain shocked that this keeps happening while defunding the police is never off the table to leftists.

The man was first seen walking on the Brooklyn Bridge cables around 3:30 a.m. Officers scaled the bridge to talk him into coming down safely. That turned into a standoff. The man lunged at them and made threats.

“He stated, ‘I want to die, I want you to kill me, I have a bomb, you’re not going to make me do something bad to the cops,’” NYPD’s Emergency Services Unit (ESU) Assistant Chief Gerard Dowling, told reporters.

Officers spent nearly one hour asking the man to drop his weapon and come down. They tried to reason with a guy who said he wanted to die and might have a bomb. 

Then the knife-wielding man started coming down the cables. He lunged at one officer when he got within three feet. “At that point, a member of ESU who was on the roadbed of the bridge discharged his weapon one time, striking the man,” Dowling said.

The man was rushed to the hospital and pronounced dead. All Brooklyn-bound lanes of the bridge shut down during peak Friday morning commute hours. 

This incident came after another knife attack in New York City on Monday. 

Erin Piacenti, a young wife and new mother who had just returned from maternity leave to her VP job at Bank of America, was stabbed and killed by a mentally disturbed woman. A handful of leftists cheered the murder because of the victim's bank position, just like they did when Luigi Mangione shot and killed Brian Thompson, a CEO for UnitedHealthcare.

Another unidentified man in the Piacenti incident was also injured and taken to the hospital. He was released on Tuesday. Police fatally shot the attacker, 49-year-old Pamela Cisneros, who was armed with two kitchen knives. Cisneros, from Queens, had previous outbursts tied to her mental state. She refused repeated commands to drop the knives when officers confronted her near an NYPD substation.

“During the encounter, she told the officers, ‘I’m not dropping anything. I would rather kill both of you.’ She repeated, ‘I will kill you,’” NYPD Chief, Jessica Tisch said during a press briefing.

Several weeks before that, there was another stabbing near Times Square. A man was stabbed in the head during an argument inside a subway station. Officials are sure the next round of sensitivity training and reduced police presence will fix everything.

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

BREAKING: LA Podcaster Arrested After Discovering ‘Kill Donald Trump’ Is Apparently Not A Great Free Speech Strategy

LOS ANGELES, CA: An LA-based left-wing podcaster has reportedly discovered the exciting limits of free speech after FBI agents showed up at his Westlake home to arrest him for allegedly threatening to kill President Donald Trump.

Azariah Southworth, 40, a gay Christian podcast host, was detained after allegedly making repeated threats against the president and stalking Trump's personal lawyer and the lawyer's family, according to the New York Post.

Apparently, Southworth had been operating under the increasingly popular California legal theory that anything can be considered protected speech as long as you say "free speech" loudly enough.

According to court documents, Southworth posted a video on Instagram on April 7 in which he declared, “I have been vocal in calling for the execution of Donald Trump. This government is illegitimate and out of control. It’s time for course correction. Kill Donald Trump."

Authorities apparently interpreted this less as a nuanced commentary on constitutional government and more as a threat, which is the correct interpretation if you understand English.

As police took him away, Southworth reportedly continued expressing his political opinions by yelling, “Donald Trump is a pedophile! The country has fallen!” Chances are Southworth is merely projecting.

Prosecutors said Southworth had called for Trump's assassination multiple times, both publicly and privately.

In a January text conversation with an associate, Southworth allegedly wrote, “If I encounter any Trump official in-person, I’m seriously afraid I will end up in Jail,” before immediately demonstrating an impressive lack of confidence in his own prediction.

“But if I could Kill him, I wouldn’t waste the opportunity," he added.

“I want to funnel this rage into street art. That’s my plan,” he continued. “But GOD I want that motherf*cker and his minions dead.”

Trump's minions

According to prosecutors, Southworth regularly used his podcasting platform to encourage violence against the president, apparently believing that the First Amendment includes a special clause covering people who really, really hate the president.

“I want to practice my free speech as a survivor of conversion therapy for five years,” he said in a video in March. “Kill Donald Trump. Kill that mothef*cking pedophile in the White House. Kill that traitor of the United States Constitution.”

The phrase "free speech" was reportedly invoked so frequently that somewhere, an actual First Amendment attorney quietly developed a migraine.

Then, in April, Southworth allegedly posted another video depicting himself teleporting into the White House behind Trump while raising a knife as though preparing to stab the president.

Southworth had apparently anticipated that his increasingly specific calls for the president's execution might eventually attract the attention of federal law enforcement.

On Instagram, he previously posted a statement to followers explaining what he believed might happen if he were arrested.

“I am making this video today in the event of my arrest. It has been a long-held belief that calling for the execution of the president of The United States will get you put on a list or arrested,” he said. “I have friends who are concerned this will happen to me as I have been vocal in calling for the execution of Donald Trump.”

It turns out his friends may have been onto something.

“It’s time for course correction,” he added.

“Kill Donald Trump.”

And thus concludes another fascinating chapter in the ongoing American experiment in which people discover that the First Amendment protects an astonishing amount of speech, but apparently does not come with a complimentary federal immunity package.

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

Elaine Luria Wants to Raise Your Taxes, But Apparently Her Own Tax Deadlines Are Just Suggestions

Elaine Luria is running for Congress in Virginia's 2nd District, and she has a bold plan for hardworking Virginia families. She wants them to pay more taxes. 

The Democrat launched her campaign by attacking the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which gave millions of Americans tax relief. Apparently, allowing people to keep more of their own money was simply too dangerous to leave unchecked.

According to Virginia Public Media (VPM):

In her campaign announcement, Luria wrote Kiggans has “established a pattern of promising Virginians one thing in public, only to turn around and vote the other way in Washington.”

She pointed specifically to Kiggans’ vote on the Big Beautiful Bill, which cut health care subsidies, despite Kiggans previously saying she could not support a federal budget that “come(s) at the expense of those who depend on these benefits for their health and economic security.”

“I cannot sit back and watch as Republicans in Congress create chaos while failing to address the rising cost of living and the issues that matter to Coastal Virginians,” Luria wrote in her campaign announcement.

Fortunately for Luria, there is an easy way to address the rising cost of living: simply raise it.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act gave Virginia families an average tax cut of about $3,600 compared with the previous tax law. It also protected 62 percent of taxpayers from automatic tax increases.

Luria opposed the tax cuts.

She opposed No Tax on Tips.

She opposed No Tax on Overtime.

She opposed the expanded Child Tax Credit.

She opposed the SALT deduction expansion.

She opposed Death Tax relief for family farms.

In other words, if Congress finds a way to let you keep an extra dollar, Luria would apparently like to be notified immediately so she can take it back.

No Tax on Tips is expected to save the average worker about $1,800 a year. No Tax on Overtime is expected to save workers between $1,400 and $1,750 annually.

The Death Tax provision increased the estate tax exemption from $5 million to $15 million, helping protect family farms from enormous tax bills.

Luria apparently looked at all of that and thought, "How can we stop this?"

She has also called for rolling back the 2017 tax cuts.

At a 2018 candidate forum, Luria said, "We need to roll back these tax cuts that we've made."

So Luria wants to roll back your tax cuts.

She wants to tax your tips.

She wants to tax your overtime.

She wants to reduce your Child Tax Credit.

She wants to make sure hardworking Virginians have fewer dollars left in their wallets at the end of the month.

But there is one fascinating detail about Luria's tax philosophy. She has reportedly had some trouble paying her own taxes on time.

According to official City of Norfolk tax records, Luria repeatedly failed to pay her municipal real estate taxes on time, dating back to at least 2005. Between 2005 and 2022, some of Luria's payments were several weeks late. In total, she was late on more than $8,400 in payments.

This is apparently known as the Luria Tax Plan: raise everybody else's taxes immediately, pay yours whenever you feel like it.

Her personal property taxes tell a similar story. In Virginia, personal property includes "automobiles, trucks, manufactured homes, motorcycles, recreational vehicles, boats, trailers, and aircraft."

According to Norfolk records, Luria's 2005 quarterly tax payment was due December 5. She paid it December 6. That's right. One whole day late.

And she did not pay a penalty or interest.

The pattern reportedly happened several times, with city records showing Luria never paid a penalty or interest for her late payments, unlike us peons.

So while Luria wants to give Virginia families a lecture about paying their fair share, she apparently has occasionally treated the tax deadline like a recommendation from the DMV.

Perhaps this explains her tax philosophy. Taxes are mandatory for you, but apparently negotiable for me.

Luria is now asking voters to send her to Washington so she can help make Virginia families poorer. She wants to roll back tax cuts, tax tips and overtime, reduce the Child Tax Credit and increase the amount of money Washington collects from Americans. Meanwhile, she has a documented history of being late with her own tax payments.

There is, admittedly, a certain consistency here. Luria believes taxes should be taken seriously. Just not necessarily by Elaine Luria.

Virginia voters might want to remember that the candidate promising to raise their taxes has already demonstrated an unusual relationship with tax deadlines.

She wants your money on time. She just apparently doesn't think the rule applies to her.

This elitist snob does not deserve a Congressional seat. She deserves a penalty on her past tax indiscretions. 

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

House Democrats Vote To Preserve Supreme Court At Nine Justices Until Democrats Get Around To Changing It

House Democrats voted Wednesday to block a constitutional amendment that would permanently lock the Supreme Court at its current nine justices, apparently deciding that nine is perfectly acceptable as long as Democrats retain the option of making it 13 or more later.

The amendment, introduced by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), needed a two-thirds majority because, inconveniently, it would actually amend the Constitution. It received 212 votes to 206, falling well short of the required threshold, with all but one House Democrat voting against it.

The proposed amendment was remarkably straightforward. It would state, “The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices consisting of one chief justice and eight associate justices.”

Biggs explained that the amendment was necessary because Democrats [aka progressives, aka leftists] have increasingly expressed dissatisfaction with a Supreme Court that occasionally issues rulings they do not like, leading some on the left to propose the time-honored solution of simply adding enough new justices until the correct answer appears.

“If a sitting majority can change the size of the Supreme Court the moment it dislikes its rulings, what happens the next time the other side is in power? That’s why I’m urging my colleagues to support my resolution for a Constitutional Amendment to permanently fix the number of Supreme Court Justices at Nine,” he said.

House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) urged Democrats to reject the amendment, arguing that permanently keeping the Court at nine justices would deprive Congress of the ability to change the number whenever circumstances, election results or disappointing judicial opinions make it necessary.

Comrade Clark

“This proposed constitutional amendment would permanently fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine, stripping Congress of yet another constitutional authority that is meant to be controlled by the American people’s representatives,” the leftist argued, adding that discussing the size of the Supreme Court could distract Congress from more pressing matters such as affordability, which apparently has nothing to do with the number of Supreme Court justices.

Of course, the Constitution itself does not specify how many justices should sit on the Supreme Court. Congress has historically handled that little detail.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the Court with six justices. Congress added a seventh in 1807, increased the number to nine in 1837, and then added a tenth during the Civil War in 1863.

Congress subsequently reduced the number to seven in 1866, partly to prevent President Andrew Johnson from filling vacancies. In 1869, the Judiciary Act restored the Court to nine justices, where it has remained ever since.

That consistency apparently became suspicious.

Back in the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed adding as many as six additional justices to the Court after the existing justices repeatedly ruled against portions of his New Deal agenda. The proposal became known as the infamous court-packing plan, although it might more accurately be described as an early attempt to discover how many Supreme Court seats were required to produce the desired constitutional interpretation.

The plan generated enough backlash, including from members of Roosevelt's own party, that it was eventually abandoned.

Nearly a century later, however, court packing has returned, this time with considerably less embarrassment.

“I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress, and we ought to expand,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said. “Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Nothing says respect for the constitutional underpinnings of the nation quite like ordering a few extra Supreme Court seats from the judicial bakery.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris has also indicated support for a 13-member Court, suggesting that the idea is gaining momentum among Democrats who apparently view the current nine justices as less of a constitutional institution and more of an insufficiently large focus group.

Rep. Don Davis (D-NC) was the only Democrat to vote for Biggs' amendment. Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-CA), who normally caucuses with Republicans, voted against it.

For now, therefore, the Supreme Court remains at nine justices.

Not because Democrats have suddenly concluded that nine is the ideal number.

Not because they have discovered some timeless constitutional principle requiring it.

And certainly not because they have decided that voters should not be able to change the Court's composition through the creative use of congressional arithmetic.

The Court remains at nine because, for the moment, Democrats do not have the votes to make it larger.

Should the political winds change, however, Americans can apparently expect the nation's highest court to undergo the same basic transformation as a congressional seating chart: If you don't like the outcome, simply add more chairs until you do.

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