Trump Warns Iran That Every Attacked Ship Means One Destroyed Bridge Or Power Plant

In a clear and direct ultimatum President Donald Trump announced on Wednesday that the United States will respond to every Iranian attack on ships in the Strait of Hormuz by bombing one Iranian bridge or power plant. 

Targets near or inside Tehran itself are now on the table according to the president.

Trump’s post read: “From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by Missile, Rocket, Drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran,”

The warning came after the United States finished its eleventh straight night of strikes against Iranian military sites and facilities.

Diplomatic efforts have produced no visible progress while Iran keeps attacking ships and keeps the crucial waterway largely closed. Those of us who know about taqiyya are not at all surprised. Iran has been stalling for time and have no intentions of curtailing their nuclear ambitions.

That strait once carried a fifth of the world’s traded oil and gas during normal times. Iranian leaders may soon find themselves short on bridges to cross rivers and short on power plants to keep the lights on. 

Trump has simply spelled out the price of continued aggression in terms even the regime in Tehran should understand. This approach marks a sharp break from the endless talks and empty warnings that achieved nothing in the past.

Unfortunately, I believe it's highly unlikely Iran will end the hostilities. Terrorists in suits are still terrorists and will never change.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply 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 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

Joshua Kerry Charged With Brutally Murdering Ann Widdecombe; Leftists Already Blaming Society Instead Of The Monster Who Did It

"If an offender has committed murder, he must die. In this case, no possible substitute can satisfy justice. For there is no parallel between death and even the most miserable life, so that there is no equality of crime and retribution unless the perpetrator is judicially put to death." Immanuel Kant [The Metaphysics of Morals, 1797]

British prosecutors charged a leftist cretin, Joshua Kerry, 28, with the murder of ex-politician and reality TV contestant Ann Widdecombe. I don't often write about UK news, but this one is no different than the incidents we are seeing in the United States and all over Western nations.

"We have charged Joshua Kerry, a 28-year-old British national, of Burley Road, Rotherham, South Yorkshire," officials announced after the former lift company [they call elevators 'lifts' in merry old England] worker drove more than 260 miles to the elderly conservative icon's home in Devon, drooling into his crotch the entire journey.

Court details revealed Kerry allegedly arrived in a red Vauxhall Corsa on July 8 and proceeded to attack Widdecombe while she ate lunch. Prosecutors told the court she was hit on the head repeatedly with a hammer, with reports specifying as many as 21 strikes.

The suspect, described as a white British national [which is incredibly more accurate in description than UK news describes Muslim perpetrators as "Asians"] living alone in a council house in Rotherham, was initially held on suspicion of murder before additional charges related to the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism were considered.

Counter-terrorism police confirmed the investigation into his motivations continues, but he is, after all, a leftist and we all know how violent they've become when people have different opinions.

The real outrage is not just the crime but the predictable circus that follows. Here is a man who apparently could not build a life worth living, so he chose to destroy one instead.

A 78-year-old woman, a former government minister known for her unapologetic conservative views and plain speaking, targeted in her own kitchen. Kerry did not debate her because he doesn't have the capacity to do so. He did not write a strongly worded letter because writing is for losers. Instead, he picked up a hammer and used it like a coward who had run out of arguments and ideas if he even ever had one of those things.

Progressive voices will no doubt rush to blame "toxic masculinity," "austerity," "Brexit trauma," or whatever flavor of societal excuse is trending this week in the UK. They will demand we "understand his pain" and "address root causes."

Meanwhile, the actual root cause sits in custody: a grown man who traveled across England specifically to cave in the skull of a defenseless grandmother because he could not handle the fact that she existed and disagreed with him.

Ann Widdecombe spent decades fighting for traditional values, exposing nonsense, and refusing to bow to the cultural mob. Joshua Kerry spent his time likely picking his nose while apparently plotting the perfect hammer-based solution to political disagreement. One built a career. The other destroyed a life and now faces the consequences.

Sadly, there is no death sentence in the UK as it has been totally abolished.

The quotes remain unchanged because the facts do not need softening. Kerry is charged with murder. The victim was hit repeatedly with a hammer as she ate lunch. No amount of hand-wringing about "mental health" or "systemic failures" erases the simple truth that one man chose evil and acted on it.May justice be swift.

And may the rest of the left stop pretending every act of barbarism is society's fault instead of the fault of the barbarian who committed it.

Woke/leftism, is a mental illness.


I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply 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 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

AOC Opposes Abolishing Senate Because She Still Needs Somewhere To Call Everything 'Jim Crow': here's some facts of which she is oblivious

Not our brightest or best

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez clarified Thursday that she does not support her fellow Democratic Socialists' plan to abolish the U.S. Senate, explaining that it would be far too difficult to eliminate an institution before first accusing it of every historical crime ever committed.

Speaking with reporters on Capitol Hill, the New York congresswoman declined to endorse the Democratic Socialists of America's latest wish list, which includes abolishing the Senate, replacing the presidency with a prime minister, restructuring the judiciary, and apparently seeing how many pages of the Constitution can be fed into a paper shredder before lunch.

"That is, of course, a constitutional question," Ms. Ocasio-Cortez told reporters, acknowledging that even revolutionary manifestos occasionally run into inconvenient details like the Constitution.

While stopping short of supporting the Senate's elimination, Ocasio-Cortez made it clear she still considers the chamber historically suspect.

"We've all got our complaints," she said. "I don't support the filibuster. I don't support elements of this institution that we know were founded on Jim Crow."

[The term 'Jim Crow' comes from a 19th century minstrel show character, Thomas Dartmouth "Daddy" Rice. He performed in blackface [see also Jimmy Kimmel, and Justin Trudeau] singing to "Jump Jim Crow," where he portrayed a stereotypical buffoonish Black man. Thus, the name "Jim Crow" became a derogatory slur for Black people, and by the end of the 19th century it was even applied to the segregation laws. 

After the Civil War and the 13th Amendment ended slavery (1865) Democratic Southern states continued to limit the freedoms of Black people by passing Jim Crow laws (1870s - 1960s). 

When federal troops withdrew from the South in 1877 (as part of the Compromise of 1877 that ended Reconstruction), Southern Democrats regained full control and systematically rolled back Black political and civil rights gained during Reconstruction. By the 1880s to the 1890s the South went nuclear with Jim Crow laws. Public transportation, restaurants, schools, parks, hospitals and restrooms, were segregated. Interracial marriages were outlawed and there were poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and additional roadblocks to disenfranchise Black voters [until they started voting for Democrats].

But by the mid-20th  century, Jim Crow laws began crumbling. In 1954 Brown v. Board of Education was the start, followed by the Montgomery Bus Boycott ignited by Rosa Parks, the sit-ins of the 1960s; the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which banned public segregation and employment discrimination; and finally the 1965 Voting Rights Act that outlawed discriminatory voting practices.

During the entire Jim Crow era, (approximately 1877 to the mid-1960s) it was the Democratic Party's Southern wing that was responsible for creating, passing, defending and enforcing Jim Crow laws.

For example, President Wilson, a Democrat, segregated the federal workforce in 1913. And the Southern Democrats dominated Congress for decades and used seniority and the filibuster to block civil rights legislation; not the Republicans who fought against it. By 1948, Southern Democrats broke away from the Dixiecrat party in order to defend segregation. 

Meanwhile, Republicans were generally supportive of civil rights at this period. So Black voters in the South overwhelmingly supported the GOP in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as national Republicans overwhelmingly opposed Jim Crow measures. 

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 were signed by Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, it faced strong opposition from Southern Democrats in Congress and it was the Republicans that provided the crucial votes to overcome filibusters. However, this realigned the two parties as the Democrats took credit for both Acts and Black voters in the South, began voting Democratic. 

Bottom line: Jim Crow was a Southern Democratic project. While not every Democrat supported it (especially many Northern ones later on), the political machinery that built and maintained the system was overwhelmingly in Democratic hands in the South for nearly a century.]

Historians reportedly spent several hours trying to determine exactly how Congress, an institution created in 1789 managed to be "founded on Jim Crow," which emerged nearly a century later, before concluding that modern political rhetoric no longer observes the constraints of linear time.

The Democratic Socialists' platform also calls for replacing the presidency with a parliamentary system, making the judiciary subordinate to Congress, ending American support for Israel, and prosecuting U.S. and Israeli leaders for what it describes as "genocide in Gaza." Political observers noted that the platform appears to have been assembled by asking, "What if Reddit moderated the Federalist Papers?"

Constitutional scholars pointed out that abolishing the Senate would require an amendment approved by two thirds of Congress and ratified by three quarters of the states, making the proposal only slightly more realistic than getting every member of Congress to voluntarily delete their social media accounts.

Although Ocasio-Cortez has been floated as a potential 2028 presidential candidate with support from the DSA, she insisted she is not currently running for another office.

"I could run for dog catcher," she said with a chuckle. "So I think any situation is hypothetical."

Sources confirmed that within minutes, several progressive activists demanded the office of dog catcher also be abolished because golden retrievers have historically benefited from systemic privilege.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply 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 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

Prosecutor Mistakenly Believes "Conflict Of Interest" Is a Dating App Feature

Apparently someone interpreted the phrase "get involved in the case" far more literally than the law intended.

A Missouri prosecutor was removed from office after allegedly carrying on an affair with an illegal immigrant that her own office was investigating for sexual assault. I guess this proves that some public officials hear the phrase "equal justice under the law" and think it means equal opportunity dating.

Ray County Prosecutor Camille Johnston allegedly entered into a romantic relationship with a Mexican national who had been living in the United States illegally since 2019. According to court documents, the man even lived with Johnston for a time. Authorities say this was just one of three alleged affairs that created conflicts of interest, which is an impressive achievement considering most prosecutors try to avoid even one.

Court documents allege Johnston failed to disclose the relationship to the alleged sexual assault victim, law enforcement, or members of her own office. She also allegedly "failed to bring any criminal charges because of her relationship with" the Mexican national [aka illegal alien]. Legal experts confirmed this is generally considered an unconventional prosecutorial strategy.

According to court documents, the illegal alien later fled to Mississippi, where Johnston allegedly visited him before the pair vacationed together in Florida. This really gives "active criminal investigations" a bad name.

The documents also allege Johnston drove to Mississippi in 2023 and gave the fugitive the title to her vehicle. Authorities eventually arrested him in Ohio in 2024, apparently after concluding that law enforcement, rather than romantic gestures, remained the preferred method of locating fugitives.

KSHB reported that the alleged sexual assault occurred while Johnston and the suspect were involved in bumping boots, a detail that somehow makes the story even more astonishing.

The affair was reportedly only one entry in what court documents portray as an unusually active social calendar. Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway alleged Johnston also engaged "in an intimate and romantic relationship with a criminal defense attorney representing numerous criminal defendants" whose cases were being prosecuted by Johnston's own office.

Johnston was eventually disqualified from handling the sexual assault case, ending what may have been the least objective prosecution since someone decided Lady Justice should peek under the blindfold.

Hanaway accused Johnston of treating her office like her "personal playground."

"When an elected official treats public office like their personal playground, betraying the public trust, ignoring legal obligations, and putting self interest first, removal isn’t a suggestion, it’s a necessity," Hanaway said.

"Johnston’s record reflects a sustained pattern of misconduct and willful neglect that has undermined the integrity of the prosecutor’s office and poses a serious threat to public safety. In Missouri, public office is public trust, not a personal entitlement, and no one is above accountability," she said.

In other words, the "Show Me" state doesn't mean "I'll show you mine if you show me yours."  

Court documents also allege Johnston entered "another romantic relationship" with a married domestic violence suspect, suggesting her office may have been operating under a bold new legal philosophy in which prosecutors personally interview defendants over candlelit dinners.

When an employee discovered the alleged affair, Johnston reportedly fired her. Police later requested that a special prosecutor take over the domestic violence case, presumably because "dating the defendant" had not yet been added to Missouri's list of recommended prosecutorial best practices.

Johnston was ultimately disqualified from prosecuting that case as well, leaving legal scholars to wonder whether the next edition of ethics training should simply begin with the words, "No, seriously. Don't date the suspects."

The bigger question is, why is she still working as a lawyer, much less a prosecutor?

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply 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 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

Anti ICE Protester Brings "Peaceful" Fire, Axes, Machete, And Manifesto To Federal Building

The modern activist has become remarkably efficient. Why settle for chanting slogans when you can arrive with fireworks, gasoline, axes, a machete, multiple knives, pellet guns, and a manifesto? Somewhere along the way, "mostly peaceful protest" apparently became an Olympic event.

The suspect accused of setting off an incendiary device outside New York City's federal immigration office has been identified by multiple news outlets as 43 year old military veteran Andrew Arrabaca. Witnesses reportedly saw him pushing a cart bearing the familiar activist slogan, "ICE off our streets." Apparently he interpreted that message less as a policy preference and more as an item on his daily to do list. In any case, he and his cart blended right in with the city's homeless so nobody paid much attention to him at first.

Authorities say Arrabaca poured what is believed to be gasoline outside 26 Federal Plaza, stacked fireworks on top of it, and lit the whole thing. The resulting incendiary device sparked a fire outside the building.

"At approximately 8:20 AM, an anti ICE rioter launched fireworks outside of 26 Federal Plaza, grazing a bystander and poured what is believed to be gasoline on the stairs of the entrance of the building and set it on fire," the Department of Homeland Security said Monday.

"Officers quickly recovered the suspect's bag, which contained what appeared to be two pellet guns and a manifesto," the agency added.

Nothing says "my argument is well reasoned" quite like carrying a manifesto. History has been unkind to people who decide to publish their political philosophy one explosive device at a time.

According to authorities, the suspect was also carrying two axes, a hammer, a machete, and multiple knives. At this point the only thing missing was a partridge in a pear tree.

"When he was being arrested, he yelled derogatory terms to ICE, used bad words, obviously. He is an anti American, anti government extremist. We know that from what he said, we know that from what he has said post arrest, and we know that from his actions that he tried to take today," FBI New York Assistant Director in Charge James Barnacle Jr. said.

The New York Post reported that Arrabaca is a former U.S. Army and National Guardsman from Poughkeepsie, NY, home of the CIA [Culinary Institute of America]. 

Two federal employees and one civilian suffered minor injuries during the attack and were treated and released, according to Barnacle.

A Federal Protective Service officer "swiftly tackled and detained" the suspect while sustaining minor injuries, according to DHS.

The Jacob K. Javits Federal Office Building houses ICE's New York field office and an immigration court. During the Trump administration it has become a frequent destination for anti ICE demonstrations. Most protesters, of course, limit themselves to signs and slogans. This suspect apparently felt that wasn't dramatic enough.

The FBI's New York Joint Terrorism Task Force is investigating the incident. Which seems appropriate, because when your political statement involves gasoline, fireworks, edged weapons, and a manifesto, you've wandered a very long way from civic engagement.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply 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 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

Trump Promises Netanyahu Will Not Be Arrested In America While NYC Mayor Insists ICC Warrant Should Be Honored

President Donald Trump declared on Monday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not be arrested in any way shape or form while visiting the United States. The statement arrived just as New York City Mayor comrade Zohran Mamdani announced that the International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Netanyahu should be honored. 

In a Truth Social post Trump praised Netanyahu for fighting against the Islamic Republic of Iran and made clear that Iranian leaders not the Israeli prime minister are the ones who belong behind bars.

The only ones that should be arrested are the people that led Iran into this unprecedented SPIRAL OF DEATH AND DESTRUCTION something that should have been dealt with years ago by previous Presidents Trump wrote.The post followed an exchange on Fox News in which Mamdani was asked whether Netanyahu should face arrest if he came to New York City.

Mamdani replied that Netanyahu is the subject of an International Criminal Court arrest warrant over alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes. He described the allegations as facts of public record and stated that ICC warrants should be honored whether they involve Netanyahu Russian President Vladimir Putin or whomever else.

When pressed on whether his own administration would carry out such an arrest Mamdani declined to commit and said New York City would follow all applicable local laws. 

The ICC issued its warrants for Netanyahu in November 2024 over claims tied to the fighting in Gaza. The United States has never been a member of the court--that is an important factor since they have zero jurisdiction over the U.S. Constitution.

Last week Secretary of State Marco Rubio launched efforts to push back against the international body. The State Department described the ICC as an intolerable threat to U.S. sovereignty that now seeks to become the unaccountable global arbiter positioning itself above and beyond the nation state as a supranational enforcement arm of a globalist bureaucracy empowered to persecute American servicemen and officials at will. 

The department added that no diplomatic option will be off limits in the campaign to dismantle the threat posed by the ICC to Americans.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply 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 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

Violence Against Institutions Is Still Violence

There is a revealing tendency in modern politics to excuse intimidation when it is directed at the "right" targets. The latest incident outside New York City's ICE office is another reminder that political extremism rarely begins with grand acts of terror. It begins with the steady normalization of threats, harassment, and the belief that ideological opponents deserve fear rather than debate.

On Monday morning, a man believed by law enforcement sources to be an anti ICE activist allegedly deployed an incendiary device outside 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan while armed with two airsoft rifles, triggering a federal terrorism investigation.

At least two people were injured after the suspect allegedly "menaced" bystanders with the airsoft rifles, according to MS NOW. Five law enforcement sources told the outlet the suspect appeared to be an anti ICE radical.

Video from the scene showed smoke billowing near the entrance of the federal building as ICE agents, FBI personnel, and other officers rushed outside with weapons drawn. Federal Protective Service officers quickly took the suspect into custody. Authorities shut down the surrounding sidewalk and evacuated the building while investigators secured the area.

According to the FBI, the incident unfolded at approximately 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

"This morning an individual deployed an incendiary device outside of 26 Federal Plaza. The individual has been taken into custody and the FBI New York Joint Terrorism Task Force is investigating the incident," the FBI said.

FBI Director Kash Patel later confirmed that there were "two minor injuries reported thus far."

Law enforcement sources told MS NOW that the incendiary device consisted of fireworks placed inside a shopping cart, soaked with an accelerant, and then set ablaze.

The New York Police Department also confirmed that a firearm was recovered in connection with the incident, although investigators have not yet established whether it belonged to the suspect or whether it was separate from the reported airsoft rifles.

The choice of location was hardly accidental. Twenty six Federal Plaza houses the New York City Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as a federal immigration court. It serves as the operational center for ICE enforcement activities across New York City's five boroughs and numerous surrounding counties.

The attack arrives against the backdrop of increasingly hostile rhetoric surrounding immigration enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security has previously warned of a dramatic rise in attacks targeting ICE officers, reporting a 3,300 percent increase in vehicle assaults during a recent period compared with the previous year.

Whether this case ultimately results in terrorism charges remains for investigators to determine. What is already beyond dispute is that attempts to intimidate public servants through violence represent an assault on the rule of law itself. A society that tolerates politically motivated intimidation because it is directed at unfashionable institutions soon discovers that violence rarely confines itself to one target. Once ideological fanaticism is excused, it has an unfortunate habit of expanding its ambitions.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply 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 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

People go ballistic online after Minnesota paper praises Tim Walz's clemency for child sex offender

In the upside down world of progressive journalism, the Minnesota Star Tribune has decided that pardoning a child rapist is cause for celebration. Their columnist went out of her way to defend Governor Tim Walz for shielding an illegal alien who spent years assaulting a ten year old girl. The piece even tried to equate the crime with January 6 to make the whole thing seem reasonable.

Laura Ingraham and former Acting ICE Director Jonathan Fahey have spent plenty of time pointing out how Democrats handle illegal immigration and criminal justice these days. They keep running into cases where the rights of victims, especially children, get pushed aside while illegal aliens who commit serious crimes receive soft treatment.

One recent example involves a lenient sentence for an illegal alien truck driver in California. This Minnesota pardon fits right into that pattern.The paper's columnist, Rochelle Olson, wrote a section titled "Cheers to Gov. Tim Walz." She praised the governor and failed vice presidential candidate for refusing to back down from his vote.

The Minnesota Board of Pardons, made up of Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Chief Justice Natalie Hudson, voted unanimously on June 10 to grant clemency to Tou Lue Vang. Vang is a Laotian national who between 2002 and 2004 repeatedly raped a child. He was set to be deported when the pardon came through. Olson noted that Vang needed only two of three votes but received unanimous support. She mentioned a letter from the victim to the pardon board that supported clemency. She left out the details that the victim was a minor and that the assaults happened multiple times over two years.

A spokesperson for the paper defended the decision by saying the Star Tribune regularly publishes a wide range of opinions across the political spectrum. In this case, the columnist simply agreed with a unanimous pardon by the Minnesota state board of pardons, including Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison and state Supreme Court Chief Justice Natalie Hudson.To drive the point home, Olson compared Vang's crimes to January 6.

"Vang’s actions 20 years ago were awful, but so were the violent protests at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and those folks received presidential pardons," she wrote.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer saw it differently. "The Minnesota Star Tribune is cheering on Tim Walz protecting an illegal alien monster who raped a 10 year old girl. No one should read this depraved rag. They are sick," he said on X.

Online reactions were swift and sharp.

Dennis Neale wrote, "The Star Tribune likens repeatedly raping a 10-year-old girl to protesting in the Capitol on Jan 6. You fluppin’ idiots."

Another commentator observed, "Minnesota’s largest paper actually figured out a way to shove January 6th into this as a way to excuse an illegal immigrant who sexually assaulted a child. One of the most insane things I’ve ever seen."

Dustin Grage called the column "Absolutely disgusting." Claremont Institute senior fellow Jeremy Carl captured the larger problem. "The degeneracy of the modern left would be impossible to exaggerate because it is impossible to exaggerate infinity." Nick Freitas added, "Every time I think I despise the main stream media enough, they triple their efforts."

None of the pardon board's work or the column's defense mattered in the end. On July 10, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the illegal alien had been deported to Laos anyway.

Rubio laid out the facts plainly. "Just weeks ago, a foreign child rapist was freed to once again endanger America's children after receiving a pardon from Minnesota Governor Tim Walz," he told Fox News Digital. "Tue Lue Vang admitted to committing heinous crimes against a 10-year-old girl in Minnesota. He attempted to pay his victim for her silence and dismissed his acts of child abuse as a 'minor thing.'"

"Just days before he was scheduled to be deported, the Minnesota Governor pardoned him, setting him free to endanger American families once again," Rubio continued. "That's why I terminated his legal status in the United States. Vang has now been removed from our country and will never pose a threat to any American ever again."

Walz was not finished defending his choice. Days after the deportation he asked, "Did that make us any safer? Did that make the children that are left behind any more stable? Did it improve the idea that we can’t all be judged by our worst day?"

The question answers itself when the worst day in question involved years of raping a child. In the progressive mind, that apparently counts as something everyone should just move past, especially if the perpetrator is an illegal alien the government was ready to remove. The Star Tribune cheered the effort anyway. The rest of the country noticed the moral confusion and said so.

I want to thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to simply 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 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