Smiling anti-ICE agitator accused of punching FL trooper as Gov. DeSantis declarers, "This is not Minneapolis"

Smiling Cruz seen allegedly resisting arrest

Jennifer Cruz is seen allegedly resisting arrest in Florida. She was detained after allegedly punching a trooper in the face during an immigration enforcement operation, according to Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier.  

James Uthmeier

"This is Jennifer Cruz of Jacksonville," Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier wrote in an X post, sharing an image of the woman, who appeared to smile as law enforcement restrained her, but of course, it could have simply been gas.

Moments before she cracked a grin, video [below] shows Cruz kicking toward a female officer while other law enforcement members had already placed her hands behind her back.

"Jennifer disagrees with immigration enforcement and decided to commit a few felonies by getting out of her car and punching a Trooper in the face. But unlike Minnesota, we don't put up with this nonsense. Not today, Jennifer," Uthmeier wrote.

Authorities were seen restraining Jennifer Cruz, who allegedly punched a Florida trooper during an immigration enforcement operation. (@AGJamesUthmeier on X)

Footage shows a chaotic scene as authorities attempted to detain Cruz. As several officers placed her hands behind her back and walked her toward one of their vehicles, Cruz is seen attempting to kick another female officer nearby. Cruz then smirks as the officers detaining her place her on the hood of a vehicle. Once placed in the back of the vehicle, she is seen flailing her corpulent legs and continuing to shout at officers until the doors are slammed.

A News4JAX reporter spoke to Juan Alvarez, the owner of the Mi Pueblo grocery store which was near where the incident occurred. He said he witnessed a traffic stop involving a state trooper.

"ICE agents showed up with the state trooper. They detained the driver," he said.

"And so yeah, they had an operation going on. And after that, they had detained another person. But it seems they got into an altercation with that person. It turned violent," he said, noting that more law enforcement showed up.

Gov. Ron DeSantis Orlando, FL, Dec. 10, 2025. (Rich Pope/via Getty Images)

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis shared Uthmeier's post and wrote, "Really bad decision to attack one of our troopers. This isn't Minneapolis…"

DeSantis also mentioned the incident at an unrelated press conference on Thursday.

"I do know that there was a woman who came out and assaulted one of our troopers," DeSantis said. "Let me just tell you guys this is not Minneapolis. That is not going to end well for you in Florida."

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, (R-FL), quipped in a post, "Never go full Jennifer." [Jennifer is the new Karen.]

"This is how it's done. In Florida, we respect law enforcement and have no patience for far-left extremists who choose to defend dangerous criminals instead of their fellow Americans. This isn’t Minneapolis. In Florida, if you break the law, you will pay the consequences," Rep. Greg Steube, (R-FL), asserted on X.

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, and check out the sponsors on this page, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work and my coffee drinking habit. No pressure and subscribing is free.

Tweet

Guess what was also found in the FBI burn bags regarding Epstein

The deep state's house of cards is teetering, and FBI Director Kash Patel just lit a match under it. He's knee-deep in burn bags stuffed with thousands of documents tied to the Russian collusion hoax, and guess what? Tucked inside those bags was the appendix to the Durham report, the one that rips the mask off the whole sordid affair. Declassified and damning, it proves Hillary Clinton, our modern-day Lady Macbeth, personally green-lit the Trump-Russia smear campaign to kneecap her rivals. 

No surprise there; it's Clinton's brand of ruthless ambition.

But hold onto your tinfoil hats, because Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) dropped a bombshell on Benny Johnson's show: "Epstein files were found in those bags, too." Yes, those Epstein files, you know, the kind that make the swamp sweat bullets.

The deep state, from Obama's cronies to Biden’s DOJ goons, has been playing cloak-and-dagger, destroying evidence to cover their tracks. Par for the course, especially now that Trump is back in the Oval Office. They'll burn, shred, and bury anything that exposes their ops, no limits, no morals.

So, what's in those Epstein files? 

That's the billion-dollar question, and you already know why it's a black hole. The Trump Justice Department fumbled this one hard. Attorney General Pam Bondi got tongues wagging about a "client list," but there isn’t one. 

Now we're stuck in a mess of a process to sift through what’s legit and what’s just vile noise, like child porn they would rather keep buried.

Luna is on the warpath for answers, and God bless her for it. But buckle up because this fight is going to drag. The swamp doesn't go down easy.

Hey guys, if you enjoy Brain Flushings, I hope you'll consider supporting my work with a small donation to Buy Me a Coffee. It fuels my late-night writing sessions with fresh ideas. No pressure.

Tweet

NBC has proof Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK

Let us turn our gaze to a spectacle that threatens to shake the foundations of a narrative long held sacrosanct by the chattering classes of America. 

Astonishing allegations have emerged, not with a whisper but with the force of a thunderclap, concerning a hitherto unseen NBC video that might—just might—topple the official account of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. 

The claim comes courtesy of Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who chose the appropriately dramatic stage of “Jesse Watters Primetime” on Fox News to lob this particular grenade into the public square. According to Luna, this tape—shrouded in mystery like some lost artifact of a bygone age—purports to show Lee Harvey Oswald lingering near the vehicle in which JFK rode to his doom in Dallas, Texas, at a spot that would render his role as the shooter not merely implausible but impossible.

Luna, with the earnestness of someone who has stumbled upon a truth too big to keep quiet, declared, "I would like to actually tell the American people, it was made, uh, aware to me this evening that NBC actually has a video that's never been seen before. We're actually going to be... sending a letter requesting that from NBC, because it allegedly shows Oswald, um, near the vehicle when the assassination took place, which means that he couldn't have been the shooter. So again, we're tracking down all this information." 

If she's right—and that is a conditional of Himalayan proportions—this could dismantle the "lone gunman theory," a story clung to by officialdom with the desperation of a drowning man clutching driftwood.

To bolster her case, Luna invokes a CIA document, unearthed by the diligent journalist Jefferson Morley, which suggests that even the agency’s own mandarins harbored doubts about the solitary assassin tale. "There is even a CIA document that came out that Mr. Morley pointed out that actually said that the CIA never bought the lone gunman theory," she said, before adding with a note of quiet triumph, "I think the American people had an inclination as to what we were saying, but we never had the hard evidence until now." Here we see the specter of institutional skepticism, a crack in the edifice of certainty that has stood for decades.

And then there is Trump, who, earlier this month, flung open the JFK files with the flourish of a man who enjoys nothing more than upending the apple cart. Luna, ever the patriot, lauds this act of disclosure: "In a free and fair society, how could you operate or have an agency operating in the shadows? Kudos to President Trump, also Director [John] Ratcliffe, and Tulsi Gabbard for pushing for this transparency. It is going to be generational changing that they've done this." She vows to pursue legislation to banish such opacity from government corridors forevermore, though her immediate crusade is to wrench this elusive video from NBC’s grasp.

When Fox News host Jesse Watters—a man whose bluntness could fell an oak—pressed her on whether NBC had been deliberately squirreling away this tape, Luna did not flinch: "Correct. In fact, uh, Director [Oliver] Stone actually told us that he was showed this tape, uh, that it was a secondary copy, and that he said that this could blow open the entire JFK, um, investigation. What I will also tell you though, Jesse, is he said that NBC's been very, very much so guarding this tape, and so I believe that that tape belongs to the American people." If Oliver Stone, that perennial gadfly of American complacency, is to be believed, we are on the cusp of a revelation that could rewrite history—or at least make for a riveting documentary.

Luna’s call to arms is clear: "We are going to be sending a letter asking for that tape, and I would encourage everyone to ask NBC to release that tape to the public. It's important not just for our investigations, but so the American people know the truth as to what happened with John F. Kennedy." The tweet from Watters amplifies the drama: 

"BREAKING:

@realannapaulina tells Primetime that NBC has a secret tape that shows Lee Harvey Oswald near JFK's vehicle when the assassination took place... which would mean he wasn't the shooter. pic.twitter.com/SI34rf2HPG— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) March 29, 2025."

Should these claims hold water, they could reignite a debate that has smoldered since November 22, 1963, forcing Americans to reconsider what they thought they knew. 

But let us not be hasty. Does this tape exist? Does it show what Luna claims? I remain, as ever, a skeptic. She has not seen it herself, and until it materializes—until we can scrutinize it with our own eyes—I shall not be persuaded. The truth, like a rare jewel, must be held up to the light, not merely dangled as a promise.

"Hey, if you’re enjoying this blog as much as I enjoy writing it, feel free to fuel my caffeine addiction over at Buy Me a Coffee – no pressure, just good vibes!"

Tweet

Republicans promise to stop leftist judges from stopping Trump's mandate

The Democrats are clutching their pearls and singing the sweet hymn of "separation of powers" again. This time, it’s over a D.C. circuit court judge—Obama appointee James Boasberg, naturally—whose daughter works with illegal aliens and slammed the brakes on the Trump administration’s plan to deport suspected Tren de Aragua gang members back to Venezuela. This would ensure his daughter wouldn't run out of clients in the future.

The lefties are calling it a noble stand for "due process." Republicans? They’re calling it what it is: a judge drunk on his own power, scribbling outside the lines. And they’re already plotting to make sure this judicial joyride doesn’t happen again.

This is just the latest episode in the Trump administration’s injunction-palooza—over a dozen district court judges across the country have been playing whack-a-mole with his policies. On Wednesday, a federal appellate court said, “Nah, we’re good,” refusing to pause Boasberg’s weekend special: a temporary restraining order blocking Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to ship out Venezuelan nationals.

Cue the House Judiciary Committee, which is gearing up for an “activist judges” hearing next week to figure out how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) appeared on Fox News Digital, sounding like the voice of reason: “I think the administration’s doing the right thing by fighting it legally.” He’s teasing a new bill to tackle this mess, too. “We’ll be looking at that next week,” he said, probably while polishing his spurs.

Then there’s Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), who’s ready to unleash the full GOP legislative toolbox. “We’ll do everything that we can… to ensure that they are doing what’s right by the American people and then also following through on our constitutional obligations,” she told the outlet.

Luna dropped a truth bomb, too: “Right before President Trump took office, the Democrats actually knowingly made admissions that they were appointing obstructionist justices in order to undermine what the president’s agenda was.” Gee, who could’ve seen that coming? Even Chuck Schumer referred to them as "progressive judges."

Oh, and Luna's take on judges meddling in foreign policy? “Those judges are not elected to office to interpret or set foreign policy perspective. That is the entire job of the administration.” Mic drop.

But the Dems aren’t going down without a fight—or at least a sanctimonious lecture. Rep. Jesús García (D-IL) droned on about “due process” like it’s a sacred mantra, predicting the courts will “chime in strongly on this as they have already, in many instances.” Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) chimed in with, “I believe in the separation of powers and the federal courts are an equal branch of government.”

Thanks for the civics lesson, Greg. Meanwhile, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA)—yes, that Swalwell—called Trump “insane” for daring to label Boasberg a “radical left lunatic of a judge” who deserves impeachment. “The judiciary has to be independent whether it goes for you or against you,” Fartboy huffed. “We can’t let politics invade judicial decisions, and wanting to impeach a judge is just insane.” Pot, meet kettle.

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) took it a step further, arguing Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act might be a stretch because—get this—there’s no declared war. “The Alien Enemies Act is a law. It’s a law that has to be followed… they’re saying you have to actually follow the law, which is kind of a judge’s job,” he said, oozing smugness. “But it’s pursuant to a declaration of war. There has not been a declaration of war.” Slow clap for Captain Technicality.

Flip the script, and Republicans are asking the real question: “Who the hell do these robe-wearing overlords think they are?” Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) didn’t mince words: “A district in the east, or whatever, to be able to do an injunction and apply it to the whole country, they shouldn’t have the ability to do that. They shouldn’t do it.”

Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-OH) got poetic on the Capitol steps, pointing to the Supreme Court’s “equal justice under law” inscription. “When you have jurists that are acting in an unconstitutional manner… they need to go, period,” he said. “We’re coequal branches of government. That dude, he’s not a king.”

Rep. Michael Rulli (R-OH) called the whole activist-judge power trip “really scary.” “As far as the low-lying judges, it’s a little bit scary to think that they could actually stop the progression of a federal movement where you have the executive branch which should be the final say,” he told Fox. His fix? “My party needs to be very methodical about how we fix it, and we have to codify law to make sure that we can prevent this from happening again.” He’s not holding his breath, though: “It’s probably not going to be the fastest movement.”

So here we are: Democrats clutching their “separation of powers” security blanket, Republicans ready to rewrite the rulebook, and a bunch of unelected judges playing kingmaker. Just another day in D.C.

"Hey, if you’re enjoying this blog as much as I enjoy writing it, feel free to fuel my caffeine addiction over at Buy Me a Coffee – no pressure, just good vibes!"

Tweet

House rejects censuring Schiff including 20 GOPers who voted with them

The Republican-led House of Self-Interested Representatives on Wednesday voted against a formal censure of Rep. Adam "Shiftless" Schiff (D-CA) for lying about collusion between Russia and former President Trump (R-USA) and claiming to have inside information from top secret sources.

Twenty GOPers joined the majority of progressive Democrats in voting 225-196 in favor of tabling the resolution to censure and condemn the lying Schiff, while seven cowardly members voted “present” and five did not cast a vote as they were out looking for their spines.

Take note of the following Republicans [in alphabetical order] who voted with the left to table the motion:

Reps. Kelly Armstrong (ND), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (OR), Juan Ciscomani (AZ), Tom Cole (OK), Warren Davidson (OH), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Kay Granger (TX), Garret Graves (LA), Thomas Kean Jr. (NJ), Kevin Kiley (CA), Young Kim (CA), Mike Lawler (NY), Thomas Massie (KY), Tom McClintock (CA), Mark Molinaro (NY), Jay Obernolte (CA), Mike Simpson (ID), Mike Turner (OH), David Valadao (CA) and little Steve Womack (AR).

The one Republican with the 'biggest set' was Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL). She was the person who brought forward the resolution, meant to be fast-tracked for consideration, and she referred it to the House Ethics Committee, an obvious oxymoron much like jumbo shrimp.

 The four-page resolution primarily accused Schiff of abusing his position and lying about the Russia matter, but also mentioned issues related to the Ukraine-focused impeachment inquiry against Trump. 

Unfortunately, the one issue that gummed up the bill and caused the GOP have the vapors was a clause calling for the pencil-neck geek to be fined millions of dollars if the panel found that he lied and abused sensitive information obtained from his former role in the House Intelligence Committee. He was kicked off the committee by the incoming Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).

Rep. Luna proposed a $16 million fine as it represents roughly half the cost of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian election interference.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said Schiff acted “unethically,” but the measure was not constitutional because it would violate the 8th and 27th Amendments regarding excessive fines and that it would require an election before a fine could be put into effect.

Rep. Luna tried to clarify that the financial penalty in the motion was a “suggested fine that can be paid with campaign funds, like any other fine levied by Ethics,” but that did not alleviate the concerns nor make it constitutional, unfortunately. 

“Allowing a majority of Congress to take $16 million (92 years of pay) from any member of Congress is shortsighted,” Massie tweeted after the vote. “Can we not imagine a time when this precedent would be used against conservatives? Fortunately it failed.”

Okay, okay, Massie is correct, but wouldn't it have been fun to have the resolution pass? Too bad Luna went overboard as Schiff lives to lie another day . . . at least for now.

So sure, we may want to vote those RINOs out who voted with the Democrats, but what they actually did was to act in a pro-constitutional, aka conservative, fashion.

Tweet

'Hanoi Jane' Fonda reported to Capitol Police by GOP Rep

Jane Fonda making cutesy face as North Vietnamese cannons fire at Americans

She should have been tried for treason in 1972 after giving aid and comfort to America's enemy, North Vietnam while American soldiers and Marines died, but she's a Hollywood actress, so it's okay. Heck, even John Kerry came back from Vietnam after serving a couple of months there and givingi himself a medal, and then declaring America the bad guys, but he's a Democrat, so it's okay.

Vietnam veterans ain't fond o' Jane and we will not say what she did was ever okay nor is her belated apology accepted. In fact, we hope she goes to hell holding hands with Kerry.

But Fonda's latest stance against Americans came during an appearance on the ABC braintrust show "The View," where the most intelligent, insightful and deep thinking Democrats speak about how much Donald Trump is to blame for everything from global warming to recent train derailments and chemical spills, and he should be put in prison for life.

The deep conversation last Friday delved into the area of homicide when Fonda reacted to some restrictions on abortions by the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court. The notion that killing the unborn is now against many state laws drove Hanoi Jane into a blood lust. She went so far as to suggest Democrats could start killing Republican adults.

“We’re not going back. I don’t care what the laws are. We’re not going back,” she said in her need to protect the abortion industry.

Fonda was asked what can be done to protect the lawful killing of babies [put in gentler, friendlier terms] she replied, "I've thought of murder."

That didn't sit well with Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida.

Luna evidently has reported radical, America-hating, far-left activist Hanoi Jane to U.S. Capitol Police after she suggested “murder” as a way to deal with Republicans who oppose abortion.

Fonda later revised her rhetoric suggesting she was merely engaging in hyperbole.

But according to Luna, Fonda predictably inspired a maniac to direct a threat toward her office. The congresswoman laid into both the actress and ABC over the comments on Twitter. But you have to forgive The View  for their affirmative action by having the mentally challenged as co-hosts.

Luna tweeted:

I have notified Capitol Police of Jane Fonda’s call to murder pro-life politicians.

I am a pro-life member of Congress. As she did not retract or clarify that she was “joking” with her statement, we are taking this threat as a serious one.

Jane Fonda and The View, must issue a… https://t.co/BhUvQaH26Z

— Anna Paulina Luna (@realannapaulina)

Luna added, “Jane Fonda and The View, must issue a full retraction of Fonda’s sickening call to murder pro-life politicians and those who fight for the rights of unborn babies.”

Yeah, girls; if you're going to legally murder people, stick to babies because they can't stop you.

“This leads to targeting and can result in someone being seriously hurt,” she pointed out.

Luna concluded, “The View should be ashamed that they condone violence, especially against women elected officials as we are already targeted way more for stalking and violence way more than our male counterparts.”

While it is said that the Capitol Police take threats very seriously, you don't seriously believe that anything is going to be done about Hanoi Jane, do you?

The View pretends to advocate for women, but the only women they advocate for are those with the same political and ideological views.

Tweet