The DOJ sues NY for giving illegal aliens discounts on college tuition and the middle finger to US citizens

I asked Grok, the AI tool of X whether the above meme is factual as there are myriad false claims made on X, formerly Twitter. I was slightly surprised to discover the statement is true, except for the characterization that illegal aliens are living lavish lifestyles from the tax dollars.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed lawsuits on August 10th this year against New York, along with Connecticut and Vermont, regarding policies and laws that provide in-state tuition rates and related financial scholarships and aid to "illegal aliens" at public colleges.

As Grok explains: 

This is part of a broader Trump administration campaign that has now targeted around 17–21 states. The DOJ argues these policies violate federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1623(a)) and the Supremacy Clause because they confer residency-based postsecondary benefits on people not lawfully present while denying the same rates to U.S. citizens from other states.

nytimes.com

New York law (including provisions tied to the 2019 Senator José Peralta New York State DREAM Act) allows qualifying illegal immigrant students who attended a New York high school for a set period, graduated, and applied to college within a certain window to pay in-state rates at SUNY and CUNY campuses and access some state financial aid. 

Typical figures cited: roughly $7,070–$7,700 in-state versus $17,730 or more (sometimes much higher, e.g., over $30,000 at some campuses) for out-of-state students. Public colleges receive state taxpayer subsidies, so the discounted rate is a taxpayer-supported benefit.

As Grok explains, "Living lavish off our tax dollars" is rhetorical exaggeration. In-state tuition is a discount relative to out-of-state rates, not free luxury living; the students still pay tuition.

So the legal issue highlighted by the DOJ is the unequal treatment of out-of-state U.S. citizens versus in-state illegal alien residents. New York residents who actually are citizens get the same in-state tuition rate.

There is another caveat: eligibility isn't automatic for all illegal aliens; they must meet specific high school and residential criteria.

The meme shows New York City Mayor and comrade  Zohran Mamdani and Attorney General Todd Blanche. While Blanche is involved in this issue, Mamdani is not, but probably wishes he was. The photo is only being used to politically frame rather than being a literal scene from the lawsuit.

New York officials have said they are reviewing the suit and expect the state's policies to be upheld. Similar cases in other states have produced mixed court results so far. The meme's wording is partisan and hyperbolic, but the underlying news event it describes happened.

Thanks for following Brain Flushings. Please take time to check out the sponsors on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything to do so. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly. And finally, don't be afraid to subscribe if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and worth the cost.

Tweet

Grok reveals more on Graham Platner

I asked Grok, "Did Graham Platner work for Blackwater?" And after 4 whole seconds I received this response: 

Yes, Graham Platner worked for a successor company to Blackwater (now known as Constellis), though he has publicly stated that he "never worked for Blackwater." 

His role: Platner worked as a State Department security contractor (e.g., protecting an ambassador or similar duties) in Afghanistan for about six months around 2018, after his U.S. military service (Marines and Army National Guard, with tours in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Company connection: He was employed by Constellis Holdings, the parent company that absorbed Blackwater (rebranded as Xe Services in 2009 and later merged into Constellis). Blackwater/Constellis provided private security and other services for the U.S. government.

Platner's response: He has denied direct employment with the original Blackwater, calling out the association as inaccurate or a technicality. Critics argue this is splitting hairs since Constellis is the direct successor with the same core business and legacy. ContextThis has become a point of controversy in his 2026 U.S. Senate campaign in Maine (as a Democrat challenging Susan Collins). Opponents and some progressives have highlighted it alongside his veteran background, past social media posts, and a tattoo he later covered up. Supporters note it was short-term government-contracted work and that he became disillusioned with U.S. involvement abroad afterward. Sources include news outlets like Politico, Central Maine, and public discussions on the topic. Wikipedia and his campaign materials focus more on his oyster farming and Marine Corps service but don't contradict the contractor stint.

So Platner said he didn't work for Blackwater and he is technically correct because the company was swallowed up by Constellis. And this is how he gets away with his lie.

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

How Zohran Mamdani can be removed from office

This smile is the main reason he got elected

I asked Grok this question: Can New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani be removed from office? The following is what the AI responded and put in my own words:

The New York City mayor can't be "impeached" in the way we think of the term from the federal level or even the state governor's process; no legislative trial, no articles voted up or down by a City Council acting as a Senate. The NYC Charter and state law don't provide for anything that dramatic or theatrical. Instead, there are two paths to showing a mayor the door, and both are more about removal for cause than a full-blown political spectacle.

First, and by far the most straightforward (if politically explosive), is the governor's power. 

Under Section 9 of the City Charter, and backed by the state Constitution (Article XIII, sections 5 and 13) plus Public Officers Law §33, the governor of New York can simply remove the mayor. It's broad, almost sweeping authority with remarkably few guardrails. The process is this: the governor lays out charges (misconduct, corruption, dereliction of duty, whatever the executive deems sufficient), serves them on the mayor, and gives the target a chance to respond at a hearing. While that's pending, the governor can suspend the mayor for up to 30 days. If the charges stick after due process, out goes the mayor.

This isn't some theoretical relic; it's real authority, exercised rarely but memorably. Think back to 1932, when Governor Franklin Roosevelt had Mayor Jimmy Walker in his sights over bribery and corruption allegations. Walker resigned before the axe fell, but the threat was credible. Courts haven't cabined this power much, so the governor has wide discretion on what qualifies as removable offenses. In the context of recent events (say, federal indictments hanging over City Hall), people have pointed to Governor Kathy Hochul's leverage here, even if political realities make pulling the trigger a high-wire act. It's easy on paper, potentially devastating in practice.

The second route is the City Charter's "Committee on Mayoral Inability," a clunkier, more internal mechanism designed for incapacity rather than outright malfeasance. This five-member panel includes the Corporation Counsel, the Comptroller, the City Council Speaker, a deputy mayor picked by the sitting mayor (talk about a potential conflict), and the longest-serving borough president. 

If four out of five agree that the mayor is temporarily or permanently unable to discharge the duties of the office, whether from health issues, legal entanglements that paralyze governance, or misconduct that renders effective leadership impossible, they can refer it to the full City Council.

Then the Council weighs in: a two-thirds vote (at least 34 of 51 members) is needed to confirm permanent removal or a suspension. It's a high bar, deliberately so, to avoid rash or partisan overreach. No mayor has ever been permanently ousted this way, which tells you how politically fraught and logistically challenging it would be, especially with that mayor-selected deputy potentially acting as a loyal blocker. But no mayor has been so far to the left and so obviously antisemitic as the present clown in office.

In either scenario, removal doesn't require a criminal conviction; charges or a finding of incapacity suffice, with due process baked in to satisfy constitutional concerns. If it happens, the Public Advocate steps in as acting mayor, and a special election follows for a permanent replacement. The system prioritizes stability over swift political justice; stability for the city, headaches for everyone else involved.

If you enjoy  Brain Flushings and would like to subscribe or Buy Me a Coffee, or even 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. So is checking out the advertisers on the blog.

Bottom line: no impeachment circus, just two very different levers, one gubernatorial sledgehammer, one cumbersome city committee, and neither gets pulled lightly. But when the pressure builds, as it has in recent years, those options suddenly look a lot more real.

The garbage is piling up on the streets; five thousand NYPD hiring slots are not going to be filled; and the calls to Islamic prayer are being blasted on city streets. 

The dead from 911 are rolling in their graves.

Tweet

Finally, Some Sanity: Trump Admin, RFK Jr. Slam the Brakes on Child Mutilation Nationwide

The Trump administration is dropping the hammer on the barbaric practice of child gender transitions [aka genital mutilations] across America. On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services, led by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., rolled out sweeping proposals that would yank Medicare and Medicaid funding from any hospital daring to perform these irreversible procedures on kids, whether it's pumping them full of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or going under the knife.

This comes hot on the heels of President Trump's early second-term executive order reversing Biden's radical trans agenda. As Trump put it: "my Administration will defend women's rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognize women are biologically female, and men are biologically male."

RFK Jr. signed off on a declaration backed by peer-reviewed evidence stating that "these procedures do not meet professionally recognized standards of health care." He went further, blasting the practitioners pushing this on minors as being "out of compliance" with basic medical standards.

"The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, peddled the lie that chemical and surgical sex rejecting procedures could be good for children who suffer from gender dysphoria," Kennedy said. And just a day earlier, the House passed legislation to outright criminalize these irreversible child transitions.

"They betrayed the estimated 300,000 American youth, ages 13 to 17, conditioned to believe that sex can be changed, they betrayed their Hippocratic oath to do no harm. So called gender affirming care has inflicted lasting physical and psychological damage on vulnerable young people. This is not medicine. It is malpractice we're done with junk science driven by ideological pursuits, not the well being of children."

This is a massive win for anyone grounded in biological reality: no one can actually switch sexes. 

The whole push for child transitions is about making confused kids "pass" better as adults through puberty blockers to halt natural development, followed by opposite-sex hormones that trigger things like beard growth and voice deepening in girls, or stunted height and breast development in boys. The results turn out to be sterility, brittle bones, cognitive issues, atrophy, reduced genital function, and permanent damage.

Now, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is set to propose rules barring hospitals from these "sex-rejecting procedures" on anyone under 18 as a condition for federal funding. "Nearly all U.S. hospitals participate in Medicare and Medicaid and this action is designed to ensure that the U.S. government will not be in business with organizations that intentionally or unintentionally inflict permanent harm on children," HHS declared, citing clear authority under the Social Security Act to safeguard patient health.

On top of that, the FDA is firing off warnings to companies peddling chest binders to girls, devices that crush lungs and cause lasting damage, meant for post-mastectomy recovery, not hiding healthy development in kids chasing dysphoria.

HHS is also scrubbing gender dysphoria from the Biden-era disability list. 

"The rule would reassure recipients of HHS funding that policies preventing or limiting sex-rejecting procedures do not violate Section 504's disability nondiscrimination requirements," the department noted."Assistant Secretary of Health, Admiral Brian Christine, today, signed a public health message to inform health care providers, families and policy makers that current evidence does not support claims that puberty blockers cross sex hormones and surgeries are safe and effective treatments for pediatric gender dysphoria," Kennedy said.

"These announcements are grounded in evidence and shaped by compassion. President Trump has made Child Protection a national priority. ... sex rejecting procedures rob children of their futures. ... today's revenue for sex rejecting drugs and surgeries in 2023 were estimated in one study to exceed $4.4 billion and on track to exceed 7.8 billion by 2030."

About time someone called out this ideologically driven madness for what it is: child abuse disguised as "care." The left's grip on medicine is cracking, and kids might actually have a shot at growing up intact.

The fact is, a huge number of kids with gender confusion, or gender dysphoria, actually grow out of it in late adolescence. I asked Grok this question and here is the answer I got in part: 

Evidence from multiple longitudinal studies indicates that a majority of prepubertal children diagnosed with gender dysphoria (or earlier equivalents like gender identity disorder) who receive no medical or social transition interventions typically resolve their dysphoria by or after puberty, aligning with their birth sex.

Key Findings from Older Longitudinal Studies:

Older clinic-based follow-up studies (primarily from the 2000s–2010s, using DSM-IV criteria) consistently reported desistance rates (resolution of dysphoria) of 60–90%:A 2008 study of 77 children found 57% desisted by age 16+.

A 2013 Dutch study of 127 children reported 63% desistance.

A 2021 follow-up of boys with childhood gender concerns showed high desistance rates, often leading to gay or bisexual outcomes without dysphoria.

So it looks like Kennedy and the Trump administration has the best interest of our future generation in mind. What do you think? Feel free to comment.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. Imagine, you could be the first on your block to do that and your friends will thank you . . . for some reason.

Tweet

Trump Team Drops the Silverware Bombshell: Hillary's "Borrowed" China Cabinet Meets Trump's Fancy Footwork Floor

Ah, the White House—where the ghosts of scandals past waltz eternally with the drama of the present. On a recent episode of Fox News' Outnumbered, the panel dove headfirst into the Democratic dust-up over President Donald Trump's latest architectural fever dream: turning a chunk of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue into a ballroom big enough to host the entire cast of Dancing with the Stars... plus their egos.

In a plot twist straight out of a Capitol Hill soap opera, the Trump administration fired back at ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she mustered her Twitter troops to torpedo the Prez's 90,000-square-foot privately bankrolled bash palace. Their weapon of choice? A dusty 2001 doozy, accusing the former First Lady of absconding with White House swag like it was Black Friday at the Smithsonian.

"Failed presidential candidate and former First Lady Crooked Hillary stole furniture from the White House on her way out until she was forced to return it," White House spokesman Davis Ingle spilled to Fox News Digital on Wednesday, with the relish of a gossip columnist at high tea. "Crooked Hillary is shameless and a total disgrace."

"Meanwhile, President Trump is restoring the White House to its proper glory for Americans to enjoy for generations to come — at no expense to the taxpayer — something we should all celebrate," Ingle added, because nothing says "unity" like dredging up old linen lists.Clinton, never one to let a renovation go unchallenged, had taken to the digital barricades earlier that October, rallying the masses against Trump's ballroom bonanza—a taxpayer-free extravaganza aimed at shoehorning a mega-entertaining space into the people's palace.

The Trump administration took a shot at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she rallied Americans to reject President Donald Trump's White House ballroom construction project. (Alex Brandon/The Associated Press)

"It’s not his house," Hillary Clinton wrote on X Tuesday morning. "It's your house. And he's destroying it."

Oh, the irony—it hit faster than a dropped soufflé. Conservatives across the spectrum dusted off their 2001 highlight reels, replaying the tale of the Clintons' exit-stage-left luggage lift: an estimated $28,000 in donor-provided White House doodads that got packed up, only to boomerang back after the inventory elves cried foul. The power duo also forked over $86,000 to Uncle Sam for other inaugural swag, all chalked up to a "cataloging error" that sounds suspiciously like "oops, my bad" in legalese.

"Gifts did not leave the White House without the approval of the White House usher's and curator's offices," the Clintons declared in a 2001 statement, the verbal equivalent of crossing fingers behind their backs. "Of course, if the White House now determines that a cataloging error occurred ... any item in question will be returned."

When I asked Grok "did the Clintons take furniture and other things from the Whitehouse" the AI replied: 

Yes, there was a well-documented controversy in early 2001 when Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House, during which they took several pieces of furniture, artwork, and other household items that were later determined to belong to the government or were disputed by donors. However, the situation is nuanced: many of the items were personal gifts they were legally entitled to accept and keep under federal rules (which allow presidents to retain gifts valued over $375 after disclosure), while others were intended as donations to the White House residence and were returned voluntarily after media scrutiny and donor clarifications.Key Details from Investigations and ReportsWhat Was Taken? Upon departing, the Clintons shipped out about 950 items worth roughly $360,000 in total, including furniture (e.g., sofas, chairs, rugs, and tables valued at around $68,000 overall, with $38,000 kept initially), china, silverware, artwork, lamps, and other household goods. Some furniture had been donated specifically to the White House in 1993 for tax deductions by donors, but the Clintons treated them as personal property based on a 1994 White House Counsel memo.

Returns and Payments: In February 2001, following New York Times and Washington Post reports, the Clintons returned over $28,000 worth of disputed furniture and artwork (about 25 items, including sofas, a table, lamps, and a rug) to the National Park Service, which oversees White House furnishings. They also paid the government $86,000 to reimburse for other personal gifts received in their final months in office. Later that year, two minor items (a $1,725 easy chair and a $675 ottoman) were returned to the Clintons after NPS determined they hadn't been officially accepted as White House property.

So take that in your wet cigar, Hill and Bill.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slammed President Donald Trump's construction project at the White House to build a ballroom. (Alex Wong/Getty Images) The backlash ballroom? It was a conservative conga line. Lawmakers and meme lords piled on, turning Clinton's tweet into a piñata party.

"At least he didn’t steal the silverware," Texas Sen. Ted Cruz posted to X Tuesday, because nothing disarms a dig like a dash of utensil-based shade.

"Hi Hillary, Remind us, wasn’t it you who walked off with $28,000 in White House furniture when you moved out?" conservative influencer Benny Johnson posted to X. "And your husband who defiled the Oval Office during his presidency? President Trump’s funding a beautiful new ballroom out of his own pocket."

"A Clinton would never defile the White House," former White House staffer Alex Pfeiffer shot back in response, dripping sarcasm thicker than White House gravy.

Fox News Digital pinged Clinton's camp repeatedly for a encore on her ballroom beef and the furniture fiasco mockery, but crickets echoed louder than a empty State Dinner hall.

Meanwhile, over in the demolition derby, the White House had already swung the wrecking ball at the East Wing to make room for Trump's terpsichorean triumph. (The Associated Press) Trump himself broke the glittery ground on Monday, because why whisper when you can trumpet? 

"I am pleased to announce that ground has been broken on the White House grounds to build the new, big, beautiful White House Ballroom," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Completely separate from the White House itself, the East Wing is being fully modernized as part of this process, and will be more beautiful than ever when it is complete!"

"For more than 150 years, every President has dreamt about having a Ballroom at the White House to accommodate people for grand parties, State Visits, etc.," President Donald Trump said. (Getty Images)

"For more than 150 years, every President has dreamt about having a Ballroom at the White House to accommodate people for grand parties, State Visits, etc. I am honored to be the first President to finally get this much-needed project underway — with zero cost to the American Taxpayer!" he continued. "The White House Ballroom is being privately funded by many generous Patriots, Great American Companies, and, yours truly. This Ballroom will be happily used for Generations to come!"

And just like that, the East Room gets an upgrade, the furniture files get a flip, and Washington waltzes on, proving once again that in politics, the only thing more enduring than a grudge is a good grudge match with a side of sequins.

If you like Brain Flushings and want to Buy Me a Coffee, I would appreciate it, as it supports my work. Obviously, there is no pressure but I certainly wouldn't stop you. 

Tweet

Was MSNBC's Al Sharpton's NAN in compliance with election law

Now that we know that the Kamala Harris campaign paid both HARPO and NAN, owned by Oprah Winfree and the very right "Reverend" Al Sharpton, respectively, I wondered just how legal the payments were in terms of election law. 

In the Oprah [HARPO] case, a million dollars was paid for her endorsement, and in the National Action Network [NAN] case, the very incredibly Reverend Sharptongue did a powderpuff interview [see below if you have a strong stomach] to make Harris appear lucid and NAN received $500 thousand in two installments of $250 thousand.

Oprah said that she didn't take any payment for kissing up to Harris, but we all know her company did, so there's that.

On the other hand, the very incredible right, race baiter Reverend Al Sharptongue did a media interview with Harris and was able to pull off the idea to the public that Harris is a political genius with ideas that go beyond the burden of time. Is that really legal since his company received payment for it?

Well, I went to Grok and asked it this question: is it legal for a campaign to pay a member of the media who has their own company, money for an interview?

The answer Grok gave me was this:

In the United States, the legality of a political campaign paying a member of the media for an interview can be a nuanced issue due to several factors:

Disclosure Requirements: If a campaign pays for an interview, this payment must be disclosed. [My italics.] According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), any public communication that is paid for by a campaign, political party, or political action committee (PAC) requires a disclaimer identifying who paid for it. This means the media member or their company would need to reveal that the interview was paid for by the campaign.

Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA): Contributions from corporations are prohibited, which could extend to payments for interviews if they're considered contributions rather than payments for services. However, if the media member's company is not incorporated or falls under a different legal structure like an LLC treated as a partnership, different rules might apply.

Personal Use of Campaign Funds:Campaign funds can be used for campaign-related expenses, but not for personal use. Paying for an interview might be seen as a campaign expense if it's clearly for the purpose of promoting the candidacy or discussing campaign issues.

Journalistic Ethics:Even if legal, accepting payment for interviews by journalists or media members can be ethically questionable. Many journalistic codes of ethics prohibit such payments to maintain impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

Independent Expenditures: If the media member's company is making an independent expenditure (not coordinated with the campaign), they could spend money on communications supporting or opposing candidates without violating contribution limits, as long as there's no coordination with the campaign.

Regulatory and Public Perception: While there might not be a direct legal prohibition against paying for an interview, the practice could attract scrutiny from regulatory bodies like the FEC or lead to public outcry if perceived as an attempt to buy media coverage or influence editorial content.

Conclusion: Legally, if the payment is disclosed and the media member's company complies with campaign finance laws (like not being a corporation that can't contribute directly to campaigns), it could be argued that it's permissible. However, this practice would be highly scrutinized for both legal compliance and ethical considerations. Campaigns often look for ways to engage with media, but direct payments for interviews might cross ethical lines for many in the journalism community, potentially affecting the credibility of both the journalist and the campaign.

So what do you think? 

It's incredible that the money NAN/Sharpton got from the Harris campaign was not disclosed and MSNBC needs to be held accountable.