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

Socialist Candidate Reportedly Finds Love Right Where Democrats Always Said You'd Meet Mr. Right: Outside ICE Facility With Lawyer For Al Qaeda Terrorists

In what political strategists are already calling the Democratic Party's hottest new networking event, presumptive Democratic congressional candidate and Zohran Mamdani-backed socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier has confirmed she's dating Ramzi Kassem, the attorney best known for defending al Qaeda terrorists. Apparently Cupid has updated his résumé and now specializes in progressive legal circles.

Chevalier confirmed the romance in a statement to City & State.

"Ramzi Kassem and I met outside an ICE detention facility, both working to free someone unjustly held," she said. "Over the years, as we collaborated on different projects, our professional acquaintance became a friendship, which grew into a romantic relationship. I'm deeply grateful for such a loving, supportive partner – he's been a refuge these past few years."

Nothing says "modern romance" quite like meeting during an effort to oppose immigration enforcement. Hallmark reportedly has several scripts in development.

According to City & State, the couple officially got together in 2023 after Kassem assisted Chevalier with a graduate research paper analyzing "the racism and Islamophobia of a Customs & Border Protection anti-terror unit." Because if there's one thing guaranteed to bring two hearts together, it's critiquing the people trying to stop terrorists while dating the lawyer representing them.

Mamdani appointed Kassem as his chief legal counsel in January. Before becoming one of New York City's rising socialist insiders, Kassem built a career representing several Guantanamo Bay detainees, including Ahmed al-Darbi, who was convicted for the bombing of a French oil tanker, and Shaker Aamer, described as a "close associate of Osama bin Laden" who fought alongside al Qaeda during the Battle of Tora Bora.

Democrats once insisted six degrees of separation was enough to destroy a Republican career. Apparently, direct professional association now qualifies as diversity.

The ideological overlap hardly ends there. Both Kassem and Chevalier immersed themselves in anti-Israel activism during their years connected to Columbia University.

Kassem previously campaigned to rename an "Israeli wrap" in a campus dining hall because he argued the name was offensive to Muslims. Somewhere, the sandwich has likely entered a witness protection program.

Chevalier co-founded Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the militant student organization that openly supports Hamas's "armed resistance" and famously declared "Death to America" after the United States launched military operations against Iran. Kassem later defended Syrian-born Columbia activist Mahmoud Khalil after the Trump administration revoked his green card, proving once again that progressive legal work increasingly resembles a casting call for people who dislike America.

Political observers also noted that Chevalier's relationship with Kassem predates her congressional campaign, placing her squarely inside Mamdani's political orbit before securing his endorsement. City & State reported that Mamdani "has been aware of their relationship for some time" and even discussed Chevalier's campaign with Kassem before endorsing her.

Veteran Democrats might recognize the strategy. Kamala Harris famously dated California power broker Willie Brown before launching her own political career. The old saying is that it's not what you know, but who you know. In today's Democratic Party, it's apparently also who you're dating.

Republicans, meanwhile, are expected to continue making the rookie mistake of submitting résumés instead of relationship applications.

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

Democrats Shocked To Learn Man They Swore Was "Sharp As Ever" May Have Been Slightly Less Sharp Than A Butter Knife

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a stunning development that has left millions of Americans pretending to be surprised, former Democratic fundraiser Lindy Li [not to be confused with Lucy Lu] announced she will soon reveal the identities of party insiders who allegedly knew President Joe Biden was struggling cognitively while simultaneously assuring the public he was operating at peak mental performance.

Li, who has since fled the Democratic Party like a passenger spotting smoke in the cockpit, says her upcoming book Unburdened will expose a cast of political figures who privately worried about Biden's condition while publicly insisting that videos of him wandering off, freezing mid-sentence, and shaking hands with invisible people were merely examples of his unique leadership style.

"Whatever was out there, it wasn’t the truth. They wanted him to go, and also in my book, I will be telling people exactly who was aware of Biden’s cognitive decline but pretended otherwise," Li told Fox News Digital. [It's like blowing the lid off the aluminum siding industry, eh.]

According to Li, the Democratic establishment spent years perfecting the difficult art of watching the same events as everyone else and then claiming those events never happened.

One of the names reportedly appearing in the book is the execrable Sen. Adam Schiff, who allegedly expressed concerns privately while maintaining public support until Biden's debate performance made denial roughly as credible as insisting a raccoon was qualified to perform open-heart surgery.

"I remember getting a text from Schiff," Li said.

"I have it in my book. Basically, Adam Schiff was — I can’t remember what he said on TV, but I’m telling you right now that behind the scenes he very much wanted [Biden] to go."

A spokesperson for Schiff responded by noting that Schiff eventually voiced concerns publicly after Biden's now-famous debate performance, which featured several moments that caused viewers to wonder whether their television signal had frozen.

"The Senator’s concerns and call on President Biden to not run was very public, so none of this is news," the spokesperson said.

Li claims many Democrats remained silent because challenging Biden would have been politically dangerous, particularly after party polling suggested that no rival had enough support to overcome the incumbent. In other words, they put personal ambitions ahead of the security of the nation.

"They didn’t want to get ostracized by the party. It’s like the axiom: you come at the king; you better not miss. Everyone would have missed," Li said.

Party insiders reportedly concluded that opposing Biden was a risky proposition, especially when access to donor money, committee assignments, and favorable media coverage hung in the balance.

"There are many candidates who polled themselves against Biden and then realized that they couldn’t beat him in a primary. It wasn’t a matter so much of anti-Trumpism. It was self-interest," Li said.

"I’ve seen the polling data, and I also include that in my book, polling no one has seen before."

Li also claims internal polling suggested that Vice President Kamala Harris was viewed as a weak successor, despite years of media coverage assuring Americans she was both historically groundbreaking and universally beloved.

"She was the weakest candidate in the field," Li said.

"I also have polling data right before Kamala ascended. We stacked her against Buttigieg, Newsom, Shapiro, Whitmer — all of them," Li said.

Political analysts say the revelations confirm what many voters had suspected: that the greatest bipartisan achievement of the Biden era may have been convincing a large portion of Washington to ignore what millions of Americans could plainly see on their television screens.

Still, Li insists the story is more complicated than simple political calculation. She says Biden's personal relationships inspired genuine loyalty among longtime allies.

"He had decades of loyalty, his bond with people like James Clyburn," Li explained.

"There’s something about Joe Biden. He was incredibly kind," Li said.

At press time, Democratic strategists were reportedly scrambling to determine whether claiming they had always been concerned about Biden's condition might be more politically viable than insisting once again that videos of Biden appearing confused were actually sophisticated right-wing deepfakes.

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

Kamala Harris considers losing another presidential election

Harris doing her best attempt at sounding Black

Former Vice President Kamala Hahaharris (D) spoke at the National Action Network Convention with the hardly Rev. Al Sharptongue where she attacked the President and spoke with her black accent, but through her nose. She called President Trump a "mob boss" and made a poor attempt to impersonate him.

She also entertained us with her signature, nervous laugh.

She was interviewed by the race baiter and said that she's considering another attempt at running for president in 2028. Republicans are hoping she runs, because that would practically guarantee a win for the GOP.

“I’m thinking about it,” Harris honked, adding that her decision will depend on whether she believes she is the best person for the job.

“I spent countless hours in my West Wing office, footsteps away from the Oval Office. Countless hours in the Oval Office and the Situation Room,” she claimed. “I know what the job is and I know what it requires.”

So why didn't she do the least of what was asked of her as so called Border Czar?

"Giggles" also emphasized her broader message to voters, arguing that Americans are frustrated with government inefficiency. Drawing on her travels across the country, she said people “don’t want process, they want progress,” and stressed a need to cut government bureaucracy.

Speculation about Harris’s 2028 plans has laughingly grown in recent months, particularly after she declined to run for governor of California because she knew she'd lose. That decision was widely seen as keeping the door open for a presidential bid, but read the previous sentence.

While news of Harris possibly running again excited conservatives eager to see another “failed presidential run,” 

Sharpton, in the hope of perhaps getting a 'little trim', praised her during the interview, telling the audience that Democrats had already effectively chosen her when they voted for President Joe Biden.

“When we ended up with President Biden stepping back, there were some that said we need a primary, and we said we already had it. When we voted for Biden, we voted for Harris.”

No, when you vote in a presidential election, you generally vote based on who's running for president, not vice president.

Harris went on to rip Trump’s SAVE America Act, equating it to a poll tax and urging voters to check their registration status, claiming Trump has “cleaned voter rolls.”

Run Kamala, run.

Thank you for following Brain Flushings. Please consider to support my work simply by checking out the sponsors on this page. It really helps. You can even click on Buy Me A Coffee in the sidebar if you want to show your appreciation. It helps to keep me going, but really, there's  no pressure.

Tweet

Alexandria Obviously-Comatose does a Kamala Harris over China

Leftist New York Rep. Alexandria Occasionally-Comatose, better known as AOC, the bartender-turned-Bernie-cosplayer who somehow keeps getting reelected, had a real deer-in-the-headlights moment when someone dared to ask her a straightforward foreign policy question at the Munich Security Conference.

The panel included Michigan Gov. [Frau] Gretchen Whitmer (who also looked like she'd rather be anywhere else) and U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matt Whitaker. The topic was U.S. foreign policy, because apparently that's what passes for light chit-chat in Munich these days. 

When the moderator straight-up asked if the United States should "commit U.S. troops to defend Taiwan, if China were to move," our leftist AOC did what she does best: she umm-ed and ahh-ed her way into a word salad that could feed a vegan commune for weeks.

"I think that, uh, this is such a, you know, I think that this is a, umm, this is, of course, a uh, a very longstanding, umm, policy of the United States," she began, sounding like someone who'd just been asked to explain quantum physics after three espressos and zero sleep. "Uh, and I think that what we are hoping for is that we want to make sure we never get to that point, and we want to make sure we are moving in all of our economic research and our global positions to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise."

Translation: "Please don't make me say anything that might upset my base or require actual backbone." Classic dodge. She's hoping we can just vibe our way out of a Chinese invasion with some strong economic research and good intentions. Because nothing says "deterrence" like hoping really hard.

Earlier in the same panel, she tried to downplay the whole China thing by framing it as mere "competition" rather than, you know, the looming threat of actual conflict with a world power.

"I think China is, of course, an ascending global power, growing very quickly, acting in its own self interests,” she said, lying about thinking. "And oftentimes in Washington, there's this frame between conflict and competition. I think sometimes depending on what’s happening, that rhetoric can get a little conflict-driven, and I think that it's really a question of competition."

Sure, it's just friendly competition, like when your neighbor "competitively" parks his tank in your driveway and starts redecorating your house with the People's Liberation Army flag. No biggie.

Then, in a separate panel on "the rise of populism,"  AOC tried to explain Trump's foreign policy shift and how the globe reacted. What came out was this gem that left everyone scratching their heads sounded like a Kamala Harris giving a lecture on Boolean algebra:

"I think what we are seeking is a return to a rules-based order that eliminates the hypocrisies around when too often in the West, we look the other way for inconvenient populations to act out these paradoxes, whether it is kidnapping a foreign head of state, whether it is threatening our allies to colonize Greenland, whether it is looking the other way in a genocide. Hypocrisies are vulnerabilities, and they threaten democracies globally."

Huh? Kidnapping heads of state? Threatening to colonize Greenland? Looking the other way on genocide? She's clearly trying to dunk on Trump-era foreign policy, but it came out sounding like a Mad Libs entry written by someone who'd mainlined too much MSNOW [formerly MSNBC] and not enough reality. The audience probably needed a translator app just to figure out what she was mad about.

The mockery was swift and merciless, with plenty of folks drawing parallels to Kamala and her legendary word-vomit sessions on the campaign trail. Both AOC and Whitmer are being eyed as potential 2028 Dem presidential hopefuls, but if this Munich performance is any indication, neither one is ready for prime time when it comes to actual foreign policy questions. They looked like undergrads who crammed for the wrong exam.

In one particularly cringe-worthy exchange, Whitmer got asked about solving the Ukraine-Russia war and immediately tried to punt it to Ambassador Whitaker like a hot potato.

"No, please, I'd love to hear your answer," Whitaker said, not letting her off the hook.

"The two that I am on the panel with are much more steeped in foreign policy than a governor is," Whitmer replied, basically admitting she was out of her depth. "I do think that Ukraine's independence, keeping their land mass and having the support of all the allies, I think is the goal from my vantage point. Go ahead, ambassador, do a better job."

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.

Oof. That's not just passing the buck; that's yeeting it into the next county. These are the people the Democrats are trotting out as future leaders? Heaven help us if the bar gets any lower, we'll be tripping over it.

Tweet

US Attorney's Office looking back at case of Philly teacher's 20 stab-wound "suicide" by then-AG Josh Shapiro

The feds have finally decided to poke around the truly bizarre 2011 case of Philadelphia teacher Ellen Greenberg, who somehow managed to "commit suicide" by stabbing herself 20 times, including several in the back of her neck and base of her skull, a feat that would make even the most flexible contortionist raise an eyebrow. Seriously!

The medical examiner originally called it a homicide, then, for some crazy reason, flipped to suicide faster than a speeding bullet. That ruling has stood ever since, despite the family's relentless pushback and mountains of skepticism from anyone who's ever seen a crime show. 

According to sources speaking to NBC10, the US Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is now sniffing around. They've requested, and last month actually obtain documents tied to Ms. Greenberg's death. The scope isn't crystal clear, but it seems focused on how various local agencies handled (or mishandled) the investigation over the years, with whispers of possible criminal corruption in the mix.

Greenberg was just 27 when found dead by her fiancé Sam Goldberg in their shared apartment, a 10-inch blade protruding from her chest like some grim exclamation point. Her parents have long insisted this was murder, accusing local authorities of covering up a botched homicide probe.

Of course it was murder. It was as obvious that there are only two genders.

Adding fuel to the fire: the original medical examiner signed a sworn statement in January 2025 saying the death should be ruled something other than suicide. A doctor who treated Greenberg beforehand noted she was "not suicidal" and documented bruises that "suggest domestic abuse sufficient to account for her anxiety." 

Oh, and at least one stab wound reportedly came after she would have already been dead, because nothing says "self-inflicted" like postmortem enthusiasm.

Josh Shapiro, then Pennsylvania's Attorney General, backed the suicide call, and the case sat dormant for years. It only started getting fresh side-eye when Shapiro was floated as a potential VP pick for Kamala Harris in 2024.

So is Josh Shapiro culpable, shady or stupid? You make the call.

The parents sued Philadelphia, eventually settling after the city coughed up $650,000 and promised an independent review by a new medical examiner. 

The October report still calls it suicide.

Because apparently in this town, 20 stab wounds, many in impossible spots,  plus signs of possible abuse and a flipped ruling add up to a textbook self-exit. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along before the feds start asking too many uncomfortable questions.

And imagine if she shot herself 20 times and they couldn't find the weapon. 

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

Marco obliterates Left's narrative on Venezuela and targets Kamala Hahaharris too

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was all over the Sunday shows this weekend, breaking down the bold U.S. move that snatched illegitimate Venezuelan narco-dictator Nicolas Maduro on Saturday. The guy probably pulled an all-nighter prepping for the op, but he showed up sharp as ever, schooling the media on the facts.

Rubio absolutely torched the tired Democrat talking point on Meet the Press with Kristen Welker, shredding the nonsense that Trump was chasing Venezuelan oil. He turned the tables hard. We don't need their oil one bit. But we're sure not going to sit back while adversaries run the show down there. "Why does China need their oil? Why does Russia need their oil? Why does Iran need their oil?" We're drawing a line: no enemy bases in our backyard.

Rubio hammered home that oil revenues should go to Venezuelans, not line the pockets of Maduro's corrupt crew. That's why over eight million fled the hellhole his regime created, plenty landing right here in America. No way we're letting outsiders from across the globe waltz in and wreck the hemisphere.

Former VP and failed P candidate, Kamala Harris, slammed the whole thing as illegal, all about regime change or grabbing oil.

But Rubio ripped into the Biden-Harris crowd for their hypocrisy. They slapped a $25 million bounty on Maduro's head but never lifted a finger. Now Harris acts shocked there's actually a basis to haul him in?

"In the Biden administration, they had a $25 million reward for [Maduro's] capture," Rubio told NBC News' Kristen Welker Sunday.

"So, we have a reward for his capture, but we’re not going to enforce it?" Rubio asked, incredulously.

Talk is cheap with these folks, but Trump delivers. Rubio nailed it.

Like I said before, Biden and Harris were masters of empty words. Maduro played them like fools, promising fair elections in exchange for sanction relief. 

Guess how that ended? He reneged, clung to power anyway. And did Harris ever crack the code on those "root causes" of migration flooding our borders? Spoiler: Maduro's nightmare regime was a massive one.


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

Tweet

Will Kamala set up GoFundMe for Maduro? She believes it was 'unlawful and unwise' taking Maduro down

Failed presidential candidate Kamala Hahaharris couldn't resist chiming in after that textbook-perfect op that snagged socialist narco dictator Nicolás Maduro and his not very lovely wife Cilia Flores. Predictably, she slammed President Trump's move and parroted the usual left-wing talking points claiming the dictator's takedown was somehow "illegal."

She fired off her blather on X late Saturday, complete with the tired old line: Maduro's a monster . . .  but Trump shouldn't have grabbed him.

"Donald Trump’s actions in Venezuela do not make America safer, stronger, or more affordable," she whined, ignoring how nailing Maduro absolutely boosts our safety and flexes real American muscle, and how ecstatic the huge majority of Venezuelans are now that Maduro has been taken into custody.

"That Maduro is a brutal, illegitimate dictator does not change the fact that this action was both unlawful and unwise," the failed ex-VP lied. "We’ve seen this movie before. Wars for regime change or oil that are sold as strength but turn into chaos, and American families pay the price.

"The American people do not want this, and they are tired of being lied to." [Except that most of us do want this, especially those Americans who escaped the Maduro regime and fled to the USA.]

She even honked that Trump was endangering troops (zero U.S. losses, by the way) and had no exit strategy post-capture. U.S. troops know the dangers of being in the military and sign up for it. Her argument holds water like a sieve.

This word-salad queen, who cheerled Biden's disastrous Afghanistan pullout, (the one that killed 13 American heroes and wounded dozens because her administration) couldn't plan its way out of a paper bag, thinks she knows anything about this situation.

Thank God this empty-headed pantsuit isn't anywhere near the Oval Office these days.

"America needs leadership whose priorities are lowering costs for working families, enforcing the rule of law, strengthening alliances, and, most importantly, putting the American people first," she wrapped up.

Of course, Harris was a key player in the regime that bombed on every single one of those fronts.

In case you forgot who Joe Biden is, this video should refresh your memory:

Beyond the hollow outrage, Kamala's got a little hypocrisy problem from her old gig. As she's busy trashing Trump for bagging Maduro, remember it was Joe Biden, one of his final acts, who jacked up the bounty on the guy to $25 million for tips leading to his arrest.

Kamala's knee-jerk partisan freakout over Trump's clean, casualty-free snatch of Nicolás Maduro just highlights her breathtaking double standards. More than that, it's a stark reminder we've got bold leadership now getting big wins.

Harris has been the polar opposite.

Bottom line: Her meltdown only drives home why America showed her the door, and why Trump's no-nonsense, America First approach is racking up victories she could never deliver.

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

Tweet

Kamala Hahaharris suffers a delusion of grandeur

Ah, dear friends, gather 'round as we behold the latest chapter in the grand farce that is modern American politics. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, that indefatigable champion of word salads and unburdened tomorrows, has graciously informed the world that she is, in fact, a "historic figure." And not just any historic figure--no, one destined for immortality in marble.

In a recent sit-down with The New York Times, promoting her memoir 107 Days (a slim volume chronicling what felt like an eternity to the rest of us), Harris brushed aside pesky questions about 2028 ambitions with the serene confidence of a woman who knows her place in the pantheon.

"I understand the focus on '28 and all that," she told the Times. "But there will be a marble bust of me in Congress. I am a historic figure like any Vice President of the United States ever was."Yes, you see, the Senate has this charming little tradition, dating back to the late 1800s of commissioning busts of vice presidents once they're safely out of office. It's a bit like participation trophies for the second banana, and Harris is already measuring the pedestal.

Pantsuit by Clinton of Arkansas

And the adoration! "Thousands of people are coming to hear my voice. Thousands and thousands," she added about her book tour. "Every place we’ve gone has been sold out." Of course, in an age where tickets to hear politicians reminisce about their defeats are apparently hotter than a Taylor Swift concert, who are we to question the draw of the Harris mystique?But the book itself—ah, there's the real entertainment. Our former veep uses it to settle a few scores with fellow Democrats. 

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, once a contender for her running mate (before she wisely chose the reliably folksy Tim Walz), comes in for particular attention. Harris recounts Shapiro peppering her staff with questions, including, get this" how he might arrange to get Pennsylvania artists’ work on loan from the Smithsonian." She accused him of wanting a hand in every decision and firmly reminded him that "a vice president is not a co-president." Shapiro didn't take kindly to being cast as the overambitious understudy.

"She wrote that in her book? That's complete and utter bull---t," Shapiro fired back in an interview with The Atlantic. "I can tell you that her accounts are just blatant lies."

"I did ask a bunch of questions," he continued. "Wouldn’t you ask questions if someone was talking to you about forming a partnership and working together?"

And then, with a touch of regret: "I mean, she's trying to sell books and cover her ass," before catching himself. "I shouldn't say ‘cover her ass.’ I think that's not appropriate. She's trying to sell books. Period," he concluded.

Not one to spare the rod on her old boss, Harris also points the finger at Joe Biden's White House for sidelining her and hanging her out to dry, particularly on that thorny border issue."Getting anything positive said about my work or any defense against untrue attacks was almost impossible," the book laments. And on the border: well, apparently the White House was perfectly happy to let her "shoulder the blame."

In the end, folks, this is politics as high comedy, or perhaps low tragedy, depending on your view. A former vice president assuring us of her marble destiny while slinging mud at allies to hawk a memoir. One can almost hear the chisels warming up in the Senate corridors. 

History, as they say, is written by the victors... or at least by those with the best publicists.

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

Biden being treated for aggressive cancer

If you thought Joe Biden's post-White House life was going to be all ice cream cones and awkward stares into the middle distance, think again. The man who spent the last few decades perfecting the art of the slow-motion stumble is now getting his innards zapped with radiation and hormones to fend off an aggressive prostate cancer that's about as subtle as his deteriorated mental status.

A spokesperson dropped the bombshell on Saturday, confirming that our favorite whispery elder statesman is deep into a treatment cocktail for the big C that decided to crash his retirement party.

"As part of a treatment plan for prostate cancer, Biden is currently undergoing radiation therapy and hormone treatment," said Kelly Scully, a Biden aide.

Ah, yes, because nothing says "still got it" like hormone therapy at 82. Remember when Biden shuffled out of the Oval in January, six months after that debate debacle with Donald Trump turned him into a viral meme of frailty? The one where America collectively went, "Wait, is he reading from cue cards or channeling his inner Weekend at Bernie's?" 

Yeah, that exit came after he wisely (or staff-forced, take your pick) bowed out of the reelection race amid a chorus of "age, health, and mental fitness" concerns that echoed louder than Eric Swalwell after a Taco Bell.

Trump, meanwhile, steamrolled past Kamala Harris, Biden's cackling understudy, and reclaimed the keys to the kingdom. 

Sucks to be Team Blue, huh?

Fast-forward to May, when Biden's post-presidential entourage announced the prostate punch: cancer, stage aggressive, with a horrible spread to the bones. It all kicked off with some urinary symptoms that probably had the docs muttering, "Well, that's one way to go out with a leak."

For the uninitiated in oncology bingo, prostate cancers get their menace measured on the Gleason scale—6 to 10, where 8-10 are the bad hombres that don't mess around. Biden's clocked in at 9, meaning this thing's got more fight than a typical CNN panel defending illegal immigration.

And just to keep the medical drama rolling, last month he carved out time for a forehead facelift courtesy of skin cancer surgery. Because why not accessorize your golden years with a parade of scalpels and scans? Look, if this is the universe's way of saying "retire harder, Joe," it's landing with all the grace of a teleprompter fail. 

Here's hoping the treatments zap this thing into oblivion faster than Trump zapped the polls. 

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

Kamala Harris’ Substack Is a Trainwreck, and Her 2028 Prep Is Already a Clown Show

Kamala Harris is apparently gearing up for another White House run in 2028. Spoiler alert: she’s already stepping on rakes like a cartoon character.

Her latest self-inflicted wounds come from her upcoming book and some truly baffling moves that scream, "I haven't learned a thing." She finally admitted Joe Biden's re-run was "reckless" and whined that his team didn't appreciate her. Cue former Biden officials clapping back, pointing out she was, well, garbage at her job. 

Then there's the gem where she confessed to passing over her pal, former Biden Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, as her VP pick because he's homosexual, and she thought that was "too big of a risk" for a semi-black woman to run with a gay man. Way to alienate half the Democratic base, Kamala. Keep swinging, dummy!

On Friday, the AP dropped another tidbit from her book, 107 Days, set to hit shelves Tuesday. She admitted she didn't realize how catastrophic her "The View" screwup was when she said it. You know, the one where she was asked if she'd have done anything differently than Biden, and her response was: nothing "comes to mind," adding that she’d "been a part of … most of the decisions that have had impact."

Fun Fact: one needs a mind for something to come to it.

"I had no idea I’d just pulled the pin on a hand grenade," Harris wrote in 107 Days, per the AP. "My staff were besides themselves" because she'd handed a "gift to the Trump campaign." How do you not see that coming? Oh wait--she isn't very bright. 

But wait, there’s more! 

Harris decided to launch a Substack, because nothing says "I'm ready for 2028" like a poorly edited blog. In her announcement, she stumbles right out of the gate with tired, formulaic Dem talking points that sound like she's already campaigning:

"While my new book, 107 Days, focuses on the campaign trail and election, I also write about the state of our country and how we move forward. What we must understand is that the dismantling of our democracy did not start with the 2024 election. And while there is already a lot of damage done, there is still time to change course — because the power is still with the people. We must be strategic and tactical. Disciplined and bold. We must take to the streets and put forth a vision for the future worth fighting for. The answers will not come out of Washington, DC. They will come from We, the People."

Yawn. It's like she copied and pasted from a DNC fundraising email. But then there's this line: 

"We must take to the streets and put forth a vision for the future worth fighting for."

Uh, Kamala, what are you implying here, that we must move forward with vigor, a la JFK?

This is the same woman who, during the 2020 BLM riots, encouraged donations to a bail fund for arrested rioters. Now she's back with this "dismantling of democracy" nonsense, cranking up the divisive rhetoric. Can she not demonize half the country for five minutes?

The real comedy gold, though, is the graphic in her X post announcing the Substack. She's channeling peak Hillary Clinton, implying people are Googling how to change their votes from Trump to her, complete with a sanctimonious Gore Vidal quote: "I told you so." She adds, "I wish I didn't have to say it." Oh, please. Scolding voters like a disappointed schoolmarm isn't the flex she thinks it is. It's hilarious, sure, but it's also political suicide. Who’s advising her, Jack Daniels?

The Substack itself is a hot mess. Typos, misused words, and a tone that screams "I’m still processing my loss." Here’s a taste of the cringe:

"His victory was whisker-thin. He beat me by 1.5 percentage points in one of the closest elections in a century. A third of the electorate voted for me. But a third of the electorate stayed home. That means two-thirds of our country did not elect Donald Trump. Two-thirds of us did not choose this man or his agenda."

Math isn't her strong suit, apparently. Trump won the popular vote, swept the swing states, and sent her packing. That isn't "whisker-thin," it's a spanking. And trying to spin it like "two-thirds didn't choose him" just makes her sound desperate because two-thirds didn't choose her either. Newsflash: more people didn’t choose you.Then she pulls the "fascism" card, because of course she does:

"'This is how fascism begins,' warned Françoise Giroud, a journalist who served in the French Resistance. 'It never says its name. It creeps, it floats. When it reaches the tips of people's noses, they say: 'Is this it? You think? Don't exaggerate!' And then one day it smacks them in the mouth, and it is too late to get rid of it.' It is not too late for us, but we need to think both strategically and tactically. When we go to the streets, as we will, we must not give them the spectacle they are craving. We will go out of love of our country and belief in its promise. We cannot let them lie about that."

This is next-level fearmongering. She's out here quoting French Resistance fighters while ignoring how voters rejected her tired playbook. And "go to the streets?" Again with the riot-adjacent rhetoric. Someone get her a better speechwriter, stat.

In the race for "dumbest 2028 prep moves," it's neck-and-neck between Harris' Substack disaster and Gavin Newsom's podcast flop while California burns. Kamala’s coping is comedy gold, but it's also a masterclass in how to tank your political future before it even starts.

If you like my blog and want to Buy Me A Coffee, I wouldn't stop you--it supports my work and I really appreciate it. But no pressure.

Tweet

Kamala Harris in the Hot Seat? GOP Rep. Brandon Gill Wants Answers on Biden’s Brain Fog

The political circus just keeps on spinning, and this time, GOP Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) is ready to crank up the heat. During a fiery chat on Fox Business' Mornings With Maria, the House Oversight Committee member didn't mince words, floating the idea of slapping a subpoena on Kamala Harris to dig into what he calls the Biden administration's cognitive cover-up. 

Gill was riffing on testimony from former White House flack Ian Sams, who admitted to barely crossing paths with Joe Biden during his two-plus years in the administration. We're talking two in-person meetings, one virtual sit-down, and a single phone call. 

That's it. For a guy who was supposedly in the inner circle, that's about as connected as a flip phone in a 5G world. This tidbit only fueled Gill’s suspicions about Biden’s mental sharpness, or lack thereof, during his White House clusterfrack.

"These are the people who portrayed themselves as being in the know," Gill said, throwing shade at the administration's spin doctors. "The American people watched Joe Biden on TV. We could see his cognitive decline. We saw his debate performance. We saw his eyes glazing over when reporters asked him questions." Sounds like Gill has been taking notes while watching Biden's greatest hits on the blooper reel.

The Texas congressman didn't stop there. He accused Biden's inner circle of flat-out lying to the public about the president's condition. "They had no clue what they were talking about, and instead lied to the American people," he charged, before taking a swing at the media for playing lapdog instead of watchdog. It’s an "indictment of Left-wing legacy media," he said, and you can almost hear the mic drop from here.

When host Cheryl Casone pressed him on whether the Oversight Committee would go full Law & Order and subpoena Harris, Gill didn't flinch. "I would like to see Kamala Harris subpoenaed," he declared. "I think that she should have been close to Joe Biden more than most people, and I think she's got a lot to answer for as well." 

If Harris thought she could skate through this mess, Gill has other plans.

The plot thickened when Casone brought up the "autopen portion" of the probe.

Oversight Chairman James Comer has been sniffing around, wondering who was really calling the shots while Biden's pen was on autopilot. Was it Hahaharris? Dr. Jill? The White House barista? Gill and his GOP pals want to know.

This investigation still has legs, and Republicans are turning up the volume, zeroing in on Biden's mental fitness and the role his closest allies played in keeping the public in the dark. Subpoenaing Harris would be like tossing a Molotov cocktail into an already polarized D.C., but for Gill, it's a no-brainer. "We need answers," he's essentially saying, and he isn't wrong. The only question is whether this probe will uncover the truth or just give us another season of partisan mudslinging. 

And if you want to Buy Me A Coffee, I wouldn't stop you--it supports my work and I really appreciate it. But no pressure.

Tweet

Kamala Hahaharris refused to allow JD Vance's kids tour the VP house before inauguration

Hey hey, ho ho, 

Kamala Harris, the self-anointed "Momala" of the political universe, has decided that basic courtesy is just too much work for her lofty station. According to Vice President JD Vance, Harris gave a big ol' middle finger to a simple request from the Vance family to let their young kids, ages 7, 5, and a freshly minted 3-year-old Mirabel, take a peek at the vice president's residence before the inauguration. You know, the place they'd be calling home for the next four years. Classy move, Kamala.

Vance spilled the tea on the inaugural episode of the Katie Miller Podcast, aired Monday, and it's a doozy. Apparently, it’s customary, call it tradition, something Harris clearly holds in low regard, for the outgoing veep to give the incoming family a tour of the digs. But Harris, during her passage of time, wasn't feeling the hospitality vibes. "I think that, normally, it's customary for the outgoing vice president to show the incoming vice president’s family the house," Vance said, probably while shaking his head at the sheer pettiness. "We have three little kids, so I guess at the time our kids were, like, 7, 5, and, you know, 2 – I guess Mirabel turned 3 right before the inauguration."

Vance's wife, Usha, just wanted to give their kids a heads-up about their new home; nothing crazy, just a quick walkthrough to ease the transition for the little ones. But Harris wasn't having it. "Usha really wanted to show [the children where they would be living], so what we actually proposed is, recognizing the weirdness of the politics, can Usha take the kids over and just show them where they’re going to be living for the next 4 years, and they were rebuffed," Vance said. Rebuffed. That's political-speak for "go pound sand."

So, instead of a tour, the Vance kids got a picture book about the vice president's residence, courtesy of a friend in Cincinnati. "A friend of ours in Cincinnati had a book about the vice president’s residence, and so we would show the kids what it would look like, but that’s as close as they ever got to it" before the inauguration, Vance noted. 

And it wasn't just the kids who got the cold shoulder. Harris also snubbed Vance himself, skipping the traditional invite for the incoming VP to check out the residence. Apparently, Harris was too busy polishing her "Momala" halo to bother with basic decency. This is the same woman who's been milking the "Momala" sobriquet for all it's worth, ever since she and her hairy armpit stepdaughter, Ella, cooked it up one night, as Harris gushed in a 2019 Mother's Day piece for Elle. She's leaned hard into the warm-and-fuzzy stepmom narrative to prop up her political image, but when it comes to actual kindness? Eh, not so much.

So, there you have it: Kamala Harris, champion of family values, couldn't be bothered to let a few kids see their future home or extend a hand to her successor. But don’t worry, she’s still got her "Momala" branding to fall back on when the cameras are rolling. 

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

Biden's 'garbage' line about Trump supporters sent Harris' campaign into panic

Holy cow paddies Batman! Joe Biden’s “garbage” jab at Trump supporters sent Kamala Hahaharris' campaign into full-on damage repair, similar to what Jake Tapper and much of lame-stream media are trying to do about Biden's mental acuity, or lack thereof. 

According to Tapper and Alex Thompson’s juicy tell-all book, Original Sin, Harris was left scrambling, reportedly turning to her team with a frantic nasal, “What are we going to do about this?”

It all kicked off when comedian Tony Hinchcliffe decided to lob a Molotov cocktail of a joke at a Trump rally on Sunday, calling Puerto Rico “literally a floating island of garbage in the … ocean right now, I think it’s called Puerto Rico.” 

Not the best joke, Tony. 

The backlash was swift. Critics screamed racism, and the anti-Israel Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez didn’t hold back, calling it “super upsetting” and an “authentic depiction of how Donald Trump believes and what he thinks about Puerto Rico.” 

Of course, had it been a joke about White people, AOC would not have noticed anything wrong. 

Democrats thought they had a slam dunk to paint Trump as the bad guy, but then Biden, in true Biden fashion, fumbled his words, and then the ball. 

During a speech to Voto Latino, the guy went rogue, allegedly sneering, “And just the other day, a speaker at his rally called Puerto Rico a ‘floating island of garbage.’ Well, let me tell you something… The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters.” 

That same night, Harris was out there trying to drop her big “closing argument” speech, but Biden’s gaffe stole the spotlight like a drunk uncle at a wedding. The Trump campaign pounced, labeling it “terrible” and dragging out the ghost of Hillary’s “basket of deplorables” for a victory lap. 

Trump, never one to miss a photo op, leaned into the chaos, hopping into a garbage truck in Green Bay, Wisconsin, on October 30, 2024, and later strutting out at a rally in a bright yellow vest like he was auditioning for Sanitation Worker: The Musical.

Harris, not one to be found at a Mensa meeting, stuck cleaning up Biden’s mess, tried to distance herself. “I strongly disagree with any criticism of people based on who they vote for, you heard my speech last night and continuously throughout my career. I believe that the work that I do is about representing all the people, whether they support me or not,” she said, doing her best to sound like the adult in the room.

Meanwhile, the 2024 race kept spiraling into a circus. Democrat strategist Brad Howard even popped up to spar with Will over whether Harris could charm Joe Rogan’s audience. Good luck with that one. Harris’ campaign was already dodging Biden’s verbal landmines—what’s one more tightrope to walk?

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

POTUS calls for "major investigation" of Kamala regarding "unlawful" celebrity endorsements

Donald Trump, never one to shy away from a megaphone, took to Truth Social Monday morning, hammering out a call for a “major investigation” into Kamala Harris. 

The President is alleging that Harris shelled out cash to snag endorsements from big names like Bruce Springsteen and Beyoncé during her failed presidential run. Trump’s not just tossing pebbles here—he’s lobbing boulders, accusing Harris of straight-up illegal payoffs.

Here’s the man himself, in all-caps glory: “HOW MUCH DID KAMALA HARRIS PAY BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN FOR HIS POOR PERFORMANCE DURING HER CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT? WHY DID HE ACCEPT THAT MONEY IF HE IS SUCH A FAN OF HERS? ISN’T THAT A MAJOR AND ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION? WHAT ABOUT BEYONCÉ? …AND HOW MUCH WENT TO OPRAH, AND BONO??? I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter.”

And I doubt that he's kidding.

Trump doubled down, claiming Hahaharris broke the law by masking these payments as “entertainment” gigs. “Candidates aren’t allowed to pay for ENDORSEMENTS, which is what Kamala did, under the guise of paying for entertainment,” he wrote. 

“In addition, this was a very expensive and desperate effort to artificially build up her sparse crowds. IT’S NOT LEGAL! For these unpatriotic ‘entertainers,’ this was just a CORRUPT & UNLAWFUL way to capitalize on a broken system. Thank you for your attention to this matter!!!” 

You can almost hear the keyboard groaning under the weight of those exclamation points.

Now, let’s zoom in on Springsteen, who strummed his way into this mess at a Harris rally in Atlanta back in October.  

The Boss has been using his stage time to take swings at Trump’s administration. At a recent gig in England, he let rip: “In my home, the America I love, the America I’ve written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration. Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experiment to rise with us, raise your voices against authoritarianism and let freedom ring!” 

Sounds like Bruce isn’t just singing about the Promised Land—he’s preaching against Trump’s and he has no receipts to support his blather. I mean, where's the treason?

But here’s where it gets sticky. The Harris campaign’s been under the microscope before for funneling hefty sums to celebrity production companies. The Washington Free Beacon dug up some dirt last month, reporting that Harris’s team dropped $50,000 on LeBron James’s production company for “campaign event production.” LeBron didn’t show up to any rallies, mind you, but he did post a video endorsing Harris and tossing a racism jab at Trump. 

Then there’s Beyoncé’s production company, which pocketed $165,000, and Oprah’s, which raked in a cool $100,000,000. Beyoncé gave a quick speech at a Houston event, while Oprah sat down with Harris for a Chicago interview. Trump is betting that it isn't a coincidence.

So, what’s the deal? Is this just Trump stirring the pot, or did Harris’s campaign play fast and loose with the rulebook? The truth’s probably somewhere in the gray, but one thing’s clear: when you’ve got this much star power and cash changing hands, people are going to talk. 

And Donald Trump has the loudest mic.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

Jasmine Crockett thinks Dems will run "safest White boy" rather than riskiest "Black boy" as 2028 candidate: hints at who

Racist Texas Democrat Jasmine Crockett said her party is eyeing the "safest White boy" to run in the 2028 presidential race, evidently due to the probability that a Black boy would not likely win as everyone but her is a racist or something along those lines.

During a podcast this week, she hinted at "one specific" White boy being floated by party donors.

"It is this fear that the people within the party, within the primary system, will have about voting for a woman because every time we voted for a woman, we’ve lost, so far," she said in a clip posted to Instagram. "And I think that that’s a natural fear because we just want to win."

Yes, that's the idea, Jazzy.

SiriusXM host Clay Cane posted the clip to Instagram on Friday, noting that the discussion was part of a SiriusXM "Urban View" town hall, and as Joe Biden would say, not a joke. 

The full conversation is set to air on May 15 and the world awaits her wise, racist words with baited breath.

"So there’s a lot of people that are like, ‘You know what? 'Let’s go find the safest White boy we can find,’" Crockett added. "I mean, I’m just saying." Like. Like.

"No, for real. And to be clear, when we talk about them, I can tell you that there is one specific candidate," the Texas racist said. "I had a donor on the phone with me telling me that all the donors are lining up behind that candidate. So I can tell, and I tell you, it’s not a Black person, nor a woman, OK?"

It isn't even a White woman identifying as a Black man, or vice versa.

She referred to Democratic donors as "they" during the discussion, suggesting they were the same people who backed former, almost dead President Joseph Robinette Biden, a man who seemed surprised that Barack Obama was clean.

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois, Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Rep. Alexandria Obviously-Commie (D-NY), and former VP Kamala Hahaharris, despite her miserable loss in 2024, are among the names being floated as 2028 Democratic contenders.

Harris headlined a lofty Democratic National Committee fundraising dinner on Tuesday, marking her latest step back into the political spotlight, Fox News reported.

Crockett is seeking support from fellow Democrats with her eyes on a possible run for the top spot on the House Oversight Committee, as per Politico and Semafor reports.

Politico reported that Crockett told her colleagues she is "made for the moment," citing people familiar with the matter and referring to the Democrat’s desire to resist Trump in a more forceful way, aside from putting him in prison or actually trying to assassinate him.

The crass, racist congresswoman has made several attention-grabbing remarks in recent months and is one of the faces of the Democratic Party's opposition to Trump.

She's just a proud, loud, racist Black girl.

If you enjoy my blog, feel free to toss a virtual coffee my way on Buy Me a Coffee – it’s like a high-five with caffeine, and coffee keeps me focused. No pressure, it's your call. 

Tweet