Ilhan Omar demands her passport be released for some reason, as computers seized in home search by authorities

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) wants federal authorities to return the passport, computers, cellphone, and other personal belongings seized from her home during a criminal investigation. Her attorneys are also demanding recordings of the search, apparently hoping to establish that the government’s investigation is as improper as they insist it is.

On Monday, agents from the Department of Homeland Security searched Omar’s residence after obtaining a warrant approved by a federal judge. According to The Wall Street Journal, agents seized several items, including her cellphone, notebooks, personal computers, and passport.

Omar’s legal team responded Friday with a letter to the Justice Department demanding the immediate return of the property and declaring that the investigation has no legitimate foundation.

“There is no legitimate basis for any suggestion that she has violated any law concerning her citizenship status,” her attorneys wrote.

They then accused the administration of conducting a politically motivated campaign against one of President Donald Trump’s most prominent congressional critics.

“This vindictive, retributive, and politically motivated criminal investigation into one of the President’s chief congressional critics violates Representative Omar’s constitutional rights and threatens the separation of powers,” they added.

Her lawyers also objected to the timing of the search, arguing that investigators deliberately acted during the final weeks before the midterm elections, when voters will decide whether Omar deserves another term in Congress. Justice Department practice has traditionally discouraged overt investigative steps involving political candidates during the roughly 60 days before an election, a guideline Omar’s attorneys contend the department violated.

In other words, Omar’s legal team would prefer that investigators exercise restraint during election season, particularly when their investigation happens to involve Omar.

The Justice Department, meanwhile, offered a less dramatic assessment of its conduct.

“Our attorneys and law enforcement partners complied with all court orders and legal obligations, as they always do,” department spokesperson Emily Covington told ABC News.

Omar’s attorneys also requested copies of any audio and video recordings made inside her home during the search. Whether those recordings will be released remains unclear.

The precise scope of the investigation has not been made public. However, The Daily Wire outlined five possible areas of criminal scrutiny on Wednesday, including questions involving immigration status, citizenship, financial disclosures, and potential conflicts of interest.

One possibility concerns whether Omar’s father committed immigration fraud while seeking refugee status, an allegation that could raise additional questions about her own citizenship, depending on the facts and applicable law. Another involves questions about when her father became a citizen and whether Omar was under 18 at the time.

Neither possibility has been established as a finding of wrongdoing, and the investigation’s actual focus remains unknown.

Other questions involve Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, and allegations that he used his wife’s congressional position to benefit his firm’s African clients through legislation. Questions have also been raised about the couple’s business interests and financial disclosures.

The couple’s reported finances have attracted attention in their own right. A 2025 filing valued their assets at as much as $30 million, largely attributable to Mynett’s business interests. An amended filing earlier this year, however, reported a net worth of approximately $18,000 to $95,000 and listed Mynett’s businesses as having no value after liabilities.

Those sharply different figures raise questions that may warrant explanation. They do not, by themselves, establish criminal conduct.

Omar, for her part, has framed the investigation as another chapter in her long-running battle with Trump and his administration.

On Thursday, she thanked supporters and constituents who have continued to stand by her.

“Thank you to everyone who stood with me over the years,” she said. “It’s been a scary journey but I have always been grounded in my work and ability to provide exemplary service to my constituents. Trump and his administration have been after me since I arrived in Congress. I have always stood up to him and that will never change. The pedophile protector will never silence me.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Daily Wire’s request for comment.

For now, Omar wants her belongings back, her attorneys want the search recordings, and the congresswoman insists the investigation is politically motivated. Federal authorities, meanwhile, have yet to publicly explain what they are investigating or what evidence prompted the search.

That leaves a straightforward question hanging over the controversy: What, exactly, are investigators looking for, and what will the evidence ultimately show?

Hey patriots! Please take time to give a click on the ads on this page--it's one way to support my work and you don't need to purchase anything just to look. Of course, you can Buy Me A Coffee at any amount if you want to support me directly, but no pressure. And finally, consider subscribing if you enjoy the blog--it's free, and totally worth the cost.

Tweet

Woman Who Called ICE “Nazis” Punches State Trooper, Later Admits She “Messed Up Really Ugly”

JACKSONVILLE, FL — A local woman conducting important First Amendment work from behind the wheel of a moving Dodge Ram has pleaded guilty after punching a Florida Highway Patrol trooper in the face during a joint immigration operation, then kicking several more officers for good measure.

Jennifer Susan Cruz of Jacksonville was driving on Beach Boulevard near Mi Pueblo on January 13, 2026, when she spotted Florida Highway Patrol and federal immigration officers conducting a traffic stop.

 Sensing history, and perhaps personal fame unfolding, she began recording on her phone while tailgating, an act authorities later described as unsafe and unlawful cellphone use. 

A trooper approached her about that. Cruz grew argumentative, referred to ICE as “Nazis,” and asked the trooper not to shoot her in the face.

Officials say her license was suspended. 

She then drove off a short distance until troopers boxed her in. Once stopped, Cruz refused to surrender her keys and announced she was “ready to fight.” When officers tried to take the keys, she punched an FHP trooper in the face with a closed fist. The trooper was injured in the nose and fingers. 

Cruz then resisted, kicked officers including an ICE officer who injured a hand and a CBP agent, and was tased. She later apologized and said she “messed up really ugly.” [Not surprisingly, she has lived with ugly for the best part of her adult life.]

Cruz faced state charges plus a federal charge of assaulting officers conducting an immigration operation. She pleaded guilty in June 2026. Prosecutors have cited a statutory maximum of 20 years. Sentencing is scheduled for late September 2026. 

Actual prison time, if any, will be decided by the judge and is typically far below the maximum because in large part, law and order has been canceled in our nation.

Online commentators immediately identified the real issue: she must have mistaken the state trooper for an ICE agent, which would have made the punch principled, albeit illegal and deserving of incarceration.

Official DOJ and police accounts do not say that. She was interacting with a clearly identified state trooper assisting ICE. ICE vehicles and officers were present. The punch occurred during the key-surrender struggle after the suspended-license stop, not because she thought the trooper was ICE.

The popular photo pairing of Cruz next to an ICE-marked vehicle reflects the joint operation. It does not prove a case of mistaken identity. It does prove she managed to assault both the people she thought were “Nazis” and the people she did not. 

In short, she punched an FHP trooper during an ICE-assisted operation, she pleaded guilty, and 20 years is the stated maximum, with the likelihood of it being imposed on par with finding the Holy Grail. 

The “mistook him for ICE” framing remains meme editorializing, not what the charging documents describe. At press time, Cruz had not yet released a statement clarifying whether punching a state trooper counts as punching up.

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

Violence Against Institutions Is Still Violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tweet

Illegal Alien Granted CDL Under Biden-Era Program Allegedly Kills Pennsylvania State Trooper

The death of a police officer in the line of duty is always a national tragedy. Yet some deaths demand more than mourning. They require an honest examination of the decisions that made them possible.

Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael Pahira Jr., 44, was killed Wednesday morning while carrying out one of the routine but dangerous responsibilities of law enforcement. He had stopped to inspect an unrelated semi-truck on the side of the road when a tractor-trailer left the roadway, struck another vehicle, and triggered the chain of events that claimed his life.

The driver accused of causing the crash, 33-year-old Michael Bon, has since been identified as an illegal immigrant from Haiti who entered the United States through the Biden administration's CHNV "humanitarian parole program," according to Fox News. 

The details are as disturbing as they are revealing.

After entering the country under the parole initiative, Bon reportedly sought Temporary Protected Status but was denied. His legal status was later terminated under the Trump administration. Despite this, he had already been issued a commercial driver's license by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in March 2025, allowing him to operate the massive vehicles that demand the highest standards of training, responsibility, and oversight.

This was not merely an isolated traffic accident. It raises difficult questions about immigration policy, government accountability, and the consequences of expanding programs that place insufficient emphasis on enforcement and vetting.

For years, critics warned that temporary parole programs, originally intended for exceptional humanitarian circumstances, were being transformed into broad avenues for entry with inadequate safeguards. Defenders insisted the system was under control. Now a Pennsylvania state trooper is dead, and another grieving family is left to ask whether this loss might have been prevented.

Trooper Pahira dedicated his life to protecting the public. He did not choose the policies that shaped the circumstances surrounding his final moments. He simply answered the call of duty, as officers across America do every day, trusting that the institutions responsible for public safety had fulfilled their own obligations.

His death deserves more than condolences. It deserves accountability.

A nation that asks its police officers to stand between order and chaos owes them something in return. It owes them immigration policies that place the safety of its own citizens and those sworn to protect them above political expediency. When that obligation is neglected, the consequences are not abstract. They are measured in lives cut short, families shattered, and communities left to mourn.

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

Judge Hannah Dugan guilty of felony for obstructing immigration agents in courthouse

In yet another glaring example of liberal judges thinking they're above the law, a federal jury just slammed Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan with a guilty verdict on felony obstruction for helping an illegal alien dodge ICE agents right in her own courthouse.

After only six hours of deliberations, the jury nailed her on the felony count of impeding a proceeding but let her off on the misdemeanor charge of concealing the guy to block his arrest. This all went down back in April when the not-so good judge sprung into action to help Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a previously deported illegal alien, slip away from plainclothes ICE agents waiting to slap a warrant on him. Prosecutors laid it out clear: Once she got wind the agents were after him, she secreted Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer out a back door of her courtroom on April 18.

Dugan pleaded not guilty in May, but soon the smoking-gun video dropped, and it showed her in full robe mode confronting the agents in the hallway and barking orders to get out before the illegal bolted. 

ICE eventually tracked the illegal alien down and nabbed him anyway.

Damning video footage came out shortly after Dugan entered her preliminary plea, revealing her confronting the agents in a courthouse hallway and ordering them out through a door before Flores-Ruiz left the building.

Dugan's defense team whined in a statement: "While we are disappointed in today's outcome, the failure of the prosecution to secure convictions on both counts demonstrates the opportunity we have to clear Judge Dugan's name and show she did nothing wrong in this matter," 

Dugan's defense team said in a statement. "We have planned for this potential outcome and our defense of Judge Dugan is just beginning. This trial required considerable resources to prepare for and public support for Judge Dugan's defense fund is critical as we prepare for the next phase of this defense."

Yeah, sure; keep begging for donations while playing the victim.

U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin Brad Schimel (note: often spelled Schimel in reports) tried to downplay it, saying Dugan "is certainly not evil nor is she a martyr for some greater cause” and insisting prosecutors "weren’t trying to make an example out of anyone. This was necessary to hold Judge Dugan accountable in our assessment because of the action she took," he said.

But Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche torched her: Dugan "betrayed her oath and the people she served." And she even betrayed her oath to the U.S. Constitution.

"Today, a federal jury of her peers found her guilty and sent a clear message: the American people respect law and order. Nobody is above the law," he posted on X. "This Department will not tolerate obstruction, will enforce federal immigration law, and will hold criminals to account--even those who wear robes. Thank you to the men and women who keep us safe. We will always protect you."

Exactly. The Wisconsin Supreme Court already suspended this rogue judge with pay, [aka vacation] still pulling in about $175,000 a year, but after this conviction, her days on the bench should be numbered, though her team will no doubt appeal and drag it out.

Classic activist judiciary nonsense getting a much-needed smackdown. Nobody, no matter the robe, is above enforcing our immigration laws.

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

Tweet

Illinois justice system leaks like a sieve

Here's your daily dose of "sanctuary city" insanity, brought to you by the People's Republic of Illinois. 

While the rest of the country is trying to get dangerous illegal aliens off the streets, Governor Jabba the Hutt (D-IL) and Chicago's own Brandon "Let's Defund Everything But Illegal Aliens" Johnson have apparently decided that child rapists and murderers deserve a second, or third, or fourth chance to roam free. ICE just dropped a letter that ought to make every law-abiding Illinois resident's blood boil. 

Since January 2025, the Land of Lincoln has released a jaw-dropping 1,768 criminal illegal aliens who had active ICE detainers. You know, the little piece of paper that says, "Hey, local jail, hold this guy so we can deport him." But no, Illinois said "catch and release" is their new state fish., and these aren't jaywalkers or litterbugs. We're talking:

Attempted murder
Aggravated sexual assault
Aggravated kidnapping
Predatory criminal sexual assault of a child (yes, you read that right)
Child abduction
Multiple homicides

Todd Lyons, the acting ICE director, was blunt about the problem: "These offenders should be swiftly removed from the United States … and not be returned to our streets to wreak havoc on law-abiding citizens."

Instead, Illinois Democrats are basically rolling out the red carpet: "Welcome back to the neighborhood, here's your get-out-of-jail-free card!" It's suicidal for everyone except those who run this s**t show. 

There are still another 4,015 criminal aliens sitting in state and local custody with pending detainers, including 51 tied to homicides and over 800 sexual-predatory offenses, who could be sprung any day thanks to Governor "Pass the Gravy" Pritzker and Johnson's open contempt for federal law.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem showed up in Illinois on August 8 and torched the dynamic duo to their faces. Good for her. Someone had to say it out loud, but what effect it will have is probably nil. 

Lyons closed his letter with the question every taxpayer in Illinois deserves an answer to: Is the state going to "change course or continue releasing violent offenders who may otherwise walk the streets of Illinois again?"

It's time the Illinois government stop treating ICE detainers like they're suggestions on a Chinese takeout menu and instead put public safety ahead of their woke virtue-signaling. But don't hold your breath hoping Pritzker is suddenly going to grow a spine underneath all that adipose tissue. The bulbous billionaire heir and his light-on-crime mayor would rather let another child get assaulted than admit Trump-era immigration enforcement had a point because it's actually working in places other than Illinois.

Illinois taxpayers, enjoy the "sanctuary" you voted for. The rest of us will be over here praying we don't end up on the wrong side of one of these monsters the state just set loose.

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

BREAKING: Gunman fires at federal agents during Chicago immigration enforcement: manhunt underway

photo: just a normal day in the Windy City

Picture this: A routine immigration sweep in Chicago's Little Village, a neighborhood that's basically a slice of Mexico plunked down in Chicago, turns into a scene straight out of a bad action flick. But instead of heroes, you've got federal agents dodging bullets from some cowardly thug in a black Jeep, followed by a howling mob lobbing paint cans and bricks at law enforcement. 

Authorities are searching for a man who allegedly shot at U.S. Border Patrol agents Saturday during immigration operations in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood. Border patrol agents were conducting immigration enforcement operations when a man driving a black Jeep fired shots at agents and fled the scene, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).And if that wasn't enough to make you question sanctuary city logic, the aftermath? A group of people threw a paint can and bricks at border patrol vehicles, DHS said. Local affiliate FOX 32 Chicago reported a flash bang was deployed, as crowds surrounded federal agents for multiple blocks. At least one person was detained, according to the outlet.

Crowds threw paint cans, bricks at federal vehicles as chaos ensued. Police are searching for a man they said opened fire at U.S. Border Patrol agents in Chicago on Saturday. (Credit: WFLD)Police officers barricade a street in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood. (WFLD)

Enter the virtue-signaling cavalry: City Alderman Michael Rodriguez, of the 22nd Ward, posted a video to Facebook accusing the agents of "causing all sorts of mayhem." "They’re doing things that are unconstitutional, that are illegal," Rodriguez said of the agents doing their jobs and what America voted for. "They are causing fear and mayhem in our communities and that's unacceptable."

Oh, the irony. The guy's out there whining about "fear and mayhem" while his constituents are turning federal vehicles into piñatas, and more bullets fly there than Gaza.

And he wasn't alone in the social media circus. Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez, of the 25th Ward, was also live-streaming the chaos on social media. Sigcho-Lopez appeared to confront immigration agents, stupidly questioning them about why they were in the neighborhood, which is known as a largely Mexican-American community.

The Chicago Police Department (CPD) was called for assistance and cleared the scene. 

The shooter and vehicle remain at large, DHS officials said. "This incident is not isolated and reflects a growing and dangerous trend of violence and obstruction," DHS wrote in a statement on X. "Over the past two months, we’ve seen an increase in assaults and obstruction targeting federal law enforcement during operations."

Chief Border Patrol agent Gregory Bovino fired back at an X user who said Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents "illegally fired tear gas into the street," saying there is "more to come." "Funny, you keep leaving out key facts including several shots fired at agents by a suspect, violent mobs throwing bricks and assaultive subjects," Bovino wrote in a post. "We still managed to apprehend illegal aliens today in Little Village. More to come."

"These confrontations highlight the dangers our agents face daily and the escalating aggression toward law enforcement. The violence must end."

Look, if Chicago's elected clowns like Rodriguez and Sigcho-Lopez spent half as much energy condemning the actual criminals, starting with the guy who turned a Jeep into a drive-by getaway car, instead of shielding sanctuary chaos, maybe we'd have fewer headlines like this. But no, it's easier to blame the badges enforcing the law than the mobs breaking it. 

Wake up, Illinois: This isn't "mayhem" from feds; it's the predictable fallout from years of the open-borders delusion. And as Bovino says, more to come, whether the local Dems and big Gov, Pritzker like it or not.

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

Colorado terrorist's lawyer previously banned from practicing due to "immigration misconduct"

Here’s a real head-scratcher from the land of legal lunacy. The lawyer defending Mohamed Sabry Soliman, you know, the guy charged with chucking a firebomb at a peaceful pro-Israel rally in Boulder, Colorado, apparently got herself kicked out of the lawyer game just a few years back. 

Why? Oh, just a little thing called “misconduct concerning an immigration matter.” No biggie, right?

Sean Davis over at The Federalist dropped this gem on X, laying it out like a prosecutor's dream: Susanna Dvortsin, the attorney in question, got her law license yanked by the South Dakota Supreme Court in 2019. And not just a slap on the wrist, they straight-up barred her from practicing in the state.

“Guess who was banned from practicing law in 2019 for immigration misconduct? The attorney for the illegal immigrant family of the Egyptian terrorist who set a bunch of Jews on fire in Colorado,” Davis wrote, not pulling any punches.

But wait, it gets better. 

The South Dakota Supreme Court wasn’t the only one fed up with Dvortsin. The U.S. Department of Justice went full Thor’s hammer on her, banning her from practicing before the Department of Homeland Security in 2019. Their statement was crystal clear: “[Dvortsin] is immediately suspended from the practice of law before the Board [of Immigration Appeals], the Immigration Courts, or the DHS.” 

That’s the kind of thing that makes you wonder if she missed the “don’t break the law while practicing law” memo.

Davis tossed in a screenshot of a news story showing Dvortsin is now representing Soliman and his family as the Trump administration tries to lock him up and ship the rest of his clan out of the country. He also shared a snapshot of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision, which didn’t spill the tea on exactly what “misconduct” Dvortsin pulled but backed up South Dakota’s 115-day ban and added their own. They ordered her to notify everyone involved in her pending cases before the Board, DHS, or Immigration Courts that she was persona non grata. Bet those were some fun phone calls.

So, here we are: a terrorist’s lawyer with a rap sheet for immigration shenanigans. Just another day in the clown show, right? Stay tuned, because this one’s bound to get weirder.

Hey guys, if you like 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, albeit somewhat hyper. No pressure, it's your call.

Tweet

Leftist judge thinks he's running the country

Federal Judge Jamal Whitehead just dropped a bombshell, ordering the Trump administration to start resettling over 12,000 migrants whose admissions were paused for—get this—national interest reasons. Pause the tape. A judge, unelected, unaccountable, and definitely not the guy in charge of the country, thinks he can run immigration policy from his cozy Seattle courtroom.

This isn’t judicial review; it’s judicial mutiny.

The Constitution—yep, that pesky document judges love to wave around—says in Article II that executive power belongs to the president. Not some activist judge in D.C. or Seattle. Immigration? That’s the president’s turf. Always has been. Why? Because it’s not just about warm fuzzies and humanitarian hugs. It’s about national security—who comes in, who stays, and who might hurt Americans. That’s not for Judge Whitehead to micromanage over his morning latte.

But here we are. Again.

Whitehead’s ruling tries to turn a pre-pause travel schedule into a legal handcuff on the executive branch. That’s like saying if a cruise ship cancels your trip because the port’s a warzone, they still gotta sail you there because you’ve got a ticket. Newsflash: that’s not how executive discretion works. That’s not how any of this works.

And it’s not just Whitehead throwing punches. Enter Judge James Boasberg, the judiciary’s poster child for overreach. Earlier this year, Boasberg blocked deportations of—wait for it—alleged Tren de Aragua gang members. A gang. His excuse? Due process. He stopped Trump from deporting Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act, which, by the way, gives the president crystal-clear authority in times of national threat.

The Supreme Court initially slapped Boasberg down, saying deportation challenges belong where detainees are held, not in his D.C. fiefdom. But then SCOTUS hit pause on further deportations under the Act, showing they’re still wrestling with Trump’s immigration hammer. Still, let’s not kid ourselves: precedent’s on the president’s side. From Trump v. Hawaii to decades of rulings, SCOTUS has been loud and clear: the president—and only the president—calls the shots on immigration. And I’m betting that’s not changing anytime soon.

So yeah, Boasberg can stall. He can grandstand. But the Constitution’s still the boss.

Let’s talk precedent. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), SCOTUS backed the president’s power—straight from Congress—to block foreign nationals if their entry hurts the U.S. Chief Justice Roberts himself said the president has “broad discretion” in immigration. Translation: the Oval Office, not the courtroom, decides who’s in and who’s out.

Mic drop.

This isn’t some ancient scroll. It’s modern law. Binding precedent. And it torches the logic behind these rogue rulings. But when you’re a card-carrying member of the Obama-Biden judicial club, you think your robe comes with a crown.

Let’s cut through the fog. These judges are foot soldiers in a progressive war to gut immigration enforcement. Even with Trump back in charge, the legal booby traps from the Biden era are still exploding in courtrooms nationwide. The activist legal crowd’s got muscle memory, and it’s not fading quietly.
While Trump and his Homeland Security crew are trying to rebuild the wall, enforce the law, and put Americans first, they’re dodging lawsuits, Obama-Biden judges, and activist groups hellbent on keeping the border wide open. These judicial stunts aren’t about justice. They’re about sneaking progressive immigration policies in through the back door.

And who pays the price? American families. Every unvetted migrant or refugee rushed in under these rulings strains communities—think drained resources, spiking crime, or cultural upheaval.
Where’s the media meltdown? Where are the “defenders of democracy” now that judges are playing immigration czar?

Crickets.

They screamed “tyranny” when Trump issued legal executive orders—many of which SCOTUS greenlit. But now, when unelected judges are writing policy from the bench? Dead silence. Their outrage was never about the law. It was about power.

Let’s get real: the president has the constitutional mandate to secure the border, enforce immigration law, and protect the nation. That means he can pause, limit, or shift immigration policies based on threats, priorities, or resources.

That’s why Trump v. Hawaii went the way it did. That’s why the Alien Enemies Act exists. That’s why SCOTUS keeps telling district judges to stay out of foreign policy.

And that’s why Whitehead’s stunt—like Boasberg’s before him—is headed for the Supreme Court’s shredder.

When judges try to override the president on national security and immigration, what do we call it? Unconstitutional. Reckless. And ripe for reversal.

This kind of judicial activism doesn’t just blur the separation of powers—it obliterates it. If these judges don’t watch it, public trust in their institution’s gonna crash harder than a bad stock pick.
SCOTUS needs to bring the hammer. Again.

Until then, a word to the judiciary: you might wear the robe, but you don’t call the shots.
That’s the president’s job. And the Constitution’s still got his back.

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

SCOTUS grants Trump request to lift stay halting Venezuelan deportations

Well look who just notched a huge win in the Supreme Court sandbox. On Monday, the justices—by a razor-thin 5-4 margin—gave President Donald Trump the green light to dust off a 1798 wartime immigration law and start deporting Venezuelan nationals, including some alleged Tren de Aragua gangbangers, faster than you can say "muffins de escoria."

The high court granted President Trump’s request to vacate a lower court’s ruling that had tied the administration’s hands, handing a temporary victory to the MAGA faithful and their border-hawk agenda. 

Cue the liberal tears.

At the heart of this legal cage match? The Alien Enemies Act—yes, a law so old it predates indoor plumbing and Nancy Pelosi's parents. 

Passed by Congress in 1789, it’s been dusted off just three times before Trump decided it was his new favorite toy: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. Apparently, the fourth time’s the charm when you’re trying to remove certain migrants out of the country at warp speed.

Trump’s legal eagles swooped into the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court’s meddling “rebuffed” their immigration playbook—specifically, their sacred duty “to protect the Nation against foreign terrorist organizations and risk debilitating effects for delicate foreign negotiations.” [Translation: “Let us do our job, you robe-wearing buzzkills.”] The justices, or at least five of them, nodded in agreement and lifted the stay. Score one for Team Trump.

This whole clusterfrack kicked off when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg—a guy who clearly didn’t get the memo about Trump’s second term—slapped a 14-day timeout on the administration’s use of the 1798 law last month. A federal appeals court backed him up in a 2-1 call, because of course they did. During that appellate circus, Obama appointee Judge Patricia Millett sniffed, “Nazis got better treatment” than some of these deportees. 

Oh, please, spare us the melodrama, Your Honor. 

Boasberg and the appeals crew grilled the administration over Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to ship out Venezuelans—and over the three planes that hauled hundreds of migrants to El Salvador the very next day like it was a FedEx overnight delivery. At least 261 people got the boot, including over 100 Venezuelans kicked out “solely on the basis” of this ancient statute. 

The flights touched down right around the time Boasberg dropped his temporary halt, which raises a fun little question: Did Team Trump just thumb their noses at the judge? Boasberg sure thinks so—he’d ordered any planes already in the air to turn around “immediately.” Spoiler: They didn’t.

Fast forward to April 3, and Boasberg’s still having a hissy-fit. He’s considering contempt charges against Trump officials for playing hide-the-ball with info about those flights, even after he asked nicely—multiple times. 

The government’s excuse? “National security concerns.” Yeah, right. 

But then Deputy Assistant AG Drew Ensign let slip in court that the flight details probably aren’t even classified. Boasberg’s response? “Pretty sketchy,” he mused, likely while side-eyeing the feds like a disappointed dad. He’s also demanding names, locations, and interoffice gossip about who was calling the shots—and whether they were watching his rulings go down while sipping coffee and ignoring him.

This Supreme Court smackdown might’ve cleared the runway for Trump’s deportation push, but don’t pop the champagne just yet. Boasberg’s still got contempt on the table, and as of today—April 7, 2025—a preliminary injunction hearing’s looming tomorrow. Buckle up, folks; this legal rollercoaster’s got more twists than a pretzel factory.

"I pour my heart into these posts, and if they’ve sparked something for you, I’d be thrilled if you’d treat me to a coffee over at Buy Me a Coffee – totally optional, of course!"

Tweet

Maxine Waters proves she knows the law like goldfish know algebra

California Dumb-o-cratic Rep. Maxine Waters speaks like a person on crack. She suggested President Trump should deport his wife, Melania, as she went on an anti-DOGE protest in Los Angeles this weekend.

"When he [Trump] talks about birthright, and he's going to undo the fact that the Constitution allows those who are born here, even if the parents are undocumented, they have a right to stay in America. If he wants to start looking so closely to find those who were born here and their parents were undocumented, maybe he ought to first look at Melania," the aged Waters said from the stage at the rally.

"We don't know whether or not her parents were documented. And maybe we better just take a look," the intellectually impaired congresswoman added, not knowing about matrimonial law and citizenship.

Melania Trump was born in the former Yugoslavia and became a U.S. citizen in 2006, according to official government biographies of the first lady. She is the first U.S. first lady to become a naturalized citizen, and the second first lady to be born outside of the U.S. The first was the wife of President John Quincy Adams, Louisa Catherine Johnson Adams. She was born in London in 1775 and is no longer with us, much like Waters brain.

Melania sponsored her parents, who were also from current-day Slovenia, for green cards and then citizenship after securing her own citizenship, the New York Times reported in 2018. Viktor and Amalija Knavs, the first lady's parents, officially became U.S. citizens in 2018. 

Waters was referring to President Donald Trump signing an executive order on his first day in office that bans birthright citizenship. The executive order works to clarify the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." His executive order narrows the scope of birthright citizenship banning those born to illegal immigrant parents, or those here legally but on temporary non-immigrant visas.

Trump's EO is currently tied up in court, with the President taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court last week.

Waters joined the protest in Los Angeles on Saturday. She apparently loves protests and isn't very adverse to violence or confrontation having called for it in the past. Hundreds of protesters had gathered at the protest of the Department of Government Efficiency's work to cut down the size of the useless parts of the federal government, including auditing federal agencies in search of overspending, fraud and corruption. 

Protesters marched to the VA hospital on Los Angeles' Wilshire Boulevard as part of the rally, the Los Angeles Times reported.

"We are here because we are not going to let Trump, we’re not going to let Elon Musk, his co-president, or anybody else take the United States Constitution down," Waters added in her address to the crowd on Saturday. 

She has previously said in a different venue:  “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Evidently, Maxine Waters believes she owns the USA or at least has the right to tell people to leave where she wants them to leave. 

Waters, by the way, has been labeled the most corrupt person in Congress.

"Thanks for reading! If you’d like to toss a coffee my way, check out my Buy Me A Coffee—means a lot!"

Tweet

Leftist immigration judge fired by Trump: "It was political"

An immigration judge hired by the Biden administration for her political views on immigration, abortion, the Palestinian cause, and LGBTQ+1MNO~P+FU was fired by President Donald Trump and said that it was only because "it was political." Her name is Kerry Doyle and she has a bone to pick with this administration.

Ya think?

Doyle, who worked in the liberal state of Massachusetts, was merely one of more than 20 leftist immigration judges fired in recent days without explanation because none is required. Of course, it's obvious why she and her Biden-appointed ilk are gone and that is due to their totally permissive stance on illegal border crossing that favor illegal aliens over Americans.

Doyle said she got an email last week from the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR, not to be confused with a Winnie the Pooh character). It said the agency had "determined that retaining" her was "not in the best interest of the agency." And certainly not in the best interest of legal immigrants who had gone through the system the correct and honest way and didn't depend on the government for everything.

The good news is that administrative judges like Doyle do not have the same protection from firing as federal judges, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to fill lifetime terms. So what Biden hath sown, Trump hath plucked.

Nevertheless, Doyle told WGBH in an interview that Trump’s decision will undermine faith in the nation’s immigration system. Naturally she would say that because she's directly affected by the decision.

"If you start making it political, it really does blow the system up and blow up people’s faith in the system," said Doyle, who previously helped lead a court challenge against Trump’s 2017 travel ban for people from multiple Muslim-majority countries. "None of us were there to drive a political agenda. We were there to do our jobs."

No Kelly; it was Biden's administration [because Biden was personally disinterested in making presidential decisions--he just wanted to be president] who made it political.

Tweet

Wake Up Europe: mother and her 2-year-old die in car-ramming jihad in Munich

A two-year-old girl and her mother have died after a car was rammed into a group of people in Munich, Germany on Thursday.

The mother, 37, was from Munich. She and her daughter are the first reported deaths from the jihad attack police confirmed.

At least 36 others were injured that Thursday morning when the car plowed into a crowd of bystanders taking part in a trade union demonstration.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz uselessly urged Germans to "stand together" as he laid flowers at the scene on Saturday.

Scholz said: "We all have to stand together now, make sure that our country sticks together and that the very values that united those who peacefully organized a rally here and held a march are united with those who helped here, namely that we are together as human beings."

A 24-year-old Afghan Muslim known as Farhad N [because they don't give his last name to avoid putting him in any danger] was detained at the scene. 

The suspect, a rejected asylum-seeker, has lived in Munich since he arrived as an unaccompanied minor in 2016. Although his asylum application was rejected, he lived in Germany legally with a residence permit and had no previous convictions because he was evidently "laying low" waiting for the opportunity to commit jihad.

He is being investigated for 36 counts of attempted murder, as well as bodily harm and dangerous interference with road traffic.

Prosecutors said he appeared to have had an Islamic extremist motive, though there was no evidence he was connected to any radical network. But since when does a jihadi need to be 'connected to a radical network' when jihad itself is radical and has been since Mohammed was beheading Jews for refusing to convert?

The attack got people to remove their heads from their nether regions as it fueled more debate in Germany about migration. It has finally become a top concern among voters as they head to the polls next week to elect a new government. It's possible Germany may end up "doing a Trump" when they vote.

It sent shockwaves through the southern German city just hours before international leaders touched down for the annual Munich Security Conference.

A judge on Friday ordered that the suspect remain in custody pending a possible charge.

Chancellor Scholz said: "It must always be very clear - anyone who does something like that must expect the harshest penalties."

He added: "And of course, if he has no right of stay, he will also have to leave the country at the end of his sentence."

Let's see.

Tweet

House passes Laken Riley Act again: 159 leftist Democrats oppose it

On Tuesday, the Republican-led House of Representatives passed the "Laken Riley Act" once again, legislation that mandates federal officials to arrest undocumented immigrants charged with theft in the United States. While that should be a 'no-brainer,' some on the left don't agree with the bill.

The bill garnered support from forty-eight Democrats and 216 Republicans, securing its approval in the House. It had previously passed in March of the previous year, but this session saw 159 Democrats voting against it, down from 170 in the prior vote.

These dissenting votes, according to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), demonstrated that some Democrats "ignored" the public's demand for "secure borders, the deportation of violent illegal aliens, and laws that put the safety and security of the American people first."

This act is named in honor of Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student from Georgia who was brutally killed last year. The convicted scumcrumpet, Jose Ibarra, a 26-year-old undocumented immigrant from Venezuela, was sentenced to life imprisonment for her murder.

The legislation would compel the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain undocumented immigrants charged with theft within the U.S. and also grants states the authority to sue federal officials for "injunctive relief" should immigration policies or actions adversely affect their citizens.

During the debate, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) criticized the bill, stating that it was an attempt by lawmakers to "score cheap political points off of a tragic death" and that it "unfairly sweeps up many more innocent lives with no due process."

Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), who reintroduced the bill for the current session of Congress, highlighted in a press release that the Laken Riley Act "directly addresses one of the federal policy failures" linked to Riley's murder. According to Collins, "Ibarra is an illegal alien who had been previously cited for shoplifting by the Athens Police Department. If local law enforcement had called ICE, and ICE issued a detainer and picked him up, Laken would be alive."

Although the Senate, under Democratic control, did not previously vote on the Laken Riley Act, with the shift to Republican control, a Senate version of the bill has been reintroduced. Notably, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) has co-sponsored this effort, commenting, "Laken Riley’s story is a tragic reminder of what’s at stake when our systems fail to protect people. No family should have to endure the pain of losing a loved one to preventable violence."

Tweet

Australia denies Holocaust denier the honor of their company

Owens: anti-Semite much?

Holocaust denier and former person with a political pundit career, Candace Owens, is a persona non grata in the land down-under. 

Her self-inflicted clusterfrack hit rock bottom Sunday when Australian officials said that her anti-Semitic bile was too toxic for their country. "Australia’s national interest is best served when Candace Owens is somewhere else," said Immigration Minister Tony Burke.

“From downplaying the impact of the Holocaust with comments about German SS officer Josef Mengele through to claims that Muslims started slavery, Candace Owens has the capacity to incite discord in almost every direction,” Burke announced.

Owens was fired from conservative outlet The Daily Wire in March following a series of antisemitic comments and tropes. 

She was planning to do an Australian speaking tour with tickets selling for $100 but alas, it ain't gonna happen.

Sine August, Jewish groups had been campaigning for Owens' visa cancellation, when Burke first indicated he would block her entry, telling media outlets: “Tickets to these events are selling for $100. I hope she has a good refunds policy.”

And the amazing thing is that her visa cancellation received rare bipartisan support with Opposition immigration spokesman Dan Tehan backing the move to prevent "hateful messages."

Owens once suggested that there was a systematic effort by Israel to persecute Germans after the Holocaust. After all, what did they do so wrong back then?

She was also criticized for describing Nazi lunatic doctor Josef Mengele's experiments on Auschwitz [Jewish] prisoners as "bizarre propaganda," then claimed Israel was founded by a "cult."

In a moronic move, Owens defended Kanye West's Jew-hatred rhetoric about Jewish influence in media and accusing "secret Jewish gangs" controlling Hollywood. This led the Anti-Defamation Commission (ADC) to applaud Australia's decision to ban Owens from a visa.

“A known peddler of dangerous rhetoric against Jews and other groups, and unapologetic Holocaust denier, is a victory for the millions of Jewish souls and millions of others whose memory she so shamelessly desecrated,” the ADC posted on X.

“This is more than just a visa being revoked. This is a tribute to every single survivor who bore witness to the horrors of Auschwitz.”

Candace Owens seems to be in a downward spiral in the commode of life and her public career is likely over, but for decent, fair-minded people, that's a good thing.

Tweet

Kamala Harris: 10 issues she may have "Trumpified"

With Kamala Harris having to walk back most everything she believes that will hurt her presidential chances, most of us wouldn't be surprised if she sleeps with Stormy Daniels and dyes her hair just to give the illusion she's like Trump only black and a woman.

Harris has walked back on so many issues, it's hard to take her seriously. I suspect if she wins the presidency, she will do exactly what she wants, and that's to follow her estranged father's socialist philosophy and Make America Ache.

1. She was outspoken about banning fracking during her 2020 short-lived campaign that ended up getting her zero primary votes. But now she pretends her stance has changed and no longer supports a ban. Some people will believe her and others will be happy if it does change back to the ban. Kamala is now getting in line with the more centrist Democrats in her fake approach to energy policy and tut-tuts global warming, at least until the second week in November. 

Do you trust her?

2. She has also proposed a smaller increase in long-term capital gains tax rate compared to what Biden suggested. This is a change from her former stance of taxing the wealthy. And now while supporting an increase in corporate tax, she sees how unpopular it is, and has suggested a lower tax hike than previously discussed.

3. In a move to kick the Second Amendment in the butt, she supported mandatory buy-back programs for "assault weapons" but her new 'elect me, guys' stance is less aggressive because she has no other political philosophy than to get elected by any means necessary. Her current stance focuses more on background checks and other less controversial measures. But it isn't background check improvement that's so needed, it's the enforcement of the laws that are already in place.

4. Harris and health care are a fiscal joke. She once supported Medicare For All and a single-payer health care system, which would end private health insurance, remove people's choices for health care, and destroy thousands of jobs. Suddenly, her campaign claims she no longer supports this, but Harris herself has not stated this openly. 

Do you trust her?

5. For Harris, the ability for mothers to kill their babies in the womb has always been a soft spot in her heart. While she still believes women have the right to do this right up to the baby's crowning she is now emphasizing these rights as a large focal point of her campaign. 

6. Back when she was first running for president, she wanted to decriminalize illegal border crossings. But with Trump going full-on border defense, Harris believes she has evolved and suddenly supports stronger border controls and enforcement, at least for now. Maybe even a wall on the southern border. 

Do you trust her?

7. She had, but no longer has, a federal jobs guarantee initiative that was part of her Green New Deal proposal. Harris loves her some Green New Deal--it's what daddy would have wanted, although he's nowhere to be found. 

8. In an effort to kick capitalism in the symbolic nuts, Harris was for a mandate for automakers to build only electric and hydrogen vehicles by 2035. While it's not certain whether she is still for it or against the idea, once she's in office [heaven forfend] anything is possible.

Do you trust her?

9. Slavery reparations were also big for the giggling Vice President. In this case too, her position is unclear and since she wasn't asked in the only powder puff interview she had [for 16 minutes] it's likely she's still for it. Who knows where she stands since she hides from the disinterested media.

10. But the most important issue she was dead set to impose on the American people was the banning of plastic straws to save the environment. Never mind that plastic bags, plastic pens, and so on, are not being banned, but Axios recently reported that Kamala Hahahaharris is no longer for the ban.

Sip away.

Tweet

Clueless freshman Dem proposes bill to remove Statue of Liberty

A freshman Democrat who is obviously looking to make a name for himself, Rep. Maxwell Frost (FL) told Republicans to pass a bill to remove the Statue of Liberty along with their "bigoted" immigration law. 

Frost believes that we should keep our borders open to allow the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free to come into the United States, and is planning to have as many of them that he can accommodate live with him at his house to show that he means it. 

There was a House Oversight and Accountability Committee hearing on immigration that discussed H.R.2, the House GOP’s Secure the Border Act. This comprehensive border security and immigration bill was passed back in May and would restrict the asylum process for people illegally crossing the border who aren't genuinely seeking asylum but looking for handouts or to hook up with terrorist sleeper cells. 

The bill would also require the resumption of construction on the border wall to keep undocumented Democrats out.

Frost was one of many Democrats who attacked the bill, because it limits the number of Democrats to actual Americans, but he went a step further and came up with a mock bill to remove the Statue of Liberty for Republicans to also pass. This comes at a time when Democrats are busy cheering riots or demands that result in the forcible removal of other statues of American heroes like George Washington along with historical statues that the Left feels offended by, while putting up statues like that of a thug named George Floyd who died during his arrest by a white cop.

"My colleagues from the other side of the aisle, let’s be honest with immigrants who deserve better than what you’re offering them. Don’t welcome immigrants if you plan to reject them. If you keep pushing your bigoted H.R. 2 bill, then also pass this bill. I’ve taken the liberty of drafting it for you," Frost said, holding up the draft, and failing to understand the word 'immigrant'. "It removes the Statue of Liberty, our largest symbol that tells people to come here."

"This is who you are, removing the fabric of America. So, I want to know which Republican, who supports and voted for H.R.2, will introduce this bill," he continued. "If you’re gonna support H.R.2 and these bigoted measures, the least you can do is not be a damn liar."

The fabric of America is the melting pot of legal immigrants, not people looking for handouts or jobs or to commit terrorist acts. 

Frost is not very bright. He conflates realistic immigration reform with the words on Miss Liberty, proving once again that many, if not most, of our political leaders are not very smart.

In line with what I just said, writer Ryan James Girdusky posted: "Democrats can’t decide if they want to topple statues or have them make our laws for us."

RealClearInvestigations senior writer and Molly's husband, Mark Hemingway added, "There’s only one party in this country that wants to tear down statues, and it’s not Republicans."

And Frost fails to remember that not all Democrats agree with the Democrat's open borders policy: Substack writer Jim Treacher pointed out that "Eric Adams isn't a Republican. Brandon Johnson isn't a Republican. None of the other mayors crying about immigrants are Republicans."

Did I mention that Frost isn't very bright? 

He only attacked Republicans and failed to go after the 14 Democratic lawmakers who voted with the GOP:  Reps. Henry Cuellar, (D-TX); Jared Golden, (D-ME); Mary Peltola, (D-AL); Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, (D-WA); and Jared Moskowitz, (D-FL).

Tweet