There’s a story from POLITICO making the rounds and creating an enormous amount of dyspepsia on the Right. The story is titled, “’I Love Hitler.’ Leaked messages expose Young Republicans’ racist chat.” It is questionable whether the actual line “I love Hitler” was said in jest or whether it was said authentically. All those quotes from the chat have been released by POLITICO. They reported: Leaders of Young Republican groups throughout the country worried what would happen if their Telegram chat ever got leaked, but they kept typing anyway. They referred to Black people as monkeys and “the watermelon people” and mused about putting their political opponents in gas chambers. They talked about raping their enemies and driving them to suicide and lauded Republicans who they believed support slavery. William Hendrix, the Kansas Young Republicans’ vice chair, used the words “n–ga” and “n–guh,” variations of a racial slur, more than a dozen times in the chat. Bobby Walker, the vice chair of the New York State Young Republicans at the time, referred to rape as “epic.” Peter Giunta, who at the time was chair of the same organization, wrote in a message sent in June that “everyone that votes no is going to the gas chamber.” Giunta was referring to an upcoming vote on whether he should become chair of the Young Republican National Federation, the GOP’s 15,000-member political organization for Republicans between 18 and 40 years old. “Im going to create some of the greatest physiological torture methods known to man. We only want true believers,” he continued. Two members of the chat responded.   A lot of this is edgelord-ism. It has existed on the Right, particularly among young right-wingers, for a very long time. Back in 2015 or 2016, I was speaking at a college campus in California, and some kid came over and started using some Groyper memes in jest. I said to him, “Listen, I understand that you’re just being edgelord right now. If you actually, authentically think that stuff, you’re wrong. But second of all, if you put that stuff online, there are social consequences to saying and believing truly terrible things.” I’m not talking here about whether we should ban people from Facebook. Obviously, the answer is no. Whether you ban people from YouTube or X, I’ve argued in favor of the restoration of people’s accounts on these platforms because they are platforms. They are not publications. However, there are social consequences to people who say things that you believe are terrible. They don’t get to come over to dinner at your house. They don’t get to marry your kids. You don’t date them. We all have social lines we draw all the time, and the question is where to draw those lines and how those lines ought to be drawn. There’s no question that the shutting tight of the Overton Window by the Left means that the explosion of the Overton Window in response has let in an enormous amount of garbage. That is reality. This sort of language is routinely used now among a segment, not all, not even a majority, but among some fragmented segment of the right-wing ecosystem among young people. So here is what I hope will represent an honest rubric for dealing with issues like this one. Obviously, it is very cynical for POLITICO to target young GOP group chats while leaving left-wing chats untouched. I would promise you those same left-wing chats exist and are just as bad, if not worse. There are university chats among professors that are just as bad, if not worse. All of that is true. The Right does not have an obligation to go totally insane over such chats. What the Left and the media love to do is to take stuff like this and say to every member of the Republican Party, “You must personally condemn all of this.” The answer should be, “I’m happy to condemn the crap in there, but why? Why am I responsible for it? I’m not responsible for that.” You claim that everyone on the Right is responsible for a group of young Republicans who say terrible things in private to one another, that what they did somehow implicates the entire Republican Party. Meanwhile, the attorney general candidate in Virginia publicly says horrible things and that doesn’t implicate the entire Democratic Party? Zoran Mamdani, who likely will be New York mayor, is openly pro-terrorism, and that doesn’t implicate the entire Democratic Party? This POLITICO story, which is gaining all sorts of traction, is not comparable to actual people running for high office in Virginia or in New York City or the Democratic Party at high levels engaging with this sort of nonsense. When you’re asked about somebody saying a bad thing, whether you’re Right or Left, of course you ought to condemn the bad thing that is being said. I don’t even understand the logic of not doing that. Are you obligated to defend the bad thing being said, because the person who is questioning you is “on the other side?” Because that’s precisely how you get to a Left that defends Jay Jones. That’s how you get there. That’s how you get to a Left that openly defends Zoran Mamdani. Forgiveness ought to be easily obtained, as I’ve said. But — if you want forgiveness, you ought to ask for it. You ought to disassociate from the things that you say, and admit, “I was saying stuff that was dumb. I got caught up in the edgelord moment online.” You only get out of jail free if you ask to do so. You don’t get it preemptively. If you say something terrible or you do something terrible and people preemptively forgive you, doesn’t that incentivize you to do more of that thing? Finally, it is not sufficient to publicly proclaim that you’re not going to condemn these people, say nothing about their comments, and instead just project to the other side. That’s because on a strategic level, this is how your party ends up being taken over by the ambulatory psychotics. With the Left, that’s what happened. They decided they would not, under any circumstance, condemn their own ambulatory psychotics because those people were part of their coalition, and they couldn’t do it or they would lose. You know what ended up happening? The alligator ate them first, not last. They ended up being taken over by the crazy wing. That’s because if you lose your systemic immunity, the crazy tends to be really, really, really infectious. There’s this weird idea on the Right that the Left wins because they’re totally unified and they completely side with one another. But here’s the central point: The Left is not winning. I think we on the Right have somehow become depressive, even possibly gotten addicted to the depressive. The Left is not winning. Donald Trump has been president twice. Republicans are in control of the Senate. Republicans are in control of the House. Republicans are in control of the majority of governors’ mansions. Republicans are in control of a majority of state legislatures. The Left is not winning because of their unity. They are being destroyed because they decided that the nutjobs and the radicals in their own party could not be condemned under any circumstances. They decided to feature Ilhan Omar on the cover of magazines and unite around the crazy college protesters, the BLM rioters, and the transgender radicals. And guess what? They got their asses kicked because of it. Yes, they didn’t expel people from their party, but moderates walked away. The non-crazy walked away. This is the dirty little secret of how Donald Trump won the election of 2024. He ran as a moderate. People were moderate and picked him above the unified Left that was siding with and defending and massaging all of the radicals. This is a very big country with an awful lot of people, and the vast majority of them are not loon bags, and the vast majority of them don’t like the lunacy. And we need to be real about the agenda of the people who are continuing to rely on the kindness of the “traditional Republicans” who “don’t want to attack.”

Fans of Maccabi Tel Aviv have been banned by Aston Villa

Neighbors reportedly say James doesn't live there

The federal judge who blocked the Trump administration’s ouster of federal employees on Wednesday has a record of controversial rulings spanning from siding with environmentalists to presiding over the trial of baseball legend Barry Bonds. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of California determined the administration’s Office of Management and Budget as well as the Office of Personnel Management “have taken advantage of the lapse in government spending-function to assume all bets are off and that the laws don’t apply to them.” “It’s very much ready, fire, aim on most of these programs, and it has a human cost. It’s a human cost that cannot be tolerated,” she wrote in her opinion.  Illston has been reversed by both the U.S. Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court on high profile cases during her 30 years on the bench.  Here are six things to know about her. 1. A Clinton Appointee Illston was nominated to the bench in January 1995 by President Bill Clinton on the recommendation of California Democrat Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.  She was confirmed in May of that year by a voice vote at a time when most lower court judicial nominations sailed through the U.S. Senate.  She was previously in private practice for 20 years and was a partner at the firm of Cotchett, Illston & Pitre in Burlingame, California, which focused on labor and personal injury litigation.  Illston was born in Tokyo in 1948 and graduated from Stanford Law School.  2. Overruled on Stopping Federal Hiring Freeze In July in a separate federal employees case, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to suspend an injunction Illston had issued to stop a hiring freeze resulting from recommendations from the new Department of Government Efficiency.  President Donald Trump had issued an executive order in February that included a federal hiring freeze and a large-scale reduction in force throughout federal agencies.   The American Federation of Government Employees sued and was the lead plaintiff challenging Trump’s order. In May, Illston issued the preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from carrying out the order. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t reverse her.  The Trump administration went to the Supreme Court for an emergency ruling. On July 8, the high court issued a two-paragraph opinion siding with the administration.  “Because the government is likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order and memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application,” the high court said in its opinion.  “We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF [reduction in force] and reorganization plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum,” the ruling read. “The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves.” The high court’s decision to reverse Illston effectively cleared the way for the Trump administration’s reduction of the bureaucracy. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. 3. Ruling Against Trump’s Immigration Enforcement  In November 2020, Illston blocked the Trump administration policy preventing foreign asylum seekers from entering the country if they had a criminal record.  The Trump administration attempted to add domestic violence, assault, re-entering the country illegally, identity theft, public benefits fraud, immigrant smuggling, and driving under the influence as disqualifying factors for those seeking asylum.  Illston said the policy “sweeps too broadly” and sided with Pangea Legal Services, a legal service provider for immigrants. She determined that since drug trafficking, money laundering, and counterfeiting already disqualified asylum seekers, additional crimes were not necessary.  4. Scrapping Part of the Sex Offender Law After just over a decade on the bench, Illston issued a temporary restraining order to a provision of a California law barring sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of a school or park she determined was unconstitutional.  California’s Proposition 83, also known as Jessica’s Law, had bipartisan support in the state and was approved by 70% of voters. Shortly thereafter, an anonymous convicted sex offender sued specifically over the provision about living close to parks and schools.  Key to the sex offender’s argument in challenging the state law was that it could not be retroactively applied to anyone convicted before Proposition 83 was in effect.   Illston didn’t rule on the merits, and state courts took the case. In February 2010, the California Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that Proposition 83 can apply to all prisoners paroled after the law was passed, regardless of the conviction date.  5. Siding With Environmental Groups In September 2009, Illston knocked down a federal road management plan in California, siding with environmental groups.  She determined the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s designation of about 5,000 miles of off-road vehicle routes did not consider the impact on public lands, archaeological sites, and wildlife. She wrote that the plan, approved in 2006, was “flawed because it does not contain a reasonable range of alternatives” to reduce the number of miles of off-road routes. The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of environmental groups that included the Center for Biological Diversity, the Sierra Club, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, and Desert Survivors. 6. Barry Bonds In one of her highest profile cases, in March 2009, she presided over the steroid-related trial of Barry Bonds, a former baseball player for the San Francisco Giants. Bonds had been indicted in 2007 for perjury and obstruction of justice. She ruled a mistrial on the three perjury charges. A jury convicted Bonds of obstruction. However, the jury’s conviction was later vacated by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015. The next step in the current case where Illston is blocking the Trump administration from firing federal employees during the shutdown is likely the administration appealing to the 9th Circuit Court. Or it could seek an emergency ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. The post 6 Things About Judge Who Blocked Trump From Culling Bureaucracy During Shutdown appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump has been the ultimate closer on major votes in this Congress, but has largely stayed out of talks to end the federal government shutdown. Here’s why the proverbial 800-lb. gorilla is not weighing in just yet. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Thursday that the pressure is on a handful of Democrats, not on the president, to bring the matter to a close and reopen the government. “This is going to end when the Democrats decide their political stunt has gone on long enough, and it’s going to end the same way, which is seven, eight, nine, 10 [Senate] Democrats are going to finally say, OK, we can open the government,” Cruz said, “and it will likely be Democrat senators who are retiring.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., have consistently held the line, saying there is nothing to negotiate when it comes to a simple, short-term stopgap funding extension, which contains no Republican policy priorities. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post via Getty Images) Although he did meet with Democrats before the shutdown, Trump’s decision to mostly stay out of the skirmish has been to the chagrin of Democrats in the Senate, who see him as the ultimate dealmaker. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said Thursday he doesn’t expect Republican leadership to budge “without Donald Trump telling them what to do.”  But Kelly says he’s hopeful Trump sympathizes with them on extending COVID-era boosted health care premium tax credits. “It seems that he wants to try to fix these premium increases, and I think he probably wants the government to open back up,” Kelly told The Daily Signal. “So, sometimes that’s maybe not so clear, but if he wants those two things, that’s what we want. We’re on the same page. We should be able to figure this out.”  Republicans, however, say it’s simply not Trump’s job to decide outcomes in a legislative body. “It’s not the president’s [issue],” Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., told The Daily Signal. “It’s our issue.” “There is no role to play” for the president, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., likewise told The Daily Signal. “We’re all in the same position.” In the view of many Republicans, Trump intervening in the matter would simply be a bailout for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who they think is motivated by the backlash he faced in March for supporting a previous Republican-backed funding extension. “The real reason the shutdown is happening is because Chuck Schumer has a real political problem. Several months ago, when Democrats cooperated with Republicans to keep the government open, Schumer almost lost his job,” Cruz said. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images) “The radical Left base got furious, and Schumer is looking over his left shoulder at being primaried [by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]. And so, the reason we’re having a shutdown now is that Schumer is trying to prove to the crazies in his party that he hates Donald Trump as much as they do, and that’s why he shut the government down,” Cruz added. The Texas senator reiterated his belief that the shutdown would end once it was no longer worth the trouble for the old guard of the Democratic Party. “At some point, as I said, a handful of Democrats who are no longer worried about being primaried, because they’re retiring, will decide enough is enough, and the government will open. And that could be a week, that could be a month,” said Cruz. But despite the Texan’s confidence that the situation will resolve itself, many Democrats say Trump will have to personally negotiate to win their votes. “No matter what Mr. Thune offers, I’m sorry, I got to know that President Trump is on board,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., said in a recent appearance on MSNBC. “Because it’s not enough anymore to take the word of Speaker Johnson or Sen. Thune, because they have to go check with the big guy in the White House.” Slotkin: No matter what Thune offers, I'm sorry. I got to know that President Trump is on board because it's not enough anymore to take the word of Speaker Johnson or Senator Thune, because they have to go check with the big guy in the White House pic.twitter.com/AEXcRhGW9v— Acyn (@Acyn) October 16, 2025 The post Why Is Trump Staying Out of Shutdown Talks? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This is an interview Tony Kinnett conducted with Julio Rosas and Nick Sortor. The transcript has been lightly edited for clarity. Tony Kinnett: We go over now live from beautiful Chiraq [Chicago], Illinois, JB Pritzker’s playground, to talk to two of the finest riot reporters that we know: Julio Rosas of The Blaze and Nick Sortor, he of the number one public enemy in Portland variety. Gentlemen, thanks for hopping on. Julio Rosas: Yeah, thanks for having us, Tony. Nick Sortor: Appreciate you having me. Kinnett: Let’s dig right into the specifics of the current ICE operational details here. I know there’s a lot of movement on the ground with protesters appearing to use vehicles in order to stall ICE agents or Border Patrol agents. And then these crowds show up right after. You guys track a lot of the crowd movement. How coordinated are the traffic kind of accident situations to these instantaneous protest groups descending on them? Rosas: Well, it just depends on the city, right? I mean, Chicago has proven itself to be very confrontational. They make no qualms about that. I mean, they’re certainly not afraid of Chicago police in general. So naturally that was going to translate over to [Department of Homeland Security]. That is something similar that we’ve seen in Los Angeles as well with using cars and getting people as quickly as they can to an operation. So they’re learning from each other. And I think Nick, he’s certainly seen some of that where they take cues from what works in places like Portland or New York or Boston even kind of popped off the other day. It’s just a continuation of what we’ve seen. And it’s because that they see that deportations are not stopping. So naturally, they’re going to escalate their tactics. Kinnett: Nick, what do you think? Is there a rise in the car maneuvers and kind of the instant protest, we shall not be moved, descending on the groups there? Sortor: Yeah, I think there’s a big problem with people out here, especially in Chiraq, being emboldened because the courts keep shutting down every single maneuver that this administration tries to make. So they feel like they’re untouchable. I mean, just a little bit behind me here, you may not be able to see it because they shut all the lights off. I don’t know if that’s because of the Schumer Shutdown or what it is, but all the lights have gone out for whatever reason. They had to take down the fence that’s outside the ICE facility here. Why? I don’t know how the fence could possibly be unconstitutional. I don’t remember that part of the Constitution. Maybe somebody can enlighten me on that. But, you know, they did this just ahead of this No King’s Day protest that is scheduled for here as well as many other cities across the country. And they’re not allowed to deploy the National Guard. The judge is like, well, you can federalize them, but you can’t deploy them. I’m not really sure what the National Guard is for if you can’t use it to guard national properties, such as the ICE facility out here. What am I missing? Kinnett: That’s exactly what I wanted to ask both of you, at least on the frame of when states’ laws and rulings and then federal laws and rulings are allowed to apply. And, Julio, that kind of brings an interesting point: If the National Guard, under federalized condition are not allowed to be stationed at federal buildings, how then is Illinois and the Cook County judge under JB Pritzker’s direction allowed to ban federal law enforcement from inside court rooms and facilities in order to make arrests on illegal immigrants? Why are we playing by a double standard here? Rosas: Because we’re in a clown world? I mean, no, but seriously, because I hate to go back to the fence, but the reason why that’s so important is because now that there’s no longer a fence, the DHS and the feds are going to have to put way more agents on the line to prevent people from causing any disruption or any damage. We were seeing that prior to the fence installment. And so that’s why the president wanted to send in the National Guard because, OK, they’re a force multiplier in addition to the fence, but now they can’t have the National Guard, they can’t have the fence. So they’re kind of back to square one. And so now instead of those agents being out there making arrests, they’re going to have to be doing guard duty. OK, that is that is something that they can do, but they’re being hamstrung at every corner, and that’s why it’s very concerning that you have the courts and the city and the state leadership in Illinois and elsewhere basically having an insurrection, like an actual insurrection. Like this is not just the street activists, right? They are being helped by the leadership, by them antagonizing it and making decisions to make the situation worse. Kinnett: I mean, it’s kind of the ultimate flip here. You have the Illinois authorities doing everything they can to assist the protesters and the rioters by taking down the fence. And then they’re doing everything they can to essentially put federal law enforcement and civilians in Chicago at risk. And again, it’s a very sketchy situation. Nick, I didn’t realize they had all the fencing taken down along those lines. With the court system, have you seen any Antifa individuals essentially right back out on the streets after arrest? I know that there have been judges releasing people back out onto the streets. Sortor: Well, I mean, Chicago and Portland are very similar in that regard, where you, unless you are a conservative journalist, you’re pretty much just turned around immediately and thrown back out on the street. The average time is about two hours, right? But for me, it was six. We’ll talk about that some other time. I’m waiting for a judge to make some sort of order now to unlock the front door of the ICE facility, because that’s where we’re headed at this point. Like, I don’t know, you can’t have a fence? We can’t have a fence outside of the ICE facility? I mean, this is clown world, guys. Come on! Kinnett: So I want to move forward to the other side of clown world here to the delivering of materials. And I’m not talking about clown horns and red noses. Of course, there’s been video footage showing U-Haul and other unmarked vehicles dropping off riot supplies. And this is right ahead of the No Kings protests. I’m not seeing people pass out posters and paint stirring sticks to tape them to. I’m seeing people hand out gas masks and these half trash cans and other heavy materials that are being used to bolster riot … essentially to outlast things like tear gas and pepper ball deployment. Julio, are you seeing any of that? First of all, either of you, if you’ve seen any of that, let us know. But additionally, are you seeing Chicago police also start to use pepper balls and tear gas more as the crowds become unruly, or is that just federal agents? Rosas: No, all those have been federal agents. It’s really weird because after they got that stand down order, after that defensive shooting, was it last week or the week before, the Chicago police are starting to show up to … they showed up yesterday during this confrontation that the federal agents had with people showing up after the scene of a car crash. But they’re not equipped for riot duty. That’s the problem. So, it appears that the city leadership and the police chief and whatever, they’re ordering their guys to do the bare minimum and to show up. Kinnett: To what, like show up and like check the meter like a meter maid? Rosas: Kind of, yeah. So when federal agents have to deploy tear gas because the situation has gotten so out of control that that’s what it requires Chicago police are not able to do anything except have to walk away because they don’t have gas masks. They don’t have helmets. They don’t have the extra-long police sticks to do crowd control. And to me, at this point, it’s like, “Well, why don’t they have those things right now?” because this has happened multiple times already. And so to me, it just seems like they’re setting up the police to fail so that they can then blame the feds by saying, “Oh, well, they tear gas our cops.” It’s like, yeah, because you guys aren’t doing your job. Kinnett: Nick, I want to pitch that over to you. What do you think that federal officials are looking for as kind of a way to mitigate the tear gassing of Chicago police that aren’t showing up with gas masks? I guess they’re showing up with career day balloons or whatever. Sortor: If the Chicago police are going to show up and not do anything about the standoff from these … this is a little bit different than Portland, just to be clear. We’re dealing with violent Latin American gangs that are out on the street here going head-to-head with ICE agents. Kinnett: Well, cartels are openly putting out hits on federal agents. Sortor: Right. So I don’t think we have time to worry about the Chicago … if the Chicago police want to go out there so they can get their pictures and say, “Oh, look, we’re helping,” you know, I’m sorry. Like, go help over there again. We’re going to take care of the crowd. The feds are going to deploy tear gas. And that’s the way it has to be because this is an incredibly volatile situation. I mean, you watched what happened just yesterday here in Chicago. And I feel like this is going to happen more and more and more, especially with the judges that know what they’re doing. Let’s be clear: They know that these rulings are going to be overturned on appeal, but it’s a stall and delay tactic because, as Julio said, the more agents you have guarding the facilities here and defending themselves, the less Title VIII work you can do, the less deportation work that you can do. And that is the strategy. And these activist judges are playing right into it. JB Pritzker knows this as well. This is part of his play. He’s doing the bare minimum in terms of sending out just enough units to say that they are doing something and therefore, we don’t need National Guard because the state’s responding. That’s the argument. These guys are restrained. I mean, I’m standing in this parking lot right now outside. You’ve got a couple of state troopers out here at the moment. You see these clips of them ordering people out of the street. And when they don’t vacate the streets, then the state police will do something about it. But that is like every once in a while. This is not a recurring thing. It seems to be at certain times of the day. They’ll do something. They’ll get their photos. It’ll be posted online. Then they’ll retreat. Kinnett: Well, of course, Julio, we’ve talked about this quite considerably. Well, actually, all three of us, when we were at the DNC last year and we watched not just the left-wing media, but also some of the right-wing media not covering… Sortor: Why are they allowed to have a fence? Why are they allowed to have a fence at the DNC, but we can’t have one at the ICE facility? You’ve got to be kidding me. Kinnett: Oh, man, that’s a really good point. I didn’t even write that down on my interview notes. Julio, I guess other than having the DNC organize security at the ICE facilities, what are a couple of things here right at the end that you are keeping an eye on, keeping an eye out for over the next couple of days? Again, I know you both approach it from different ways, especially, Julio, kind of a military circumspect kind of view from your time with the Marines. What are you going to be looking out for over the next couple of days? Rosas: Well, I mean, it’s not even just the next couple of days, but it’s really for the next three years. And like I said at the beginning, deportations aren’t stopping. Enforcement isn’t stopping. It’s not really slowing down, even in spite of the judiciary’s attempt to slow it down. So it’s all about escalating their tactics. I asked an Antifa guy in Portland, when I was up on the roof, I said, “Did you stop the deportations?” And the guy had to admit, no, he did not. And so, OK, so then what are you going to do? So when you’re in that position and you know you’re losing and even the public support for deportations of everybody, regardless if they have an enhanced criminal record or not, it’s still in the majority. Right? And that’s new. That’s a recent development because of the border crisis from the past four years. So they know they’re on the losing side of this. And so their only recourse in their eyes is to escalate their tactics. And so that’s why it’s not going to stop with car rammings. It’s probably going to go into bombings. It’s probably going to go into shootings. Sortor: And that’s not unprecedented, right, Julio? I mean, you we saw this in Portland in 2020 where they were literally lobbing explosives over the fence over there. Rosas: Yeah, it was also in Washington in 2019, and then we just had the shooting in Dallas. Kinnett: Well, of course, you saw the siege in Portland in which they were taping things like pennies and small like tack nails to fireworks that they were shooting at the ICE facility in Portland. Rosas: Yeah. And so they know their backs are against the wall. And when you have radicals in that position, they get dangerous. So that’s my concern. Things might calm down once it finally gets below 32 degrees in the Chicago area. And, you know, it kind of cools things down for a bit. But it’s just going to be like fighting season in Afghanistan. It’s going to start right back up again as soon as the conditions are conducive for that. Kinnett: Nick, I know you’ve obviously spent a lot of time focusing on how the executives in any kind of a jurisdiction are giving certain orders to their police departments. Of course, the question in the Portland City Council getting involved with their police department right before you were wrongfully arrested. What are you going to be keeping an eye out for over the next couple of days? And, maybe like Julio said, over the next three years regarding kind of the frame of coverage that you’re looking into regarding kind of jurisdictions. Sortor: Well, I mean, in terms of Portland, I think Saturday with these no Kings Day protests that are going on. We’ll be able to tell a lot about the direction that the Portland police and the city of Portland is going to go based on how they handle it. Unlike here in Chicago, where this is quite—Julio has been here, so he sort of knows—but to get to the entrance of the ICE facility, it’s quite a ways down this road. And if you try to walk down this road, you’re going to get yelled at through a megaphone, right? And they will arrest you for that. In Portland, you can walk within feet, within 10 feet of the building, right? So if you have, say, a couple thousand people crammed into that area … Kinnett: Right, it’s a street front kind of building. Sortor: Right. Not here. This is a little bit different. This is recess. So I think that’s going to be a big test for the city of Portland and the Portland police. Are they going to do crowd control? We know that they can because when Kristi Noem came out there, and I was embedded with her last week out there in Portland, Portland police went out because they didn’t want her to be able to take pictures and show the mayhem that happens in the street outside of the ICE facility. So they shut down like two blocks around it, right? So that there was only a little place for people to stand so that when pictures were taken and there’s only this little sidewalk for people to stand on, they can say, “Oh look, there’s nobody actually out here.” You know, if they can be serious and shut down those two blocks and cordon people off so they can scream, yell, and whine over in a certain area, I think that, you know, might be a signal for a good direction in Portland, a better direction anyway. But I don’t see that happening. I think they’re just going to let them run loose. Kinnett: Just one very important last little question here. I know that, of course, the three of us have done some kind of undercover work in the past where you’ve kind of embedded in different places in order to move around with the crowd, see what individuals are up to, report that to the American people. Unfortunately, in Portland, that often means getting completely naked and riding a bicycle around. So I guess I’m asking both of you, do you have any plans to strip down and ride bicycles around the area? Rosas: I’m only in my free time. Sortor: Dude, I’m a little bit worried. I know airborne STDs are supposedly not a thing, but I’m pretty sure Portland may have changed that last weekend, unfortunately. So I made sure that there were no emergency naked bike rides before I head back this weekend. Rosas: Yeah, you certainly needed a gas mask for that one. Kinnett: Well, wishing that you guys are not only, of course, safe while you’re in Chicago, but also that you keep away from any monkeypox outbreaks. Julio Rosas over at The Blaze. Nick Sortor, also appreciate you taking a couple of moments here. We’ll include all of your socials and links down in the description below. Thanks again for hopping on. The post Two Conservative Journalists Report on the War Against ICE in Chicago appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Dog accidents happen 40% more often during low-light conditions, according to veterinary emergency data. A reflective safety dog vest can prevent these tragic incidents. We at DogingtonPost tested dozens of safety vests to find the features that matter most. The right vest combines visibility, comfort, and durability to keep your dog safe during walks, hikes, and outdoor work. What Makes a Safety Vest Actually Work Reflective Materials That Save Lives The 3M reflective material outperforms all other options. This material reflects light up to 600 feet away and makes your dog visible to drivers long before standard reflective strips work. Lazer Brite products use genuine 3M material, while cheaper vests often use inferior alternatives that lose reflectivity after just a few washes. The placement matters just as much as the material quality. Vests with 360-degree coverage outperform those with strips only on the back or sides. Look for reflective bands that wrap completely around your dog’s torso and chest area. Fit That Actually Stays Put Proper girth measurement determines everything. Measure around the largest part of your dog’s chest, then add two inches for comfort. A correctly fitted vest allows two fingers to slide between the fabric and your dog’s body. Adjustable straps should tighten at three points: neck, chest, and belly. Quick-release buckles save time during emergencies, but cheap plastic buckles break under stress. Metal or reinforced plastic buckles last years longer. The vest should never shift during movement (dogs with deep chests need vests with extended belly straps to prevent the vest from riding up during walks). Materials That Handle Real Conditions High-denier nylon withstands thorns, rocks, and repeated washing without losing shape. The strongest nylon fabrics combine high-tenacity fibers with 1000D–1680D denier counts. Neoprene works well for water activities but retains heat during summer walks. Mesh panels provide ventilation but compromise durability. Weather-resistant materials prevent water absorption, which adds weight and reduces reflectivity when wet. UV-resistant materials maintain their reflective properties after months of sun exposure (reinforced stitching at stress points prevents seam failure). Machine-washable vests maintain hygiene without special care requirements. These technical features separate professional-grade vests from basic options, but the best vest means nothing if your dog won’t wear it comfortably. Which Safety Vest Works Best for Your Dog LED-Enhanced Vests for Maximum Visibility LED-enhanced vests deliver the strongest visibility advantage during nighttime activities. The Coastal Pet USB Light-Up Neck Ring offers 360-degree illumination with three light settings and maintains a five-hour charge on flash mode. This vest charges in just 40 minutes, which makes it practical for daily use. The Ruffwear Beacon Dog Safety Light achieves a 4.6-star rating and adds supplemental light to existing vests. LED vests work best for urban environments where vehicle traffic poses the primary safety risk. Mesh Vests for Active Dogs in Heat Lightweight mesh construction prevents overheating during summer activities while it maintains reflective properties. The Ruffwear Lumenglow High-Vis Vest combines mesh ventilation with reflective strips and earns a 4.7-star rating from users. Mesh panels reduce weight by 30% compared to solid nylon vests, but they sacrifice durability in thorny terrain. These vests work perfectly for beach walks, park visits, and suburban neighborhoods where comfort matters more than extreme durability. Heavy-Duty Options for Demanding Conditions Dogs that work need vests that survive harsh environments without they lose reflective capabilities. The Water & Woods Reflective Dog Safety Vest handles hunting conditions and outdoor work assignments. Heavy-duty vests use 1000D nylon construction with double-stitched seams at stress points. The Ruffwear Front Range Harness with reflective trim scores 4.8 stars and provides both safety visibility and work functionality (professional handlers prefer vests with D-ring attachments for leash control and lift handles for emergency situations). These vests cost 40-60% more than basic options but last three times longer in demanding conditions. The right vest type depends on your specific activities, but proper fit remains essential regardless of which style you choose. How to Get the Perfect Fit Measure Twice, Buy Once Girth measurement determines vest success, but most dog owners measure incorrectly. Place the tape around the largest part of your dog’s ribcage, typically behind the front legs. Pull the tape snug but not tight – you should slide one finger underneath. Add exactly two inches to this measurement for the vest size. Dogs with barrel chests like Bulldogs need an additional inch, while deep-chested breeds like Greyhounds require extended belly straps to prevent the vest from sliding forward during walks. Weight-based charts mislead owners because dogs carry weight differently. A 60-pound Labrador and a 60-pound Great Dane need completely different vest sizes due to body proportions. Always prioritize girth measurements over weight recommendations when manufacturers provide both options. Train Your Dog to Accept the Vest Dogs reject safety vests when owners skip the introduction process. Start with 5-minute indoor sessions while you offer high-value treats. Increase the time by 5 minutes daily until your dog tolerates 30-minute sessions without stress signals like panting, scratching, or attempts to remove the vest. This process takes 7-10 days for most dogs (fearful dogs may need 3 weeks of gradual conditioning). Never force the vest on a dog that struggles or leave it on an unsupervised dog during the first week. Dogs that associate the vest with positive experiences wear it willingly, while those with negative first impressions may never accept it comfortably. Maintain Reflective Properties Machine wash reflective vests in cold water only – hot water breaks down reflective coatings. Air dry completely before storage because trapped moisture breeds bacteria and weakens fabric fibers (UV exposure degrades reflective materials even when the vest sits unused). Replace vests when reflective strips crack, peel, or lose their bright appearance under flashlight tests. Store vests flat in a cool, dry location away from direct sunlight. Inspect buckles, stitches, and reflective strips monthly for wear patterns that indicate replacement needs. Final Thoughts The right reflective safety dog vest combines three essential elements: genuine 3M reflective material for maximum visibility, adjustable straps that maintain proper fit during movement, and durable construction that withstands regular use. These features separate professional-grade vests from basic options that fail when you need them most. Urban dogs benefit most from LED-enhanced vests that provide 360-degree illumination during nighttime walks. Active dogs in warm climates need lightweight mesh construction that prevents overheating while it maintains reflective properties. Working dogs require heavy-duty nylon vests with reinforced stitching that survive harsh outdoor conditions. Quality reflective gear costs more upfront but prevents accidents that result in expensive veterinary bills and emotional trauma. Dogs that wear proper safety vests avoid the 40% increase in accidents that occur during low-light conditions (veterinary emergency data confirms this significant safety improvement). Professional-grade vests work reliably when visibility drops and weather conditions deteriorate. For more expert advice on keeping your dog safe, visit DogingtonPost for comprehensive guides and product reviews.

Epstein's List: Will A Dead Woman Tell the Tales?

'After the Hunt': A Hollywood Mea Culpa for Kavanaugh?

On Wednesday morning, MSNBC’s melodramatic Joe Scarborough echoed Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) concern over military strikes against narcotic-trafficking boats originating from Venezuela. This came a day after President Trump announced the sixth strike of its kind during his second term. The Morning Joe co-host first lamented the military’s typical efforts at traffic-prevention: … Rand Paul’s concerns are so legitimate. He talks about how — you know, the Coast Guard, at their best, sometimes they board ships and maybe only two out of four, or three out of four, actually have drugs on them. That means a quarter of the time they’ve made a mistake. The Coast Guard was doing too thorough of a job! Being safe and not sorry was outdated, apparently. And one of the reasons the strikes were so deplorable was that “we don’t know who’s on those boats […] which of course we don’t know because this is based on intel maybe from rival gangs, maybe from people who want the people killed on the boat. We don’t know. We’re literally killing people, shooting first and asking questions later, when we can just board the boat.” The strikes weren’t simply about stopping drug trafficking. They’re about sending a message to the perpetrators. Criminal suspects operating in international waters aren’t entitled to inspection-first privileges.     Scarborough started to concede the usefulness of stopping drug mules in their tracks, but couldn’t do so without demanding details that compromise the whole mission: Listen, if these are drug dealers, if these people are coming to bring poison to the United States and kill our children with their drugs, okay. As Rand Paul said, give us the names, give us the organization. […] Give us the evidence that you had that had you commit this extrajudicial killing without telling members of the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee. We're not asking you to embrace narco-terrorists. Maybe, just maybe, the Pentagon wasn’t going to expose its strategy and tactics to the enemy just yet. The weakness of congressional oversight was the resulting lack of secrecy, which would undermine the entire campaign. Scarborough ended by sarcastically alluding that the Republican Party holds unyielding devotion to Trump’s agenda: We're asking you to follow the Constitution […] Not because you don't like the administration, not because you're not being loyal to Donald Trump. But because you're being faithful to the Constitution and you need answers. […] This is not even hard. You can like Donald Trump and like the Constitution at the same time if you're a member of Congress. Get the oversight like you're supposed to do based on the Constitution. Simply put, Scarborough hated the fact that Trump had taken unilateral action against the flow of dangerous substances the federal government had long failed to stop, so he had to rely on a non-MAGA Republican to create a semblance of any real opposition. The transcript is below. Click "expand" read: MSNBC’s Morning Joe October 15, 2025 6:03:34 a.m. EST (…) MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Also ahead, the Trump administration carried out another deadly strike on a boat it claims was carrying drugs. We’ll bring you the latest on that, and the comments from a Republican Senator calling out the administration — it happened again, Joe. But appears some Republicans — JOE SCARBOROUGH: It did. Yeah, I think Rand Paul, Senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul’s concerns are so legitimate. He talks about how — you know, the Coast Guard, at their best, sometimes they board ships and maybe only two out of four, or three out of four, actually have drugs on them. That means a quarter of the time they’ve made a mistake. Rand Paul legitimately asks the question, if we don’t know who’s on those boats, if we don’t board those boats, and if we’re only getting it right half the time, if we’re only getting it right three quarters of the time — which of course we don’t know because this is based on intel maybe from rival gangs, maybe from people who want the people killed on the boat. We don’t know. We’re literally killing people, shooting first and asking questions later, when we can just board the boat. This is something that I know is causing Republican Senators, Democratic Senators, everybody a lot of concern. The question is, when will more people speak out like Rand Paul. (…) 6:36:17 a.m. EST JOE SCARBOROUGH: Well, in that case, we know who the target was. It was Pete Madeira, we would understand who the target — we have no idea who these people are who are getting killed. These are extrajudicial killings. You've said it. It's why Duarte is facing the problems that he's facing right now, the former leader of the Philippines, because just went out and started killing people who he suspects or who look like they could be drug dealers. And there's a problem, and John Heilemann — let's think about all the Venezuelans, think about all the people who were rounded up in the United States of America and taken to just one of the grimmest prisons in this hemisphere down in El Salvador. We find out — again, the government tells us, “Oh, well these are all gang members.” And the White House kept telling us these are all gang members. “Oh, they're members of gangs. They're gang” — no. We found out so many of those people that they just rounded up off the streets were not gang members. If they're wrong, the same percentage of these extrajudicial killings that they were in rounding up all of those people and sending them to the high security prison in El Salvador, those are very bad percentages for the number of innocents killed in these strikes. JOHN HEILEMANN: Right, very bad percentages, Joe. And also, I mean, look, I mean, we played that Rand Paul clip earlier. The question is — there's questions about the justification, questions about the evidence and the pretext for these killings and whether — and the extent to which there's been any kind of outside the executive office, outside there's — outside the executive branch whether there's been any real kind of rigorous review or what's really going on here. But this is, you know, clearly a question that there should be some kind of Congressional consultation on. It's the kind of thing where if there was this kind of a pattern in any other administration, where at least with the senior members of House and Senate leadership, you would have some kind of consultation. I think there's a — this goes back to this question we've been facing for the last — since the start of Trump 2.0, which is the abdication of the role, the rolling over of Congress for the Trump administration. There's Rand Paul and some others who look at this and say, “Um, if this is a pattern of practice here, if this is part of some kind of a campaign, there's got — it may not be a declared war, but there's got to be some kind of Congressional consultation here. Because other than that, without that, there's just the President that — the administration acting essentially on its own with no oversight and no kind of accountability whatsoever.” SCARBOROUGH: Marjorie Taylor Green has been talking about weak men in Congress. I will tell you old chairman that I worked for on the Hill, that chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would not be so weak. If things like this were happening, they wouldn't care who the president was, they wouldn't care who the SecDef was. They would call them before the committee and they would do their constitutional duty, and that is they would provide oversight. Where are these men? Where are these women on Capitol Hill? BRZEZINSKI: This is a great question. SCARBOROUGH: At what point does oversight, constitutionally mandated oversight that every real man running a committee back when I was in Congress and real woman back when I was in Congress would be conducting basic oversight? Listen, if these are drug dealers, if these people are coming to bring poison to the United States and kill our children with their drugs, okay. As Rand Paul said, give us the names, give us the organization. BRZEZINSKI: Proof. SCARBOROUGH: Give us the evidence that you had that had you commit this extrajudicial killing without telling members of the House and the Senate Armed Services Committee. We're not asking you to embrace narco-terrorists. We're asking you to follow the Constitution, and especially members of the Armed Services Committee – BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely. SCARBOROUGH: - members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Foreign Relations Committee. Call them to the Hill and get answers. Not because you don't like the administration, not because you're not being loyal to Donald Trump. But because you're being faithful to the Constitution and you need answers. You need answers, I deserve answers. Exactly. It's like a scene from A Few Good Men. The Constitution says they deserve those answers. This is not even hard. You can like Donald Trump and like the Constitution at the same time if you're a member of Congress. Get the oversight like you're supposed to do based on the Constitution. (…)