The blade struck the I-70 guardrail

'Don’t go too crazy'

'Neocon war hawk'

As critics of the pharmaceutical industry have begun floating the idea of banning direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising, the media has largely framed it as a crackdown on “Big Pharma.” But beneath the populist gloss lies a dangerous effort to normalize speech restrictions that should alarm anyone who values the First Amendment or fears such tactics […]

The Supreme Court case Trump v. CASA cut right to the heart of the judicial insurrection, the trend of district court judges siding with leftist activists to block President Donald Trump’s policies through nationwide preliminary injunctions. The court’s decision rightly struck down the judicial insurrection’s number one strategy, but that doesn’t mean rogue judges won’t find ways to block Trump’s attempt to keep his promises to the American people. “Traditionally, courts issued injunctions prohibiting executive officials from enforcing a challenged law or policy only against the plaintiffs in the lawsuit,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court’s 6-3 majority. Yet nationwide or “universal” injunctions aim to block policies from impacting anyone. Barrett ruled that since “nothing like a universal injunction was available at the founding,” nationwide injunctions violate the 1789 Judiciary Act. Among other things, Barrett noted that these injunctions “operate asymmetrically,” with a plaintiff needing to win “just one suit to secure sweeping relief,” while the administration “must win everywhere.” Many of the same groups that staffed and advised the Biden administration (which I expose in “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government”) have filed lawsuits to block Trump’s policies, choosing jurisdictions with more friendly judges in order to secure injunctions. Barrett’s ruling marks a key win against such strategies, but the court’s opinion leaves open two ways for judges to block Trump’s policies, and the judicial insurrection has already tested a third strategy not condoned by the court. Class Action Lawsuits The court’s ruling did not affect class action lawsuits. Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lays out circumstances in which many people can band together as a “class” to pursue a legal claim, and if a judge certifies the class, he or she may impose an injunction protecting the class. “Putting the kibosh on universal injunctions does nothing to disrupt Rule 23’s requirements,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion. He warned, however, that “district courts should not view today’s decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of Rule 23.” If judges do so, Alito warned, “the universal injunction will return from the grave under the guise of ‘nationwide class relief,’ and today’s decision will be of little more than minor academic interest.” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that he suspects “these same judges will simply willy nilly certify classes of plaintiffs to get around this, ignoring the strict criteria that applies through the federal rule on class certification.” “The Justice Department will then be right back in the courts of appeal, but this time disputing the legitimacy of the judges’ class certifications,” he noted. The Administrative Procedure Act The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 also provides a way for district court judges to block administration policies. A footnote in Barrett’s ruling notes that “nothing we say today resolves the distinct question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action.” Under 5 U.S. Code Section 706, a court reviewing federal agency action “shall … compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions to be” in one way or another “not in accordance with law.” The Supreme Court has not laid out clear precedent about the limits of courts’ ability to vacate agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act. If left-wing groups bring such lawsuits against the Trump administration, these cases may end up before the nation’s highest court. Defying the Supreme Court District court judges may also flatly defy the Supreme Court’s clear ruling against nationwide injunctions. It sounds insane, but I frankly can’t rule it out because it has already happened. Last week, Massachusetts-based District Judge Brian Murphy openly defied the court. He had issued a temporary injunction on April 18, blocking the Trump administration from deporting illegal aliens to South Sudan. He issued a follow-up order on May 21, clarifying and enforcing the injunction. The Supreme Court struck down his April 18 order on June 23, but he issued another order that same day, stating that the May 21 order remained in effect. The Department of Homeland Security condemned Murphy’s “unprecedented defiance” of the Supreme Court, but his action makes a perverse kind of sense in the context of a judicial insurrection where judges take upon themselves the authority of the president of the United States. An Ongoing Issue While Trump v. CASA likely puts an end to nationwide preliminary injunctions at the district court level, Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his concurring opinion that the question remains whether “a major new federal statute, rule, or executive order can be enforced throughout the United States during the several-year interim period until its legality is finally decided on the merits.” Kavanaugh noted that district courts may “grant or deny the functional equivalent of a universal injunction.” Nonprofits and the government may appeal the cases all the way to the Supreme Court, and he urged that the court “cannot hide in the tall grass.” On these issues, “it is often important for reasons of clarity, stability, and uniformity that this court be the decider.” Kavanaugh noted that Trump v. CASA “will require district courts to follow proper legal procedures” when considering orders, and that’s a clear step toward sanity. But mark my words, the judicial insurrection is far from over. The post 3 Ways the Judicial Insurrection May Circumvent the Supreme Court’s Ruling Against Nationwide Injunctions appeared first on The Daily Signal.

WSJ: Say, Remember the Great Stock Market Crash of 2025? Well ...

Hey, You Can't Say That!

On Tuesday, in what it labeled an “exclusive,” CNN reported that initial intelligence assessments of the Iran bombing suggested Iran had been set back a couple of months in its quest for a nuclear weapon. The report’s lead reporter was Natasha Bertrand. In 2020, Bertrand played a lead role in attempting to discredit reports of Hunter Biden’s laptop. One cannot understand the new report without understanding that. At Politico in 2020, Bertrand broke the news that “(m)ore than 50 former intelligence officials signed a letter casting doubt on the provenance of a New York Post story on the former vice president’s son.” It turned out, of course, that Hunter Biden’s laptop actually belonged to him, and there was no Russian disinformation, as Democrats claimed, which was helpfully amplified by Bertrand. Now, in 2025, Bertrand rushed out this salacious report. Notably, the leak came after congressional committees on intelligence were briefed. Bertrand and then the New York Times, which subsequently reported the same news, failed to note that the American intelligence was considered low confidence. After all, Americans had not been on site at the bombing locations. Meanwhile, in Israel, intelligence officials built their own review of the bombings. Israel has much better intelligence inside Iran. At one point, the head of the Iranian secret police division in charge of rooting out Israeli spies was actually an Israeli spy. Israeli intelligence has concluded that Iran’s military leadership is telling Iran’s political leadership the bombings only set them back a few months. But Iran’s military actually believes they have been set back years. Reconciling the two reports, it seems likely the American intelligence community intercepted what Iran’s military told Iran’s politicians, but Israel knows what Iran’s military leadership really thinks and probably has spies on the ground too. Israel believes Iran’s uranium is buried beyond reach. Israel does not know that Fordow has completely collapsed underground, but does believe it is inaccessible. Israel also believes key parts of Iran’s equipment to process uranium have been destroyed. Israel has also eliminated the top scientists involved in Iran’s nuclear program. We have entered a bizarro realm where those who did not want to bomb Iran insisted that intelligence reports that stated Iran was close to a weapon could not be believed, and they now insist the after-action initial intelligence reports show the bombing was unsuccessful. But they also do not want to bomb more. Unfortunately, the American press corps has totally discredited itself. It is not just that President Donald Trump pushed back against the initial intelligence assessment. The Israelis and much of the American intelligence community did too, so much so that within twenty-four hours of CNN breaking the story, the American press corps was treating it far more skeptically. Putting the Hunter Biden laptop reporter in charge of this story only further casts doubt on the story. Adding in the assessment of the Israelis, who actually have an existential reason to get their intelligence right, further casts doubt on the veracity and accuracy of the American press. When former President Joe Biden was in office, American reporters often treated reports about him skeptically. When someone from Congress or the intelligence community, which itself has a history of trying to undermine Donald Trump, leaks something negative about Donald Trump, the media pounces, seizes it, and does all the other adverbs and adjectives usually used in headlines to attack Republicans. This was a brilliantly staged and executed operation by the Pentagon that the press attempted to discredit to attack Trump. We have been starved of competence for some time in government. But the Pentagon successfully got B2 bombers in the air while distracting everyone with additional B2 bombers, then dropped fourteen bunker buster bombs — the first time they have ever been used — just two days after the president threw everyone off with his two-week timeline to assess the situation. Democrats, bureaucrats in the intelligence community and the press corps seemingly could not tolerate Donald Trump getting any political benefit from a successful bombing run. In the end, the press further hurt its credibility by trying to undermine President Trump. Even Wile E. Coyote would be impressed by the own goal.

President Donald Trump's Department of Justice conducted the largest health care fraud takedown in the agency's history, involving $14.6 billion in intended losses.The DOJ announced on Monday that it has filed criminal charges against 324 individuals — including 96 doctors, nurses, pharmacists, and other medical professionals — for their alleged participation in the scams.'These criminals didn't just steal someone else's money; they stole from you.'Despite the billions of dollars in intended losses, the federal government seized $245 million in cash, cryptocurrency, luxury vehicles, and other assets. Additionally, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services prevented more than $4 billion in fraudulent claims and revoked billing privileges for 205 providers. RELATED: Trump takes aim again at prescription drug prices — could drop '30% to 80%' Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images"Civil charges against 20 defendants for $14.2 million in alleged fraud, as well as civil settlements with 106 defendants totaling $34.3 million, were also announced as part of the Takedown," the DOJ reported.The massive schemes allegedly involved transnational criminal organizations, fraudulent wound care, prescription opioid trafficking, and telemedicine and genetic testing fraud.According to the agency, 29 individuals faced charges for their alleged participation in transnational criminal organizations that submitted over $12 billion in fraudulent claims to American health insurance programs. Another five defendants were charged in connection with a $703 million Medicare scheme that used theft and deceptive marketing to obtain beneficiaries' identification numbers and other personal information. "The defendants allegedly used artificial intelligence to create fake recordings of Medicare beneficiaries purportedly consenting to receive certain products. According to court documents, the beneficiaries' confidential information was then illegally sold to laboratories and durable medical equipment companies, which used this unlawfully obtained and fraudulently generated data to submit false claims to Medicare," the DOJ reported.Forty-nine defendants faced charges for their alleged participation in a telemedicine and genetic testing scheme that involved $1.17 billion in fraudulent claims to Medicare.RELATED: Trump set to unleash DOJ probe on ActBlue's alleged fraudulent donation scheme Matthew Galeotti, the head of the DOJ's Criminal Division. Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesAttorney General Pam Bondi described the takedown as "record-setting.""Make no mistake — this administration will not tolerate criminals who line their pockets with taxpayer dollars while endangering the health and safety of our communities," Bondi declared.Matthew Galeotti, the head of the DOJ's Criminal Division, stated during a Monday press conference, "In a takedown this large, I can't possibly describe all of the work that went into dismantling each scheme.""These criminals didn't just steal someone else's money; they stole from you. Every fraudulent claim, every fake billing, every kickback scheme represents money taken directly from the pockets of American taxpayers who fund these essential programs through their hard work and sacrifice," Galeotti continued. "When criminals defraud these programs, they're not just committing theft; they're driving up our national deficit and threatening the long-term viability of health care for seniors, disabled Americans, and our most vulnerable citizens."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass stated earlier this month while radicals were savagely attacking U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in her city, "We will not stand for this."The Democratic mayor was not condemning her fellow leftists' attacks on federal agents but rather the agents' enforcement of federal immigration law.In the wake of the Los Angeles riots, Bass has kept up her anti-ICE, pro-illegal alien rhetoric, noting on Sunday, for instance, "Every community in L.A. is feeling the shock of these horrific ICE raids — this isn't just targeting one group, it's striking at the heart of our collective safety and trust."The Trump administration gave Bass more than just ICE raids to complain about on Monday, filing a lawsuit against the mayor, Los Angeles City Council, and the City of Los Angeles over their alleged interference with the federal government's enforcement of immigration law."Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles," Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. "Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level — it ends under President Trump."The complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California notes that immediately after President Donald Trump's re-election, the Los Angeles City Council, "wishing to thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations, began the process of codifying into law its Sanctuary City policies."RELATED: Democrats who locked down America during COVID now cry dictator over Trump's deportations Photo by BENJAMIN HANSON/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty ImagesIn late November, the L.A. City Council unanimously voted to establish L.A. as a "Sanctuary City."The following month, Bass ratified the corresponding ordinance titled "Prohibition of the Use of City Resources for Federal Immigration Enforcement," which enshrined sanctuary policies into municipal law and barred "the use of City resources, including property and personnel, from being utilized for immigration enforcement or to cooperate with federal immigration agents engaged in immigration enforcement."'Today’s lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law.'The ordinance — the "urgency clause," which makes clear that undermining the "incoming federal administration" was the goal — also prohibits city officials, including law enforcement officers, from directly or indirectly sharing data with federal immigration authorities.The DOJ's lawsuit notes that L.A.'s sanctuary city laws are illegal and "are designed to and in fact do interfere with and discriminate against the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution."Lawyers for the government asked the district court to recognize that the ordinance's violation of the Supremacy Clause and 8 U.S. Code § 1373 makes it unlawful, unenforceable, and void ab initio, as well as to enter a permanent injunction barring Los Angeles, its city council, and the mayor from enforcing the ordinance.RELATED: JD Vance rejects Democrats' narrative, names the 'real threat to democracy' Photo by Apu Gomes/Getty Images"Today’s lawsuit holds the City of Los Angeles accountable for deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration law," said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California, who stressed in a tweet that the lawsuit was "long overdue."'Very simply, we will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again.'"The United States Constitution's Supremacy Clause prohibits the City from picking and choosing which federal laws will be enforced and which will not," continued Essayli. "By assisting removable aliens in evading federal law enforcement, the City's unlawful and discriminatory ordinance has contributed to a lawless and unsafe environment that this lawsuit will help end."The Los Angeles Times, which indicated Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment, noted that radical L.A. city officials are contemplating striking back at the Trump administration with a lawsuit of its own.The DOJ's lawsuit appears to be a major step toward another promise kept on Trump's part.In his Tuesday speech at the 250th anniversary of the Army at Fort Bragg, Trump said, "Within the span of a few decades, Los Angeles has gone from being one of the cleanest, safest, and most beautiful cities on Earth to being a trash heap with entire neighborhoods under the control of transnational gangs and criminal networks.""They don't like it when I say it, but I'll say it loudly and clearly: They'd better do something before it's too late," continued Trump. "Very simply, we will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again.""We will use every asset at our disposal to quell the violence and restore law and order right away," stressed the president.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!