Yungblud and Nuno Bettencourt joined Aerosmith's Perry and Tyler for "Mama, I'm Coming Home." Continue reading…

The post Civilian Runs Over “Youth” Trying to Car Jack Him appeared first on SALTY.

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html

An unexpected influence. The post Shove it Mr Shankly: How a Smiths cover nearly ruined Deftones’ debut album first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Late last week NBC ran a “news” story featuring a dozen disgruntled federal judges whose rulings against various Trump administration policies have been stayed or overturned by the Supreme Court. These lower court judges, none of whom had the courage to allow NBC to name them in the article, bewailed the failure of SCOTUS to provide sufficient justification for ruling against them. It’s blindingly obvious, however, that the real issue they are whining about is the Court’s refusal to countenance their usurpation of the President’s Article II powers and frustrate implementation of his agenda. The real problem here is the failure of the “judicial insurrection.” Upon assuming office, the President signed a number of executive orders involving a variety of issues. Many of these EOs were challenged by lawsuits filed in district courts presided over by activist judges. Inevitably, these judges issued “universal injunctions” that halted implementation of the EOs nationwide. The administration filed emergency appeals with SCOTUS and they were entered on the Court’s “shadow docket.” According to the NBC story, “The Supreme Court has granted Trump administration requests to block lower court rulings in more than 70 percent of cases brought by the administration that were decided via the shadow docket.” This shouldn’t have surprised anyone. Universal injunctions have long been criticized by legal scholars and members of the Supreme Court itself. Justice Elena Kagan, hardly a far right ideologue, has been particularly outspoken on the subject. During a seminar at Northwestern University’s School of Law, she succinctly explained her view on such injunctions: “It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.” Finally, on June 27th of this year, the Court handed down a ruling in Trump v. CASA that supported Kagan’s comment: Because universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts, the court grants the government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below regarding the implementation and enforcement of the Trump administration’s Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. Despite this clear language indicating that universal injunctions “exceed the equitable authority Congress has granted to federal courts,” the ruling contained a potential loophole that unscrupulous district judges could exploit to evade the obvious intent of the Court. Justice Samuel Alito warned in his concurring opinion that it was still possible to achieve the goals of a universal injunction pursuant to a class action lawsuit. The certification of a “nationwide class” is a notoriously long and laborious process. Moreover, if a partisan judge is willing to abuse universal injunctions, he is unlikely to conduct a robust class certification analysis. If district judges fail to conduct such analyses, Alito predicted, “[T]he 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.” Sure enough, within a week of the CASA ruling a class was certified by Obama-appointed Judge Randolph D. Moss in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Lawfare’s “Trump Litigation Tracker,” however, shows that only five class certifications have been approved. Consequently, the frustrated judges and their far left allies are attacking SCOTUS. Democracy Docket’s Jacob Knudson is all too typical: Seeking to swiftly enact his aggressive and legally dubious policies, Trump has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to intervene after receiving an adverse ruling from a lower court. In the seven months since he returned to the White House, Trump has filed over 20 emergency applications to the court’s shadow docket — a record number in such a short amount of time. In response to his requests, the court’s Republican-appointed majority has sided with the government nearly every time. The dishonesty on display here is amazing, even for a publication founded by notorious pettifogger Marc Elias. The large number of emergency appeals filed by the Trump administration is obviously driven by the unprecedented number of universal injunctions issued by partisan judges in order to hobble the President’s agenda. And the heavy-handed effort to make the shadow docket sound somehow sinister is, quite frankly, ridiculous. It has existed since the creation of the Court, serving as a mechanism to expedite emergency cases that must be decided immediately — including 11th hour petitions for stays of execution. The real problem here is the failure of the “judicial insurrection.” The nation’s federal courts are filled with Obama and Biden appointees who think of themselves as the last line of defense in a Manichean struggle between good and evil — and in their minds President Trump and his supporters represent the forces of darkness. They are, in other words, angered by their own inability to thwart the will of the voters as carried out by Trump. Moreover, they know the Supreme Court is likely to become even less patient with their antics in the future because Trump may well appoint the next two justices. Their creepy little coup is collapsing. READ MORE from David Catron: A Burning Question About Flag Desecration Karma Comes Calling for John Bolton Will Newsom Rig His Redistricting Referendum?

As they often do for readers of fiction like me, reality and art collided last week. I watched a hideous video showing the murder of an innocent young girl by a human monster on a Charlotte light rail train. The girl, Iryna Zarutska, was a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee who fled her war-torn country for the safety of America. What Iryna didn’t know was that something is rotten in the promised land — the system that unleashed the monster on her after a mere six years in prison for robbery with a dangerous weapon, breaking and entering, and larceny. But Mickey Spillane knew. He knew way back in 1947, when his hero, Mike Hammer, almost perfectly describes the rot in the novel I’m currently reading, I, the Jury: You know what happens, dammit. They get the best lawyer there is and screw up the whole thing and wind up a hero! The dead can’t speak for themselves. They can’t tell what happened … Nobody in the (jury) box would know how it felt to be dying or have your own killer laugh in your face … No, damn it. A jury is cold and impartial like they’re supposed to be, while some snotty lawyer makes them pour tears as he tells how his client was insane at the moment or had to shoot in self-defense. I wrote “almost perfectly describes” because even Spillane couldn’t imagine a legal order where the pro-criminal bias is embraced as Social Justice, hinging not on the crime or criminal but on the perceived systemic oppression of his race. And not just by cold, impartial jurors but by media indoctrinated ones, plus ideologically corrupt judges. Three years ago, few people on either side of the political divide could have predicted the instantaneous collapse of wokeness. What would Mike Hammer think of top political leaders kneeling beside the casket of a violent scumbag like George Floyd? He’d make the overblown January 6th look like a tea party. And most American men of the postwar era would have cheered him on. They turned I, the Jury into a phenomenal bestseller that revolutionized the publishing industry. A modest hardback success in 1947, the book came out a year later in the still innovative paperback form — and sales exploded like an atomic bomb. By 1952, it had sold two million copies, one year later, seven million copies. Because men at the time understood that common sense superseded the false cultural norm being imposed on them by their educated “betters.” Prominent literary critics grasped the threat to their progressive view and condemned I, the Jury. Anthony Boucher in the San Francisco Chronicle described it as “so vicious a glorification of force, cruelty, and extra-legal methods that the novel might be made required reading in a Gestapo training school.” That the men he sought to diminish had fought and defeated the Gestapo seemed to escape Boucher. Not surprisingly, another of the Left’s most maligned novelists, Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged), recognized Spillane’s skill and the societal power of his book. “Mickey Spillane is one of the best writers of our time,” Rand declared in the Los Angeles Times (September 2, 1962). “He stands as a measure of the gulf between the public and its alleged intellectual leaders. From Ancient Greece to modern America, fiction writers like Spillane have depicted the world more accurately than all the false political constructionists — and outlasted them. For instance, more than 30 years of two-party leftward tilt in America — slowed but not stopped by Trump’s first term — resulted in a humiliating military withdrawal from Afghanistan with 13 good servicemembers blown to bits, millions of aliens pouring over the border, close to 75,000 Americans dying from fentanyl in 2023, a party pushing for police defunding, and the idea that men can become women at will. Any public criticism of these lunacies was banned or crushed as extremist. “That’s not who we are,” echoed Obama and Biden, probably the two worst judges on “who we are.” But it is who Donald Trump and his people are. Trump closed the border in a month, revamped the military to record high recruitment levels, ended transgender dysfunction in education, government, and sports, sent the National Guard to police LA and Washington. Last week, his Department of Defense blew a US-bound Venezuelan drug boat with 11 cartel members aboard out of the Caribbean — to the wailing of the Left. Liberal opinionist Brian Krassenstein tweeted, “Killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime.” Vice President J. D. Vance responded to him, “I don’t give a sh_t what you call it.” With leftwing activist judges trying to block or conduct Executive Branch policies to a ludicrous degree, and Democrats coddling illegal aliens and criminals, and illegal alien criminals, the Trump Administration has gone full Mike Hammer. “I’m not letting the killer go through the tedious process of the law,” Hammer says in I, the Jury. “This time I’m the law.” Trump made a similar remark last summer. “I was the hunted,” he said. “Now I’m the hunter.” The lesson is that literature endures, unlike the liberal-forced zeitgeist of a period. Three years ago, few people on either side of the political divide could have predicted the instantaneous collapse of wokeness, when people were being erased for calling a “transwoman” a man. Yet the truth is not only out there but in every great work of fiction since Homer. Consequently, you can learn more about modern society from Mike Hammer than Michael Moore. READ MORE from Lou Aguilar: Diamonds Are Forever but Not Britain Disney’s Lost Boys The Winter of Our Contentment

Winston Churchill was right when he said that “it is better to Jaw Jaw that war war.” However, he was referring to relations between rational Western actors or perhaps even semi-rational native chiefs when the choice was to negotiate before resorting to bloodshed. If negotiations, rather than fighting, can serve the national interest, they should be the first line of effort. That is not the case with Afghanistan where the fighting has already taken place. That is why I disagree with the Washington Post Editorial Board’s recommendation that we diplomatically engage with the Taliban in the near term. The recent devastating earthquakes would seem to lend support the Post editorial, but there are many reasons that it is too early for re-engagement. As was the case with Vietnam, a cooling off period is in order before we consider anything like establishing normal relations with the Taliban. To be brutally frank, the Afghan people — not just the Taliban — are not worthy of our attention at his point. We are not     contemplating resuming fighting in Afghanistan, so it is not an “either-or” choice. They got themselves into the             situation they are in and they should be allowed to stew in their own juices. At this point, there is no national                 interest involved in engaging with their current government. The Afghans got themselves into the situation they are in. We spent billions in treasure and thousands in lives              trying to help them to no avail. Afghanistan is not worth any more effort on our part. I am not speaking of the              those Afghans who fought on our side in the late conflict and were relocated to the United States. They made the        difficult choices that their cousins who remain in the country did not. I found out the hard way as a State                      Department governance advisor that the rural population, which largely supported the Taliban, wasn’t buying what        we were selling in the way of nation-building and democratization. Most of the people in the remote agricultural district where I led an interagency support team were perfectly happy living in the 14th century and wanted nothing to do with equal opportunity for women, much less letting girls be educated. They didn’t mind boys learning to read if it did not interfere with the melon harvest; which it usually did. They may not have openly supported the local Taliban, but they did not go out of their way to help the government forces or the U.S.-led coalition. Most simply didn’t care who was in charge as long as they were left alone. Although they would take any free stuff that we handed out, it certainly did not buy loyalty. At least they were honest about it. The Taliban gave them what they wanted. If that includes a degree of poverty, ignorance, natural disasters, and disease as part of the package, so be it. My greatest disdain is reserved for the urban elites and the senior military leaders who professed to be working toward Western-style democracy while lining their own pockets. They were the first to start cutting backroom deals with the Taliban when it became obvious that we were really going to leave. The poster children for this group is the Karzai family, which is doing just as well under the Taliban as they ever did partnered with the American-led coalition. The Afghan knack for treachery and double-dealing runs deep in the culture. Of the four reasons the Post editorial board gives for re-engaging with the Taliban, only one passes anything like the common sense test. That is the ability to facilitate the search for missing Americans. But there are no MIA service personnel that I know of. Those Americans who remained behind generally did so for their own personal reasons. These are better identified through non-governmental efforts than any American partnership with the Taliban. The Post editorial board cites counter-terrorism as a U.S. reason for some re-engagement. The Taliban are fighting the Islamic State-Khorasan or ISIS-K for control of the country. It is true that ISIS-K is a transnational threat while the Taliban confine themselves to Afghanistan. But that is not enough of a national interest for us to actively seek counter-terror cooperation. If the Taliban get in enough trouble to come to the U.S. for help, we can always consider the merits of some assistance. But that day is a long way off. The availability of natural resources is also cited as a reason for re-engagement. This is another area where I have some experience, most of it negative. To get at these resources, roads are needed. The resistance of locals to road construction under the last regime had less to do with support for the Taliban than it did with ensuring that security forces could not disrupt the poppy trade. Given that a large Taliban faction — the Haqqani Network — is heavily into the poppy business, it is unlikely that they will support resource exploitation unless they get a healthy cut. There are easier sources of rare earth metals than that. Perhaps the weakest of the Post‘s arguments for re-engagement is humanitarian aid. There is absolutely no assurance that the Taliban will be any more competent to deliver aid to those really needing it than was Karzai or any of his successors. Corruption ranks with treachery as foremost Afghan cultural challenges. Any U.S. financial aid to recent earthquake victims will likely stay in Kabul. Even if U.S. relief workers were allowed into the country, they would immediately become targets for ISIS-K. Let the NGOs try to unwind that ball of string. Both the editorial board and President Trump are correct in stating that we need have no permanent enemies, but neither should we rush to heal old wounds from the late war. As was the case with Vietnam, a cooling off period is in order before we consider anything like establishing normal relations with the Taliban. READ MORE from Gary Anderson: The Case Against the Marine Corps Commandant It Is Time to Give Putin a ‘B-2 Moment’ Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel who served as a Special Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense and did tours  as a civilian State Department Senior Governance Advisor in Iraq and Afghanistan and a tour as a Defense Department instructor in Kabul.  

That’s the question Nigel Farage, leader of Britain’s Reform UK Party, asked last week at a U.S. House hearing on the censorship of free speech in the UK. Mr. Farage, who is probably the most interesting person in English-speaking politics, asked, “At what point did we become North Korea?” President Trump should immediately condemn the arrest of Mr. Linehan and the attempts by the UK and EU to censor what we say and write in the U.S. Mr. Farage was speaking of the arrest at Heathrow airport of Graham Linehan, an Irish citizen, who was detained by five police officers for something he wrote and posted on the internet while he was outside the UK, probably in the U.S. According to the Associated Press, “Linehan, who is well known for posts asserting that trans women are men, said in April that trans women were violent criminals if they used women-only facilities. He advocated hitting them if calling police and other measures failed to stop them from using such facilities.” Which seems fairly reasonable considering that several U.S. fathers have taken such action in response to their daughters being subjected to men in women’s bathrooms or locker rooms. What that means, of course, is that Americans can be arrested in the UK or the European Union for something they write anywhere, including inside the U.S. This censorship is separate and apart from the EU’s war on U.S. tech companies, exemplified by the EU’s imposition of a fine of $3.5 billion on Google for the supposed antitrust violation of favoring its own advertising. President Trump had warned against targeting U.S. tech companies. The UK’s Communications Act is the problem, and they are paralleled by EU statutes. The Communications Act of 2003 makes it an offense to send messages of a grossly offensive or indecent character, to send false messages to cause annoyance, or to use a public electronic communications network for those purposes. The Linehan arrest is perhaps the first time that someone was arrested for something they wrote outside the UK. What is “grossly offensive” is left to the determination of the police who seem to be more interested in punishing violations of the Communications Act than in arresting real criminals who commit real offenses. The Communications Act is, under U.S. law, void for vagueness under the Constitution. No such law could possibly pass muster in the U.S. In the House hearing, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), said (according to a report in the Washington Times) that laws such as these force social media companies to change or content-moderate (i.e., censor) their rules globally because of the impracticality of trying to enforce standards based on the user’s location. Jordan added that this means the laws affect “what we see, what we read, and what we say online here in America.” This is obviously intolerable for U.S. news sources and commentators and not just because the UK law is both inapplicable in the U.S. and void for vagueness under our Constitution. We have the right to free speech under our Constitution and, contrary to what Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) said last week, that right doesn’t come from government action. It is preserved by the Constitution which can only be limited by the government in extreme circumstances. (Such as shouting “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire.) So are we supposed to self-censor? That ain’t gonna happen. What we say or write in the U.S. is not subject to any UK or European law. But what we say or write may make us subject to arrest in the UK or Europe. There have been massive demonstrations against the government of Sir Keir Starmer in the UK. They point to the unpopularity of the Starmer regime and may cause it to be toppled soon. Illegal immigration and censorship top the list of complaints by demonstrators. The new UK Home Secretary is Shabana Mahmood who won’t limit illegal immigration into the UK, one of her chief duties. A new deputy prime minister, David Lammy, another hyper-liberal, is also not going to even try to do that. All this points to a new UK government which — possibly under Mr. Farage — will do what it takes both to limit the censorship under the Communications Act and limit illegal immigration into the UK. There is hope for the UK. Another UK government is badly needed and may result from the 2029 elections which are too far away to be of any help. Mr. Farage’s strength is growing and he may be able to push through a no-confidence vote to cause a new UK election sooner. Our own 2028 elections will be here sooner than we think. The UK’s and EU’s attempts at censorship, as Mr. Jordan pointed out in last week’s hearing, were the subject of a letter from the EU to X owner Elon Musk that pointed to “harmful” content in violation of the EU’s Digital Services Act, which is also Constitutionally void for vagueness. Musk will certainly ignore the so-called “harmful” content in 2028. He — and we — cannot afford for him to do otherwise. President Trump should immediately condemn the arrest of Mr. Linehan and the attempts by the UK and EU to censor what we say and write in the U.S. We have the fundamental right to free speech and it cannot be limited by the back-door maneuverings of either government. READ MORE from Jed Babbin: Trump and the Ownership of Intel The Bolton Searches Putin’s War Proceeds

Novelist Stephen King told the U.K. Sunday Times that some of President Donald Trump’s supporters will deny ever voting for him in the coming decades. King acknowledged that many of his readers are Trump supporters but said he has an “obligation to say what I think and be clear about it” because it is important to state “which side you are on.” King is apparently a “prolific Trump critic” on social media. Since I don’t go on social media and frankly couldn’t care less what Stephen King thinks about anything, the fact that Fox News featured an article on King’s politics surprised me. Someday, perhaps the many Trump supporters who read King’s books … will deny that they ever did so. Celebrities — for that is what Stephen King is — apparently think that their wealth and celebrity status make them people who should be listened to about politics or political issues. We have seen this movie (or book) before — with actress Jane Fonda supporting our North Vietnamese enemies during wartime; or with actor Tom Hanks shilling for Hillary Clinton and the dreadful Biden administration. Hollywood celebrities and famous fiction authors overwhelmingly support liberal causes and therefore the Democratic Party. That a horror novelist influences anyone on political issues is doubtful — even one who claims that his book The Dead Zone foreshadowed the rise of Trump. King calls courageous and dutiful Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents the “Gestapo.” He also claims that Trump is trying to “rig the 2026 election,” perhaps by ensuring that only American citizens vote in American elections and by lessening election fraud by limiting or doing away with mail-in ballots. “Americans,” King says, “are wising up to the fact that Trump is turning the American dream into a nightmare.” Trump, he told The Guardian, is a “horror story.” King, like many of his liberal colleagues and fellow celebrities, suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome. He appeared recently on MSNBC where he again bashed Trump, calling the president “dangerous” and an “idiot.” It’s a wonder he doesn’t appear regularly on MSNBC, where TDS seems to be a requirement for hosts and guests on their “news” programs. I confess to never having read any of King’s books, but I have an idea for his next horror novel. A liberal New England writer obsessed with the immigration policies of his government decides to take into his beautiful home three illegal aliens about whom he knows nothing. The writer does this to show his disdain for the government’s immigration policies and to show solidarity with what he perceives as the “victims” of those policies. The writer believes that Immigration agents are just like the Gestapo in Nazi Germany. He thinks that he is acting bravely to shield the illegal aliens — just as righteous Gentiles did for many Jews during World War II. When ICE agents come to his residence because they received a tip that illegal aliens might be present there, the writer lies to them and refuses their request to search his residence and land. Unlike the real Gestapo, the ICE agents simply leave the residence because, although they have a tip that aliens are there, they don’t have probable cause that the aliens are there, In other words, they follow the law as they are sworn to do. At first, the three illegal aliens seem okay and appreciative of the writer’s hospitality, and the fact that he is effectively harboring criminals. Soon, however, some strange things begin to happen in the writer’s home. Valuable things go missing. The three men begin taking an interest in the writer’s young, pretty granddaughter who is staying with the writer for the summer before returning to school in the fall. The writer’s granddaughter appears to like all the attention she receives from the men. Unbeknownst to her and her grandfather — because he wouldn’t dare think of checking on the backgrounds of the aliens — one of the men previously committed a rape in his country, while another of the aliens previously committed a violent assault in his own country. The writer is not pleased with how the men act towards his granddaughter so he tells them, apologetically, that they must leave his home. The men refuse to leave. Thus begins weeks of horror as the three illegal aliens effectively hold the writer and his granddaughter hostage in their own home. They take turns raping the writer’s granddaughter, and when the writer attempts to protect her they violently assault him. Eventually, the men commit a grisly murder of the writer and bury him on his own vast property. They keep the granddaughter alive to satisfy their sexual appetites. But before the men killed him, the writer made a pact with the Devil — he would give the Devil his soul as long as the Devil allowed him to get revenge and to free his granddaughter. The Devil agrees. One night, the writer rises from his grave, vampire like, enters his former home, kills the three men, and saves his granddaughter’s life. Then he carries out his bargain with Satan and descends into Hell. The writer’s granddaughter finds a diary that the writer kept up to the time he was murdered. In the diary, the writer introspectively questions how he could have been so stupid and so naïve. He realized that he had effectively written his last horror novel — about the horror that was inflicted on him and his granddaughter because his liberalism turned away those ICE agents when they came to his home on a tip that illegal aliens were there. The ICE agents, you see, had run background checks on the three men that the writer took into his home. They warned the writer that the men were dangerous — with two having criminal backgrounds. But the writer wouldn’t listen to the “Gestapo.” That is a fictional story that Stephen King probably would never write. His liberal ideology and TDS wouldn’t stand for it. Someday, perhaps the many Trump supporters who read King’s books and go to the movies based on those books, will deny that they ever did so. That is far more likely than King’s prediction that they will deny ever voting for Trump. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: MacArthur Lands at Atsugi Airfield: August 30, 1945 August 23, 1939: Another Date That Should Live in Infamy The Organizer of Victory: Frank S. Meyer