A no-brainer. The post The band Kirk Hammett left in the dirt to join Metallica: “They were pissed” first appeared on Far Out Magazine.

Last week, Republican Michigan Representative and gubernatorial candidate John James was handed a political gift. Al Sharpton bemoaned on MSNBC that Michigan has been deprived of black members of Congress for the first time in decades. “Al, are you that blind?” James, Michigan’s only black representative, said in a reaction video he posted to X. “I’m here and I exist whether you like it or not. I went to war for the right to think for myself. You are not going to erase me because I don’t fit your bigoted idea of what a black man is or has a right to be.” James then turned to the picture-perfect resume he has leveraged in the four races he has run since 2018: His 2018 loss to then-Senator Debbie Stabenow by a wide margin, his 2020 devastatingly narrow loss to Senator Gary Peters, his 2022 by-the-thinnest-of-margins win of his current seat, and his 2024 reelection. (RELATED: Battleground Michigan Is Up for Grabs Again in 2026) “I’m a West Point grad, Ranger-qualified Apache pilot, combat veteran and businessman. I have one wife, two master’s degrees, three kids, and I am the black congressman from Michigan.” John James has always seemed to be the ideal political candidate. His family values, insistence that service is his “calling,” and down-to-earth charisma made many believe that he could beat the odds and reclaim a Michigan Senate seat for Republicans by defeating Debbie Stabenow or Gary Peters. When both attempts fell short, it seemed a great waste of a generational political talent. John James had come within less than a percentage point of defeating Peters — a dramatic 13-percentage-point improvement over Peters’ previous election — and yet it hadn’t been enough. When James announced a bid for a U.S. House seat so soon after his losses, he seemed at risk of being a career candidate. But he put his resume to work — including using a helicopter in his campaign logo to reference his service as an Apache helicopter pilot in Iraq — and pulled off a narrow victory on a grim night for Republicans. Despite expectations of major GOP gains amid skyrocketing inflation under then-President Joe Biden, James’s half-point win in a purple district was one of the party’s few bright spots. It seemed to confirm what many had long believed: that James had a promising political future ahead of him. Yet since James’s announcement earlier this year that he will run for governor of Michigan to succeed term-limited Democrat Gretchen Whitmer, the reaction from Republican leaders has been less than enthusiastic. Many in the party worry that his decision puts his hard-won House seat at risk at a time when their majority in Congress is already razor-thin. (RELATED: The ‘Peter Principle’ Targets Michigan) One of the House’s highest-ranking members, Michigan Representative Lisa McClain, voiced her concerns with James’s decision last month in an interview with the Washington Examiner. She called it an “understatement” to say that James’s planned departure from his House seat “is not ideal.” Later, she even said he was “absolutely” jeopardizing GOP control by running for governor, per Michigan Advance. McClain gave the negative commentary at the Michigan Republicans’ biennial meetup on Mackinac Island. Disgruntlement with James seemed to be ruling the day on Mackinac Island. In a straw poll of 500 registered attendees of the conference, James attained only 14 percent support, following behind Michigan State Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, with 29 percent support, former Michigan House Speaker Tom Leonard, with 23.5 percent support, and former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, with 18 percent support. Conference attendees seemed offended that James left the island prior to the Michigan Issues forum that included announced gubernatorial candidates and those laying the groundwork for a campaign. Kaitlyn Buss, one of the moderators of what was effectively an unofficial gubernatorial debate, wrote for the Detroit News of James’s absence: “[T]o be taken seriously as a gubernatorial contender, and even to assure others that he should be in that race, James must engage more publicly.” To some observers, James’s absence meant that he felt himself to be above the traditional rituals of party politicking. Following the criticisms over James’s absence at the Mackinac Island event and his poor showing in the straw poll, James’s campaign sought to downplay the conference. Spokesperson Hannah Osantowske characterized it as an insider event disconnected from the Republican electorate. “Political insiders and their echo chambers, along with agenda-driven media outlets, are completely out of touch,” she said. “Michigan’s primary voters are making their voices heard loud and clear, overwhelmingly supporting John James, who leads the Republican primary by nearly 50 points.” “We can’t play small ball anymore. We can’t be cowardly conservatives.” For his own part, James said, “In the past 48 hours I’ve spoken with seven media outlets; local TV, radio and print. I’ve participated in three public and grassroots events in three cities on two peninsulas and still made time to take my three boys to church and call my mom on Sunday. Despite what the pundits say, know that I’ll be a governor who continues to work as hard as you do!” He attended a “mixed martial arts cage match” in Southgate instead of the debate. James’s campaign says that internal polling puts him nearly 50 percentage points ahead of the next candidate. The little neutral polling that has been done on the race indeed shows him to be in the lead. A May Glengariff Group poll found that he had 42 percent support among registered Republicans, making him by far the top candidate. In a May interview with the Daily Caller, James combatted the dissatisfaction with his decision to give up his House seat by arguing that a strong gubernatorial candidate could help lift Republicans across the ballot in the midterms. “We can’t play small ball anymore. We can’t be cowardly conservatives,” he said. “We have to be bold. Without a strong top of ticket, we will lose seats in Michigan that jeopardizes President Trump’s agenda.” He went so far as to assert that the party’s previous nominees against Gretchen Whitmer in 2018 and 2022 were “weak” and that their poor performances hurt downballot candidates. James even singled out Tudor Dixon, who faced Whitmer in 2022. “Our last midterm,” said James, “the last Republican nominee got blown out by ten and a half points.” Dixon indeed seemed a poor choice to take on Whitmer. Her resume was thin. She’d worked for her father’s steel foundry for three years after being a stay-at-home mom for 15 years. In 2018, she began hosting a once-weekly program on the streaming channel America’s Voice Live. The talk show was a perfectly respectable endeavor, especially when raising children, but whether it qualified as sufficient preparation to govern a state of 10 million people was less than clear. (She had also had a few acting roles in low-budget horror films, for whatever that’s worth.) “If we have a weak top of ticket,” James told the Daily Caller, “then we will lose seats in Michigan. We cannot lose seats in Michigan by having anybody else on the top of the ticket than somebody who has proven to outperform, to fundraise, and to make the ticket stronger. The priority is to make sure we have the strongest top of ticket. Because when we haven’t before we have lost seats, but with a strong top of ticket we will gain seats.” In that same interview, James previewed the themes and priorities for his campaign. “I love my state,” he said. “I was born and raised in Michigan, and it’s a state that my mom and dad moved to from the Jim Crow South. We came to Michigan for opportunity. They came for a better life. But now it seems that unless something changes, their grandchildren are going to have to leave for the opposite reason. They’re going to have to leave for a better opportunity. They’re going to have to leave for their life. And that’s unacceptable. The ten million people in the state of Michigan deserve better.” As for his priorities, James says he will be “focusing on a prosperity agenda” that “centers on academic excellence, economic mobility, and public safety.” If James manages to win the Republican primary, he will face a tough general election contest. He would go up against independent Mike Duggan, who has served as Detroit’s mayor since 2014, and who appears likely to pull votes from both Democrats and Republicans, as well as either Garlin Gilchrist, the current lieutenant governor, Jocelyn Benson, the current secretary of state, or another candidate. A possible entrant is the very liberal Dana Nessel, the Michigan attorney general, who has not said whether she will join the race. What is certain is that James will once again base his campaign on his familiar themes of family, faith, and service. In his video response to Al Sharpton, he declared, “Michigan is my mission field, and service is my calling. My loyalty is to God, my country, and my family.” READ MORE from Ellie Gardey Holmes: Gavin Newsom’s New Low Pope Leo Defines Himself: A Man of Faith, a Listener, a Decider — and an American ‘Sexual Life of Colonialism’ Professor Denied Tenure at Harvard

The ebb and flow of progressive economics is exasperatingly inbred. More ebb than flow, really. As penance for reading too much Léon Bloy this week, I made myself read an article in Mother Jones claiming that “Scientists say this diet could prevent 40,000 early deaths per day and cut food-related emissions by half.” The first thing I did was ask myself who exactly these “scientists” are — a term that reminds me suspiciously of “the experts” from the pandemic. You remember them: that anonymous, mystical choir of people no one had ever seen or touched, solemnly assuring us that COVID spread ferociously in churches and schools but not at the private orgies of politicians. That was a very whimsical virus. Maybe it didn’t need a vaccine so much as a good slap in the face. Maybe it’s time to admit it: we’re dealing with the dumbest billionaire caste in human history. The “scientists” in question belong to the EAT-Lancet Commission. And the report the article cites was funded by the usual suspects: the IKEA Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, the Novo Nordisk Foundation, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. A bunch of organizations created by left-wing millionaires who made their fortunes through the most ruthless capitalism — plundering the planet — and who now zip around in private jets lecturing the world’s poorest farmers that their cornfields and zucchini patches are poisoning the Earth. (RELATED: The Church of Climate Panic) Money talks. You know that. Obviously, if all these globalist, environmentalist, neo-communist outfits bankroll a “scientific” report, only an idiot would expect it to conclude anything other than what it does: that we must urgently cut food-related emissions by 2050, that food production causes biodiversity loss, deforestation, and water pollution, and that the richest 30 percent of humanity is responsible for 70 percent of food-related environmental damage. (RELATED: The Left’s Top Dark Money Monster Is Dying — and Taking the Democratic Party With It) So, what do the scientists recommend? Taxes on “unhealthy” foods, advertising restrictions, subsidies for “organic agriculture” (as if non-organic farming even existed; and if it did, it caused Hiroshima-level destruction), drastic cuts in meat consumption, and a crackdown on food waste. (RELATED: New Climate Report Deserves to Be Debated, Not Silenced) In short: more taxes, less freedom, good old-fashioned Western guilt, the death of traditional farming, and a river of subsidies for the kind of “industrial-organic” agriculture that the report’s financiers have been quietly investing in for years. The report’s four main authors? A climate zealot pushing the U.N. green agenda, a progressive nutritionist who treats taxes and advertising bans as if they were part of food’s molecular structure, an “environmental economist” (enough said), and a Swede who leads something called Nordic sociological thought — which roughly translates into Greta hurling dozens of plastic Tupperware containers and water bottles stuffed with Palestinian love letters into the sea, hoping the tide carries them to Gaza. Year 2025. Maybe it’s time to admit it: we’re dealing with the dumbest billionaire caste in human history. Also, the most hypocritical — and the most dangerous. The unscrupulous tycoon of old Hollywood films is still unscrupulous, still a tycoon, but now he’s working hard to hide it — enlisting in a global crusade against pollution and poverty that sounds about as effective as John Lennon’s “Imagine” at stopping the war in Ukraine. As for the diet, the “scientists” prescribe more than five servings of fruit a day, three or four of whole grains, one serving of nuts, legumes, and dairy, four eggs a week (not counting the scientists’ own eggs), two servings of chicken or fish a week, and — brace yourself — just one serving of satanic-polluting-antisocial-red-meat per week, at most. My advice, if you really want to save the planet, is to flip those proportions. Eat a hearty stack of thick steaks every day, and when the time comes, you’ll be strong enough to defend the Earth from this gang of psychopaths trying to destroy humanity and Western civilization. READ MORE from Itxu Díaz: Another Ship of Fools A Column Against Myself: Confessions of a Walking Disaster Trump’s Speech Laughs in the Face of UN Globalism

From Sacramento to St. Paul, from Portland to Richmond, a new American map is taking shape, not divided by red and blue, but by enforcement and sanctuary. On Aug. 11, 2025, protesters filled Richmond City Hall plaza with placards reading “ICE Out of Richmond!” after a series of unannounced federal arrests. Activists accused ICE of operating “like kidnappers,” demanding the city formally sever cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. (RELATED: Meet the Criminals Anti-ICE Protesters Are Fighting to Shield) These demonstrations captured a growing reality: sanctuary jurisdictions are becoming pockets of defiance, invoking moral duty to shield immigrant residents even as the Trump administration moves to discipline them through lawsuits, funding threats, and troop deployments. The struggle is no longer rhetorical — it is cartographic. (RELATED: The Sanctuary State Confederacy) What began as a handful of liberal enclaves in the 1990s has grown into an archipelago of resistance numbering in the hundreds. What began as a handful of liberal enclaves in the 1990s has grown into an archipelago of resistance numbering in the hundreds. At least 17 states — including California, Illinois, Oregon, and Minnesota, plus the District of Columbia — restrict local entanglement with federal immigration enforcement. (RELATED: New York City’s Sanctuary Laws Are Worse Than You Think) In response, 22 states have enacted “anti-sanctuary” laws compelling cooperation with ICE. Even within those states, cities like Austin and New Orleans are pushing back, rewriting local ordinances to limit information-sharing and detainer compliance. The country now functions as a legal mosaic — its borders internal as much as external. (RELATED: Sanctuary Cities Are in Insurrection) President Trump’s 2025 return to immigration as a governing crusade accelerated this fragmentation. In April, he signed Executive Order 14287, “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” directing the Justice Department to compile and publish a list of sanctuary jurisdictions and to cut off federal aid to those that “defy immigration law.” On August 5, the DOJ released its first list, identifying 13 states and dozens of cities. The executive branch was literally attempting to redraw the country-one punitive map at a time. But each attempt to centralize control has been met by counter-mapping from below, as governors and judges act as the new cartographers of federalism. (RELATED: Import the Third World, Become the Third World) No state embodies this dynamic like California. When Trump tried to deploy roughly 200 California National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon — despite objections from both states — U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut blocked the move, calling it an unconstitutional end-run around state sovereignty. Governor Gavin Newsom celebrated the ruling as “a victory for democracy itself,” declaring that “Trump tried to turn our soldiers into instruments of his political will-and the rule of law said hell no.” Attorney General Rob Bonta condemned the order as “flagrant disregard” for constitutional boundaries. (RELATED: Newsom’s Search for the Secret Police) The injunction reaffirmed that even in an era of executive muscle-flexing, states control their own troops. In late August, Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California expanded a nationwide injunction protecting more than 30 jurisdictions — including Los Angeles, Boston, and Chicago — from the administration’s bid to withhold homeland-security funds. He likened the administration’s threats to “holding a gun to the head of local government,” a violation of the Constitution’s Spending Clause. California officials praised the ruling as building a “legal wall” around their budgets; Trump’s DHS called it “activist overreach.” The Golden State has effectively become a parallel jurisdiction in immigration affairs, defending its autonomy in courts and legislatures alike. The conflict has now reached the Upper Midwest. On Sept. 29, 2025, the Justice Department sued Minnesota, naming the state, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Hennepin County. The complaint alleges that local ordinances led to the release of individuals convicted of assault, burglary, and human trafficking rather than their transfer to ICE. Attorney General Pam Bondi charged that state officials were “endangering public safety by letting violent offenders walk free.” The filing seeks to invalidate Minnesota’s sanctuary statutes under the Supremacy Clause. Minnesota’s reply was unmistakably defiant. Attorney General Keith Ellison called the suit “baseless political retaliation.” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey insisted his city “will not back down,” while St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter vowed to “stand with our immigrant neighbors no matter how many unconstitutional claims come from the White House.” Having already won two federal cases this year, Carter added, “We’ll win our third against this embarrassing federal regime.” Their stance echoes the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine: Washington may not conscript state officials to administer federal law. The courts will now decide whether that principle survives the administration’s onslaught. Further south, sanctuary has entered the ballot box. In Virginia’s gubernatorial race, Democratic nominee Abigail Spanberger has pledged to rescind Executive Order 47, which requires state and local police to assist ICE. She argues that turning sheriffs into immigration agents “misuses resources and undermines trust.” Republican incumbent Glenn Youngkin warns that Spanberger would “turn Virginia into a sanctuary state for dangerous illegal immigrants,” while Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, herself a Jamaican-born citizen, accuses Spanberger of “putting criminals over Virginians.” (RELATED: It’s Good v. Evil. It’s Always Been Good v. Evil.) The debate mirrors the national split: is local defiance a moral stand or a breach of order? The former capital of the Confederacy is now the stage for a reversal-progressives invoking resistance in defense of humanitarian law rather than segregationist defiance. Sanctuary laws rest on the Supreme Court’s anti-commandeering precedents, Printz v. United States (1997) and Murphy v. NCAA (2018), which affirm that the federal government cannot force state officers to enforce federal statutes. Trump’s lawyers counter that such policies constitute nullification, invoking the Supremacy Clause. But federal judges — including Trump appointees — have repeatedly rebuked executive overreach. Judge Orrick’s August ruling is one example; another came from U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy in Rhode Island, who on October 2 blocked Trump’s attempt to divert $233 million in Homeland Security grants from sanctuary states, calling the policy “arbitrary and unconstitutional.” Each ruling redraws a legal border the White House cannot cross. As autumn 2025 closes, the standoff endures. The Justice Department issues new “sanctuary lists” like wanted posters; California and Minnesota rack up fresh court victories; and local candidates from Portland to Richmond campaign on promises of resistance. The United States has become a nation of moral cartographers, redrawing its internal boundaries between enforcement and conscience. Every ruling, ordinance, and rally etches a new line onto that map — a country partitioned not by color, but by conviction. And somewhere between Sacramento’s defiance and Washington’s decree, the new shape of American sovereignty is being drawn, one sanctuary at a time. READ MORE from Kevin Cohen: Meet the Criminals Anti-ICE Protesters Are Fighting to Shield The Four Rings of Terror — How Violence Targets Conservative America The Human Ledger: How Cartels Reduce Migrant Women to Line Items of Profit

by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan: Russian President Vladimir Putin has laid down another red line, warning the United States over Tomahawk missiles. Relations between Moscow and Washington would be permanently ruined, should the latter give the long-range missiles to Kiev, the Russian president has said. Russia has had a habit of declaring its red lines, […]

by Olivia Rondeau, Breitbart: Nearly ten Republican senators and a representative had their private communications allegedly tracked by former Special Counsel Jack Smith under the Biden administration, FBI Director Kash Patel revealed Monday. Files obtained by Fox News show that Smith, in his official capacity at the Department of Justice (DOJ) as he investigated President Donald Trump […]

Watch Nicolle Wallace's Completely FALSE Report About Fire at Judge's House While Blaming MAGA

Here's Why Erik Prince Got Involved in Building a New Phone That Actually Keeps Your Data Secure

Megyn Kelly Reveals the Time Her Desk Caught On Fire To Show How Easy House Fires Can Start