President Donald Trump’s profanity-laced Easter Sunday social media post threatening to bomb civilian infrastructure in Iran led some Democratic lawmakers to call for his removal via the 25th Amendment.
Trump wrote on Truth Social, spelling out the f-word: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the F—–’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell – JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah. President DONALD J. TRUMP.”
Reacting to Trump’s post, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., wrote on X, “If I were in Trump’s Cabinet, I would spend Easter calling constitutional lawyers about the 25th Amendment. This is completely, utterly unhinged. He’s already killed thousands. He’s going to kill thousands more.”
Other Democrats including U.S. Reps. Yassamin Ansari of Arizona and Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico also called for using the amendment to remove Trump.
But you know what? Congress can jaw about this all they want! It is JD Vance and the Cabinet who can only initiate a “25”! However, there might be another way around the roadblock, and that is Congress cannot initiate Section 4 itself, but the text does allow Congress to create another body by law that could participate in the Section 4 process. Something like a special impeachment commission, but it needs backbone to do it.
Section four authorizes the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet, or the vice president and a majority of an “other body” created by Congress, to declare a president “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Doing so would elevate the vice president to acting president.
Notice it doesn’t say “Congress.”
So how likely is the Cabinet and the VP to start the ball rolling?
Well the amendment says "unable to discharge the powers and duties" that is a high bar to meet! It doesn’t mean if the president making bad decisions, it doesn’t mean if the president if the president is unpopular, or breaking the law.
But on the other hand, impeachment can be for corruption! Abuse of power, obstruction, political retaliation, and election interference nad I think they could find something on Trump that fits those categories. However, it takes one more thing, Congress with a backbone.
One of the things a new administrator has to do is set priorities, and the new head of Homeland Security set his to making the eagle look to the right.
The shift comes as Markwayne Mullin warns of Islamic terrorists joining with Mexican cartels, rising drone attacks
By Max Bacall Fox News
September 7, 2026
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin revealed on "The Sunday Briefing" that DHS is changing its seal, which depicts an eagle holding a palm leaf in one talon and a bundle of arrows in the other. The new seal will show the eagle facing toward the arrows rather than the palm, a symbolic shift Mullin said reflects the department’s daily fight against threats to the country.
Ahead of the 25th anniversary of 9/11, Mullin declared that the department is "at war every single day" against bad actors targeting the United States, from Islamic terrorists to drug cartels.
Stop right there! How much is it going to cost? How much is it going to cost to change all their signs and letterheads? Just think of all the signs on the podiums!
When the Secretary of Defense ordered his vanity name change, it cost according to CBS News, a whopping 125 million dollars for the rebrand!
Secretary Markwayne Mullin is spending millions to do this so the freaking bird is looking toward the f... ing right!
One of the things about Trump is that he is so predictable! The state of New Mexico voted Democratic last election, so on Trump's radar, it became a fair target. One of the things that could be getting under Trump's collar is...
New Mexico Epstein commission releases report on investigation so far
Commission announces 4 new subpoenas to state agencies, Santa Fe-area spa
Source NM
By Julia Goldberg
August 5, 2026
The chair of a New Mexico House investigatory subcommittee created to probe the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s activities in the state acknowledged Wednesday its first report does not contain major revelations or final findings.
[...]
“In the seven years since Jeffrey Epstein died, in the two decades since his crimes first drew attention of law enforcement, no government, federal, state, or local, has ever compiled an account of what he did in New Mexico,” Romero said. “There are some court records that tell pieces of the story in other states’ cases for other states’ victims, but there has never been an official narrative for New Mexico. This report is the first.”
This is what got Trump worried. So what does Trump do?
The president posted repeatedly on social media over the weekend, and New Mexico Democrats leaped to respond to the ones about their state.
NBC News
By Scott Wong and Megan Shannon
Sept. 7, 2026
New Mexico Democratic leaders are aggressively pushing back on President Donald Trump’s social media posts about renaming the state of New Mexico as “New America.”
“New Mexico’s name isn’t up for debate — it’s been ours since before the United States existed,” New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, said in a post on X featuring an image of the state labeled with “New Mexico.” “While the President tries to distract Americans from his disastrous war in Iran, the price of gas —and everything else — keeps rising.
So why is he doing this?
Well, from what I can figure out, it is for a few reasons:
The most obvious reason is that it is a blue state.
It is also Trump's classic strategy: if you can't win, baffle them with BS by creating a manufactured crisis and a political smokescreen."
Lastly, it is to rally his base. His MAGA base is cheering him on!
P.S. The state's criminal investigation into child sex trafficking, the state accuses the federal government of stonewalling and blocking the state’s active criminal investigation!
Trump is worried about what will come out in the investigations, so this is a distraction.
I was growing up, they didn’t test you for any learning disorders. I was labeled a “slow learner,” “dull,” “backward,” and “underachiever.”
Electronics was a godsend… it was so orderly and logical. I got all the way through college, just squeaking by… no one ever questioned why.
I went to grad school for my MSW and one of my professors’ day jobs was to evaluate convicted persons before they got incarcerated. When he handed back my midterm exam, he said, “See me after class!” Yikes… I must have bombed the midterm!
He asked if I had ever been evaluated for a learning disorder.
All it took was for him to see my writing on those 10 questions to see what I had been struggling with all my life.
You know that this blog is about the intersections of trans stuff and politics, so what’s political about this post?
Well, Trump, RFK Jr., and company all are saying learning disorders like ADHD, ADD, and ASD are a new phenomenon. They blame it on chemical food additives, preservatives, ultra-processed foods, and stuff like artificial food dyes.
Well, folks… it is the name that is new. It is the realization that it is a disorder of the brain… not laziness. Not “slow learners,” and not all the other things that they called it. It has always been here; we just called it different names.
Now we have the government and conspiracists pushing all these quack reasons for this epidemic of learning disorders, but they have been here all along, just without the names. Just like us.
Here is what top officials within the administration or the military have said about the potential of sending troops or federal officers to polling locations:
Mullin says ICE officers could be at polling places in specific circumstances. The law says they can’t be
Concerns about immigration authorities being dispatched to polling places partly stem from Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s decision earlier this year to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to airports during a government shutdown. While immigration authorities have long had a presence and enforced immigration laws at airports, the large-scale deployment of ICE officers to assist with security and lines was a new development.
It also spurred concern about whether polling places could be next, especially given the administration’s broader crusade against what it claims — without evidence — is widespread voter fraud by immigrants in the country illegally.
“These are all tools of how the president is trying to think about a much larger plan, which is, if you cannot hold onto power through democratic elections, then adjust democratic elections,” Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, told CNN in March.
Asked by reporters last week whether ICE officers could be sent to polling locations in November, Mullin left open the possibility that they could be under specific circumstances.
Doesn't this answer give you a warm fuzzy feeling?
In a letter responding to Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat who asked military leaders to commit to not sending troops to the polls, Caine wrote the military has “no plans” to send federal military personnel or federalized National Guard troops to voting locations.
“Likewise, the Joint Force has no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material,” wrote Caine, who is the nation’s highest-ranking military officer.
Notice the wording... “no plans” but that doesn't rule out sending
The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law wrote;
Preventing Voter Intimidation by Federal Agents at the Polls Any deployment that intimidates voters or interferes with elections would be illegal. Should one occur, officials and civil society are prepared to challenge illegal acts so that voting can proceed uninterrupted.
In May, when President Trump was asked whether he would send National Guard troops or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to polling locations during the midterm elections, he responded that he would “do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections; we have to have honest elections.” Several of his officials and allies have made similar comments in recent weeks and months. While no public information suggests that the federal government currently plans to deploy armed law enforcement agents to the polls in November, these statements appear designed to sow fear among voters.
Despite the implied threat, the law is clear: Sending armed federal agents, including those from ICE, to election sites is illegal. Federal law and many states’ laws prohibit not only armed federal agents at polling sites, but also interference in elections or voter intimidation by any officials or private citizens. More important, using these tactics would be a flagrant attempt to hold on to power through force and intimidation and an affront to free and fair elections. Yet, given the Trump administration’s pattern of flouting rules and engaging in plainly illegal and unethical conduct, including attempting to overturn a valid election, we must take this threat seriously.
The law reads...
Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.
As the old saying goes... "May you live in interesting times!"
The cottage condo next to mine just sold for $529,000! It was on the market all year, but it seems that $1 million-plus “cottages” are really flying off the shelves.
There are two separate trends that have caught my eye. The first was a $2.9 million new “cottage” (more on the price later). I didn’t even have to look for it—it was a monster! Built entirely of glass, it sits between two traditional story-and-a-half cottages featuring cedar shingles and white trim (anywhere else, it would simply be considered a “home”). The third floor is entirely glass—I mean, floor-to-ceiling glass walls! It’s very striking; you can see people sitting around inside, probably entertaining guests over cocktails.
From what I heard, they tore down the old cedar-shingle house and built that monster in its place. The neighbors are none too pleased, as the three-story building blocks their view of Cape Cod Bay. The town never needed height limits before, but now people are coming in and building these massive structures.
Another monster was built on a sand cliff in the Cape Cod National Seashore (CCNS). Now, both the town and the CCNS have strict building restrictions. The new owner tore down the old cottage and wanted to build a $5 million home overlooking the bay and Provincetown—a beautiful location! The town and the CCNS said no, as it violated the building restrictions tied to the property. I believe the CCNS argument was that it was built too close to the edge of a 100-foot cliff and would inevitably tumble into the sea.
The owner took them to court and won! A few years later, sure enough, the house was right on the edge of the cliff, poised to slide into the sea. They wanted to put in erosion controls, but the town and the CCNS said no, arguing that the controls would disrupt the natural movement of sand along the coast and cause problems in other areas. So, what did they do? They did what many wealthy people do: They sued and won!
Then, the owners sold it for over $5 million! In less than a year, the new owners found their $5,000,000 little cottage literally on the brink of the cliff. So now they are suing—no, get this—the bank for giving them the $5,000,000 loan, claiming the lender must have been crazy to approve it!
The second trend is the result of a “K-shaped” economy. Million-dollar-plus cottages are selling like hotcakes, but properties like my neighbor’s don’t sell easily. Millionaires are snapping up the monster cottages, while smaller cottages like mine—with only 600 square feet—are considered dogs. They are completely pricing out middle-income buyers.
One immediate result of my neighbor’s sale is that the tax assessors are going to look at it as the new baseline, meaning the assessed value of my cottage just went up. Higher taxes for me!
This isn’t new. My brother lived in Maine and was a real estate agent. What we saw there were family farms being sold off just to pay the taxes. People had no choice with their land; the farms simply weren’t making enough money to cover the skyrocketing taxes. You can’t blame them for selling either—when someone waves a couple of million dollars in your face, you take the money and run!
Maine was looking into ways to save family farms, one of which was freezing taxes at the last sale price. Late last month, I wrote about the changing character of Provincetown going the way of “Fire Island” in New York.
What we are finding is that the character of these towns is changing, too. A night out on the town is skyrocketing; instead of spending $30 or $40, it is now $50 or $60. As a result, upscale stores and restaurants are driving out local establishments.
When I first went to P’town in the ’50s and ’60s, it was what my father called a bohemian town. Walking down Commercial Street, you could find artists willing to paint your portrait. By the 2000s, they were nowhere to be found. There used to be street vendors and Ellie, who would “sing for a buck,” along with mimes. But it all ended with Ellie.
I know a photographer for the local newspapers who had to leave because he couldn’t find housing. In Truro, there was a long, drawn-out court fight over low-income and seasonal housing—yet these are often the very same people who complain about a lack of staffing!
The character of the coast is changing. When I was growing up in the fifties, my mother’s aunt had a cottage on a New Hampshire lake that we visited every August. Growing up in the ’50s and ’60s, I knew plenty of neighbors who had summer cottages. The middle class could afford cottages back then on the Cape or the Connecticut shore, but now the middle class has been priced out. Even renting a cottage is out of reach; an average Cape Cod cottage rental costs about $3,400 per week during the peak summer season! And you better believe that in four or five years, I might just look at renting out or selling my cottage and taking the money and running.
The good news is that the next-door cottage sold for half a million dollars. The bad news is that my taxes are going up! All up and down the coast, people are taking the money and running.
When I was proofreading with the AI and afterwards I ask it about improvements and thoughts, it replied:
I think the trend you’re describing is absolutely real, but I’d characterize it a little differently than simply “coastal property is skyrocketing.”
What’s happening on Cape Cod is more interesting: coastal property is becoming a luxury asset rather than ordinary housing.
The numbers support the basic observation. The median single-family sale price on Cape Cod was about $790,000 in 2025, compared with $765,000 in 2024. And in June 2026, the median reached $825,000.
But the really important statistic for your essay is this: 36% of Cape Cod's housing units are classified as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. The state also estimates that about 5,800 year-round homes were converted to seasonal use between 2009 and 2019.
That's exactly the phenomenon you're describing anecdotally.
And there's an important twist
Your observation about the $1 million-plus houses is particularly interesting because the market isn't simply saying “everything is expensive.”
The latest Cape Cod market data show strong demand for homes under $1 million, while $1 million-plus properties actually take longer to sell on average. In Q1 2026, homes below $1 million had a median 34.4 days on market, versus 77 days for homes at $1 million and above.
The question is can the two be separated? Can her later life make up for her earlier comments?
In her early years she was anti-trans, Gloria Steinem publish some heavy works against us, her comments about Renee Richards were very negative.. she was a fan of Janice Raymond, but that changed over time.
Trailblazing feminist icon Gloria Steinem died at her New York City home on Wednesday, per a statement on her social media. As many of her obituaries will attest, Steinem publicly challenged gender stereotypes in the earliest days of her journalism and activism careers, dating back to the 1960s.
Though her legacy of feminist activism also included a hefty amount of advocacy on behalf of transgender people, that was not always the case. Steinem’s earliest known writing on trans people, from a February 1977 issue of Ms., the magazine which she co-founded a few years earlier, waded into the debate on transgender athletes — which, yes, was happening half a century ago. The article, “If the Shoe Doesn’t Fit, Change the Foot,” concerns Renée Richards, a tennis player who had transitioned in the 1970s. In the article, Steinem wrote that “we ought to be very, very suspicious of the social reasons for transsexuality as well as its big, star-spangled, commercial exploitation.”
Year, Steinem voiced support for some of the core tenets of Janice Raymond’s infamous 1979 book, The Transsexual Empire, which is considered a defining work of trans-exclusionary radical feminism. In a 2012 interview for Vassar College, Steinem referenced the book, saying, “Doctors were really profiting off this surgery and especially hormonal treatments. Hormonal treatments, in general, whether for fertility or for gender purposes, nobody knows whether they’re dangerous or not. And that’s a worry. I just think our choices need to be informed.”
One of the marks of a really great person is that they stop and reassess their core beliefs
Gloria Steinem, the journalist and organizer who became one of the most recognizable figures in American feminism and a longtime supporter of LGBTQ+ equality, has died. She was 92.
[...]
Steinem’s support for gay and lesbian people was visible early in the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement. Time reported in 1977 that gay activists persuaded her to travel to Miami as they fought Anita Bryant’s campaign to repeal Dade County’s ordinance prohibiting discrimination against gay people. Speaking later that year at an American Association of University Women convention, Steinem said lesbians were “the most vulnerable group of women” and argued that the word lesbian had to become “as honorable as any other.”
Steinem was among the prominent supporters of the Human Rights Campaign Fund in its early years.
But she was back then anti-trans. But in an Advocate article from 2013 she writes,
Such stories led me to write a 1977 essay reminding us that, in addition to supporting informed choices like those of Jan Morris, Renee Richards, and others in the news at the time, we also needed to change society to fit individuals. It asked the question: If the shoe doesn't fit, must we change the foot?
Years passed the Internet arrived, and words circulated out of time and context. Last year one young transgender student on campus assumed that old essay's use of the word "mutilate" for surgeries performed because of societal pressure meant I was against sexual reassignment surgery altogether. He didn't consider that it had been written two generations before he was born, and also in the context of global protests against routine surgical assaults, called female genital mutilation by some survivors.
So now I want to be unequivocal in my words: I believe that transgender people, including those who have transitioned, are living out real, authentic lives. Those lives should be celebrated, not questioned. Their health care decisions should be theirs and theirs alone to make. And what I wrote decades ago does not reflect what we know today as we move away from only the binary boxes of "masculine" or "feminine" and begin to live along the full human continuum of identity and expression.
“Yesterday we lost a giant. For more than half a century, Gloria Steinem insisted that none of us is free until all of us are free, and she understood long before her peers that the fight for women’s rights and the fight for LGBTQ+ rights are one and the same. She stood with our community when it was neither safe nor popular to do so, naming plainly that feminists and LGBTQ+ people share the same struggle and the same opponents. She helped beat back Anita Bryant’s campaign to strip gay people of protection from discrimination, and insisted the word ‘lesbian’ be spoken with as much honor as any other.
Yes, a leopard can change their spots.
We have lost two true allies... Dolly Parton and Gloria Steinem, they both made the world a better place.
President Donald Trump’s March 31 executive order on mail-in voting directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create state by state lists of eligible voters for federal elections. DHS would use federal databases to get the names, but those databases have been considered to be controversial.
The Associated Press has reported that an immigrant rights group sued the Trump administration Wednesday to block DHS from using federal databases that it alleged are being used to target naturalized citizens who are eligible to vote.
The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington. It alleges that DHS and the U.S. Justice Department are interfering with fair elections by using inaccurate federal databases in an attempt to buttress allegations of voter fraud.
Everyone but Trump & Company knows that there is no widespread voter fraud and that he is using that excuse to build a massive database on the citizens... just like China, North Korea, and Russia. So now Trump is before the Supreme Court begging them to let him do it.
The lawsuit alleges that the administration might be comparing voter rolls with undisclosed government databases. Those systems can include outdated information and be riddled with errors, it said, and could produce inaccurate results that disproportionately affect naturalized voters.
“Comparing government databases to try and arrive at a list of noncitizen registrants has been shown to result in erroneous data,” the lawsuit said.
“Congress has never authorized such activities and in fact has prohibited invasion of voter privacy through government data matches in this way.”
I don't know about you... but this doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
On January 8, Texas turned over to the Justice Department a treasure trove of information about every voter in the Lone Star state. Names, addresses, voters’ party registrations, whether they had ever cast a preliminary ballot, and more, all of it to be provided in response to the Trump administration’s unprecedented demand for data on voters everywhere.
For a state that has long prided itself on its fierce independence and resistance to federal overreach, one might have expected it to put up a fight. But here, as in many other areas, partisan loyalty displaced state pride.
[...]
As an article in Texas Monthly explains, “The Justice Department last fall began asking all 50 states for their voter rolls — massive lists containing significant identifying information on every registered voter in each state — and other election-related data.” It claimed that “the effort is central to its mission of enforcing election law requiring states to regularly maintain voter lists by searching for and removing ineligible voters.”}
The United States Constitution: Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Not Trump! But Congress and the states.
The Fulcrum goes on to report...
The unredacted lists include “sensitive personal information, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.” Stateline’s Jonathan Shorman points out that “The administration’s lawsuits mostly target Democratic states, where election officials refused initial requests for voter data and allege the demand is unlawful….”
Why do they need all that information on us... so when they merge the databases you can link the fields.
Now Trump is going back to court to try and get his way.
The Trump administration again asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow new restrictions on mail-in voting to take effect, just one day before the first mail ballots are set to go out for November’s midterm elections.
The emergency request comes as legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive order continue in lower courts.
The Supreme Court previously allowed the administration’s plan to move forward while litigation continues, but the justices have not yet ruled on whether the policy is legal.
Trump & Company are running scared and he could do anything... declare a national emergency! Say there is massive illegal voting by non-citizens. He can make up a thousand excuses.
The latest Supreme Court filing came hours after a federal court hearing in Boston, where a Justice Department attorney was unable to tell a judge whether the system needed to carry out the new requirements was operational.
U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani repeatedly pressed Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik for details about whether the Postal Service could implement the plan outlined in Trump’s executive order, which was issued last spring.
Then we have the big lie;
Asking for that information suggests that something else may be motivating the administration’s massive data mining effort. In the run-up to the 2026 elections, it may help it to precisely target Democratic voters and accuse them of election fraud or Democratic states for accusations of election irregularities.
But the plan doesn’t stop there. The Justice Department intends to share the data it gets with the Department of Homeland Security.
DHS will use it as part of its aggressive citizenship verification efforts. In addition, the department argues that “This collaboration with the DOJ will lawfully and critically enable DHS to prevent illegal aliens from corrupting our republic’s democratic process and further ensure the integrity of our elections nationwide.”
“Elections,” it insists, “exist for the American people to choose their leaders, not illegal aliens.”}
All those virtual illegal aliens voting!
The unredacted lists include “sensitive personal information, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.” Stateline’s Jonathan Shorman points out that “The administration’s lawsuits mostly target Democratic states, where election officials refused initial requests for voter data and allege the demand is unlawful….”
Can you imagine merging data bases with like Flock's ALPRs? (See below the hash line)
That is where the real danger lies.. merging of databases!
Imagine... You are a trans person running a non-profit that helps trans people sue for their legal rights. Well the Baptist News said that Trump's administration have frequently invoked high-profile acts of violence—such as the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk—to claim that "extreme transgender ideologies" are driving a rise in left-wing domestic extremism.
That is the worry... the massive database will be used to track down trans people! All our information will allow the government to find us. They did it in Kansas, they used databases to track us down and revoke our driver licenses! They could also use it for more sinister and nefarious reasons.
So Trump is pushing data centers, exempting them from environmental laws public and hide them form public scrutiny. Why?
Flock taught cops how they could surveil the No Kings protests and “small parades” using a mix of Flock’s technology and law enforcement’s own databases in a webinar last year. As Flock publicly downplays the power of its automated license plate camera network and highlights its use to solve violent crime, the company’s seemingly endless trove of webinars, training sessions, and blog posts show it offers far more invasive capabilities.
In the webinar, Flock’s director of market management Caity Peak explains how real time crime centers — which are police surveillance centers that utilize Flock cameras and other surveillance cameras — can be used for emergency response, but can also be used to surveil “established events” like 4th of July fireworks displays, parades, bike races, Mardi Gras, and protests. The webinar shows just how routine the idea of always-on surveillance has become, and how casually it is used during extremely innocuous events.
Peak explains that police can use FlockOS, a software platform that combines Flock’s automatic license plate readers (ALPR), drones, gunshot detectors, 911 data, and other surveillance cameras (including ones Flock does not own) into a “single pane of glass” or single piece of software to look at various types of surveillance in one place during both emergencies and relatively mundane events in a city or town.
Interlocking databases!
404 Media and the Electronic Frontier Foundation previously showed that police have specifically used Flock cameras to monitor the No Kings protests and other First Amendment-protected activity. 404 Media found California cops used Flock to monitor an “immigration protest.” The EFF found that the following law enforcement agencies ran Flock searches related to No Kings protests and rallies:
[...]
This webinar shows this type of surveillance is not anomalous, and is specifically taught by Flock. The webinar also shows that Flock’s latest public stance — that its ALPR cameras are noninvasive technology, that they take only static images at a single place and time, and that they are primarily used to solve the worst crimes — is wildly misleading. Flock has time and time again pitched itself to police as a sort of operating system to solve crime and do real-time surveillance and predictive policing. ALPRs are just one part of this broader surveillance apparatus that Flock has created, markets to police, and teaches them how to use. These real time crime centers are proving increasingly popular with police; Flock now says on its website that more than 4,800 cities around the country are running FlockOS software.
My take on ALPRs and all the other monitoring systems.
Look we are not going to put the genie back in the bottle. Yes it does help solves crimes. So what I see are laws governing who cane see the photos without a warrant and for how long can they access the data. Who can link databases. At the very lease if say within 14 day only the speed cop can use the data. Anyone else needs warrant. We need to put leashes on the data.
The camera data must be the property of the municipality and not the camera company. It needs to be something like being bound by strict public records and privacy acts—meaning it cannot be harvested indefinitely, traded across state lines to federal or state agencies without oversight, or used to build a permanent commercial ledger.
Even with state laws that have all these protections data still gets traded so there needs to auditing with stiff bite. Fines should hurt their bottom line otherwise it will just be a business expense... We figured the $1000 fine in to the price of buying the data. And go after management and the Board of Directors!
I started out with data centers, but data centers are being built to hold all this surveillance. Just think about the APLRs cameras... just think all the data storage they need to hold from all those cameras!
A federal judge has sharply criticized the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., after finding that studies cited in a key teen pregnancy prevention funding notice appeared either not to exist or did not support the claims for which they were cited, describing the issue as a hallmark of AI-generated citations.
In a preliminary injunction ruling issued August 19, District Judge Christopher R. Cooper blocked parts of the Trump administration's overhaul of the federal Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.
Cooper wrote: “On the topic of body literacy, the notices (remarkably) reference public health studies that appear either not to exist or not to support the propositions for which they are cited—a hallmark of AI-generated citations.”
He went on to point to expert testimony submitted in the case that found five of seven articles cited in the notices could not be located as described, with two appearing to be entirely fabricated and three seemingly misattributed to the wrong journals.
"And according to the early-stage factual record, there seem to be no pregnancy prevention curricula and programs that 'center [on] body literacy' and other newly-imposed TPP requirements," he said.
[...]
Cooper found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing the policy was arbitrary and capricious. He wrote: “While abstinence-only education may well be appropriate for some age groups or communities, the agency has offered no explanation or evidence to support its across-the-board mandate that only abstinence strategies be pursued.”
You really don't want to get a judge mad at you with fudge reports.
"Quite simply, your policies are killing my constituents," a U.S. Senator from Ohio wrote to CT Gov. Ned Lamont.
Michelle Tuccitto Sullo,
Patch
Sep 3, 2026
“I write to express outrage over this preventable loss of innocent life,” Moreno said, in the letter to Lamont. “If it were not for policy you championed, which allows illegal aliens to receive a ‘drive-only’ license, this young man may have reached his destination.”
“While one death alone is an inexcusable tragedy, Connecticut has granted over 60,000 such licenses to illegal aliens, putting countless Americans at risk on the roads. This insanity has to stop,” Moreno added.
Moreno wrote in the letter, “Quite simply, your policies are killing my constituents.”
A tragedy is a tragedy. But a tragedy does not automatically prove the policy you oppose caused it, nor does one person's alleged wrongdoing justify portraying 60,000 people as a threat.
This is my outrage... One out of 60,000! So, Governor, because of one person who committed this crime, you want to paint all immigrants with one brushstroke?
So, Governor, you are outraged?
You know what that shows me? It shows me that you are a xenophobe and that you are trying to stir up anger and hatred against immigrants. You are turning this woman's death into a political weapon.
Donald Trump is snubbing a ceremony to mark the 25th anniversary of the historic terror attacks.
The Daily Beast
Ewan Palmer
Sep. 2 2026
All four living former U.S. presidents have confirmed their attendance at a ceremony in New York next week to commemorate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which Donald Trump has decided to skip for a typically petty reason.
Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, who was president at the time of the 9/11 attacks, will all attend the event at the World Trade Center site marking the 25th anniversary of the attacks, The New York Times reported.
Trump was initially also set to appear at the event at Ground Zero. However, the Times previously reported that the 80-year-old president bailed after being told he would not be allowed to deliver one of his rambling speeches at what is supposed to be a somber occasion to remember the nearly 3,000 people who were killed that day.
Instead, Trump will mark the 25th anniversary of the attacks at the Pentagon, which was also targeted by a plane hijacked by al Qaeda terrorists.
Okay, place your bets... how long will he talk at the Pentagon... and how many times will he say "Me?"
We can't have a drinking game because everyone will get smashed.
Trump has furiously rejected the suggestion that he bailed on the 9/11 event in New York City after being told that he could not give a speech. In a vile Truth Social post, Trump attacked New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman, who was one of four bylines on the original report about his upcoming absence, and claimed that she had “made up a story.”
Shame on Donald Trump for skipping the Ground Zero ceremony in NYC marking 25 years since the terror attacks of 9/11/2001.
The so-called champion of law enforcement has decided to spit on the graves of the firefighters and cops who charged toward the burning buildings in Lower Manhattan to save those they could, along with the memories of thousands more. Add that insult to the disrespect he has callously shown the brave Capitol police officers in Washington who tried to hold back an angry mob he’d whipped up on Jan. 6, 2021.
Trump is reportedly missing so important a day because, like other politicians before him, he wasn’t going to be given an opportunity to speak. The annual event is nonpartisan, so Trump was treated the same as other political leaders before him, including last year, when he joined in silence with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and JD Vance.
But that apparently wasn’t good enough for Trump. If it’s not about him, he really isn’t interested.
The 3,000 who died. The thousands more who perished from 9/11 illness. The moms, dads, wives, husbands, daughters and sons whose lives were upended. The people who lived to tell the story. The New Yorkers who rebuilt the city.
None of them matter, not to a president who has taken self-interest to new heights.
He is pissing off millions more people and I don't mean just NYC residents but millions more when they don't see him there and then learned he gave a rambling speech at the Pentagon.
The editorial ends with:
Shame on Trump for skipping the 9/11 ceremony in his hometown. It’s time for those who haven’t yet to pay closer attention to his self-serving and dangerous game.
Saxony-Anhalt elections could see AfD become the first far-right party to take power at a state level since WWII.
By Al Jazeera Staff, DPA and Reuters
Published On 6 Sep 2026
6 Sep 2026
Voting is under way in the eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt that could see the Alternative for Germany (AfD) become the first far-right party to take power at a state level since World War II.
Recent surveys place AfD at 40 percent, ahead of the centre-right Christian Democrats (CDU) at 23 percent.
AfD has led comfortably in the pre-election opinion polls for months and has a chance at winning an absolute majority if several smaller parties fail to clear the 5 percent threshold to enter the parliament.
I asked Gemini what platforms the party is running on... does any of this sound familiar?
The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has built its electoral momentum and state-level political gains around a strongly nationalist, anti-establishment, and populist platform.
Here are the core pillars the AfD has consistently used to run its campaigns:
## 1. Strict Anti-Immigration and Border Control
* **Mass Deportations:** Advocating for the large-scale deportation of asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, and even foreign nationals who have committed crimes.
* **Border Security:** Demanding permanent, strict controls at Germany's borders to halt irregular migration entirely.
* **Cultural Preservation:** Framing high immigration as a direct threat to German cultural identity, public safety, and social cohesion.
## 2. Euroscepticism and Anti-EU Policies
* **Reforming or Leaving the EU:** Advocating for a significant reduction of the European Union's powers, or in some factions, a "Dexit" (Germany leaving the EU).
* **National Sovereignty:** Prioritizing German national law and sovereignty over EU directives, particularly regarding fiscal policy and regulations.
## 3. Opposition to the "Green Transition" and Energy Policies
* **Rejecting Climate Targets:** Campaigning heavily against Germany's green energy mandates, carbon taxes, and the phase-out of fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
* **Lower Energy Costs:** Blaming current economic hardships on climate policies and promising to restore cheap fossil fuels and Russian energy sources to lower utility bills for citizens and businesses.
## 4. Anti-Establishment and Populist Rhetoric
* **Challenging the Political Elite:** Positioning themselves as the only true voice of the "ordinary people" against a detached, corrupt political establishment in Berlin.
* **Media and Institutional Distrust:** Frequently criticizing mainstream media and public broadcasting, accusing them of bias and censorship.
* **Foreign Policy Alignment:** Often adopting a more conciliatory stance toward Russia, criticizing NATO's role, and opposing military aid to Ukraine.
---
> **Note:** The AfD's platform has led to intense polarization in Germany. While supporters view the party as a necessary corrective to mainstream policies, mainstream democratic parties and the German domestic intelligence agency have increasingly classified regional branches of the AfD as suspected or proven right-wing extremist organizations.
Then I asked Gemini about their LGBTQ+ policies...
On LGBTQ+ issues, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) promotes an ultra-conservative, traditionalist platform that stands in stark opposition to contemporary progressive policies. Their stance is a key component of their broader cultural "anti-woke" campaign.
The core elements of the AfD's platform regarding LGBTQ+ issues include:
## 1. Defense of the "Traditional Family"
* **Nuclear Family Focus:** The AfD heavily champions the traditional model of a family—consisting strictly of a mother, a father, and children. They view this structure as foundational to German society and demographic preservation.
* **Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage:** Although the party’s co-leader, Alice Weidel, is an openly gay woman living with a female partner and children, the party’s official platform has historically advocated for rolling back or challenging same-sex marriage rights, prioritizing traditional marriage frameworks instead.
## 2. Rejection of "Gender-Identity Politics" and Transition Laws
* **Opposition to the Self-Determination Law (*Selbstbestimmungsgesetz*):** The AfD fiercely opposes legal reforms that make it easier for transgender and non-binary individuals to legally change their gender.
* **Banning Gender-Neutral Language ("Gendering"):** They campaign against the use of gender-inclusive language in public administration, schools, and media, framing it as an unnecessary and ideological distortion of the German language.
* **Medical and Public Restrictions:** The party advocates for halting public funding for gender-affirming medical procedures and opposes what they describe as the "promotion" of gender and sexual diversity in schools and public institutions.
## 3. The "Culture War" and Framing Immigration
* **Anti-Woke Rhetoric:** The AfD positions itself as a bulwark against what it terms "gender mania" and "wokeness," arguing that progressive cultural shifts undermine historic European values.
* **Instrumentalizing Queer Safety:** Interestingly, figures within the party (including Alice Weidel) have at times used anti-homophobia talking points to target Muslim and non-Western immigrants. They argue that high levels of migration from conservative Islamic countries pose a direct threat to the safety of secular and LGBTQ+ individuals in Germany, blending anti-immigration arguments with selective concerns over public security.
Overall, the AfD treats LGBTQ+ policy as a battleground against progressive social change, rallying their base around the preservation of traditional social norms.
And finally I asked it: "Does this sound like Trump?
That is a very common observation. Political scientists and analysts frequently categorize the AfD as part of the broader global wave of right-wing populism that includes Donald Trump’s MAGA movement, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and similar movements worldwide.
Several core elements tie their playbooks together:
* **The "Anti-Establishment" Outsider Persona:** Both frame themselves as fighting a corrupt, out-of-touch political and media elite on behalf of the "forgotten everyday people."
* **Nationalism as a Core Brand:** Slogans like "America First" and the AfD's equivalent focus on national sovereignty share a deep skepticism of globalism, international bodies (like the EU or UN), and multilateral agreements.
* **The Culture War and Anti-"Woke" Stance:** Both heavily weaponize cultural issues—pushing back against progressive gender policies, LGBTQ+ initiatives, and green energy transitions—framing them as threats to traditional values and common sense.
* **Weaponizing Grievances Over Immigration:** Both place border security and strict restrictions on immigration at the absolute center of their political appeal, often linking demographic shifts to domestic security and economic strain.
* **Distrust of Mainstream Media:** Labeling critical mainstream news outlets as "fake news" or biased establishment mouthpieces is a staple of communication for both groups.
While the institutional frameworks and histories of the U.S. and Germany are very different—and the AfD operates within a multi-party parliamentary system rather than a two-party presidential one—the underlying populist strategy, rhetoric, and cultural targets bear a striking resemblance. In fact, figures within the AfD and parts of the modern U.S. conservative movement have actively built political ties and expressed mutual admiration.
Do any of these policies sound familiar... they should. They are the rallying cry of authoritarian regimes everywhere: Pick a minority and make them the scapegoat of all the countries "ills'. Slogans like "America First" if you are with us then you must an enemy of the state! Attack the media... they are the real enemies!
On this day in 1936 my parents got married by a justice of the peace (No it wasn't because of what you are thinking) and honeymooned in Provincetown.
The problem was my father was Catholic and my mother was Episcopalian. So my mother became a Catholic and were married in a Catholic church in January.
I always wondered, why my parents got and anniversary card from my grandmother in January, hence the anniversary card
I inherited my mother's diaries... and in it she talks about this new man who just started working in the office.
1) In this song, Lee Dorsey sings that at 5:00 he's already on the job. What were you doing this morning at 5:00 AM?
Reading the news online.
2) He's worked so hard all week that he's too tired to enjoy his weekend. What are you doing for fun this holiday weekend?
Well a friend is coming up to the Cape for the weekend.
3) Lee Dorsey was raised in Portland Oregon, home of the Portland Trailblazers. The NBA season kicks off next month. Do you have a favorite basketball team?
I don’t even have a favorite sports team.
But you opened up a good questions.
Team loyalty. Is it a two way street?
The Mohegan Sun’s built a big fan base here and many of their star players were local UConn grads. Poof! They’re gone! Down to Texas! The tribe took the money and ran. The loyal fan base? They are stunned.
And you wonder why I don’t have a favorite sports team.
4) This song was written by Allen Toussaint, who had a long career as a composer and producer. He produced Fats Domino in the late 1950s and worked with Elvis Costello and Paul McCartney into the new millennium. What job have you held the longest?
For 29 years, 7 months, and a few day. And for 25 of those years as the department manager.
Here is a little fact… June 2027 I will be retired for 20 years.
Well I did have a nine year stretch as an executive director of a non-profit but that wasn’t paid.
5) In 1966, the year this song was popular, celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey was born. Are you a good cook?
Fair to fair to middling. But I do like to cook.
6) 1966 was the year when more Americans purchased color TVs and black and white sets. When you were a kid, did your family have a black and white TV?
Yes. And we got color TV when they first came out. I remember going to the town appliance store and seeing all the color TVs! Wow.
7) Labor Day is a big weekend for mattress sales. Do you plan on buying a new mattress before the year is out?
Nope… my last water bed last 25 years.
8) Though kids go back to class earlier these days, store aisles are still full of school supplies. When she was a little girl, Sam was crazy about her big box of 96 Crayola Crayons with a sharpener in the back. Share one of your back-to-school memories.
My first day of school! Ever.
Every telephone pole, ever fence anything I could hold on to I grabbed. I didn’t want to go to school! I wore my mother out and my grandmother had to drag me to school. Literally.
9) Labor Day weekend is the unofficial beginning of fall. Have you had any pumpkin spice yet?
UGH! I tried it once when they got my order mixed up and almost gagged.
I don't know what was going on yesterday, there has been nothing in the paper or on the town's Facebook pages about it but for about an hour a Coast Guard helicopter was flying around town... a lot of sirens.
The last time that happened there was a shark attack at the Cape Cod National Seashore.
And 90 years ago, my parents were married in White Plains New York and honeymooned in Boston & Provincetown.
Medicaid generally pays for drugs approved by the FDA. Trump’s rule could upend that
Stat
By John Wilkerson
Aug. 24, 2026
The Trump administration plans to use a new approach to deny Medicaid coverage of drugs for gender-affirming care. The precedent it sets could be used to avoid paying for other drugs, too, upending an expectation that Medicaid covers the vast majority of prescription medication.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a final rule this month barring the use of federal Medicaid and CHIP funding to pay for pediatric gender-affirming medications and surgery. The rule, set to go into effect Oct. 13, attracted attention because it’s the latest development in the administration’s campaign to halt transgender health care for young people.
Despite gender-affirming care being a best medical practice, recommended by major medical groups, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, the new rule builds on a range of administration actions aimed at restricting this care, including within the Medicaid program. States have also increasingly sought to limit access, with the number restricting access rising from just 4 in 2023 to 27 states today. Additionally, dozens of providers have ceased to offer services, citing pressure from or fear of the administration. The final Medicaid rule represents the latest barrier to this care, this time focused on limiting access at the payer source.
[...]
As noted, the rule does not prevent states from covering these services using state-only funds, and some states may seek to do so. States have faced similar choices in the context of abortion. The federal Hyde Amendment prohibits use of federal Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions outside of specific contexts, but states can use their own funds to cover abortion services more comprehensively, which 21 states do. It would likely be a relatively small expenditure increase for states to absorb gender-affirming care costs given how relatively uncommon and inexpensive these services are. CMS estimates that Medicaid spent about $31 million on the prohibited services for enrollees under 19 years old in 2023, representing 0.003% of all Medicaid spending that year. Theoretically, families could also pay cash for these services, but given the income limits in the Medicaid program, it is not likely many would have the resources to do so. There could also be charitable funds set up at national or local levels.
Connecticut is one of the states that is suing (See my 1 o'clock post)
This is the Republicans who promised to get the government off of your back is now stepping between your doctor and you!
Attorney General William Tong today led a coalition of 22 states in challenging the Trump administration’s attempt to prohibit states from using federal Medicaid funds for gender-affirming care for low-income minors and some young adults.
In the lawsuit, the coalition argues that since the creation of the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs in the 1960s, Congress has always granted states the authority to determine which services would be covered under their Medicaid and CHIP programs, subject only to limits set by statute. The coalition asserts that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are now acting without statutory authority or a reasoned basis to second-guess state Medicaid agencies’ reliance on individualized medical necessity and treatment decisions made by healthcare providers. Instead, based solely on CMS’s unilateral decision making, the agencies are categorically excluding medically necessary healthcare services from federal reimbursement only when provided to low-income transgender adolescents.
“Once again, Trump is trying to replace the professional medical advice of doctors and the personal choices of patients with his own MAGA political priorities, and abusing our tax dollars and federal healthcare programs to bully everyone into submission. His actions are cruel and illegal, and we have sued and already secured multiple federal court orders to stop him, including blocking his threat to withhold Medicare and Medicaid to hospitals and clinics providing gender-affirming care and his efforts to erase gender-affirming care from Affordable Care Act protections. We will continue to vigorously prosecute our litigation to ensure Connecticut families and providers may continue to live their lives and do their jobs free from cruel partisan meddling,” said Attorney General Tong.
In December 2025, HHS proposed a rule prohibiting federal reimbursement for gender-affirming care for Medicaid beneficiaries under age 18 and CHIP beneficiaries under age 19, despite covering the same healthcare treatment when provided to non-transgender youth. HHS received more than 30,000 comments on the proposal. More than 90% of the comments, including comments from Attorney General Tong and a coalition of state attorneys general, opposed the rule. Despite this strong opposition, the broad medical consensus on the safety and efficacy of transgender youth healthcare and strong state law guardrails to ensure high-quality care, HHS finalized the rule earlier this month, with an effective date of Oct. 13, 2026.
In the complaint, the coalition argues that the rule would set a troubling and unlawful precedent that the executive branch can, without congressional authorization, replace individualized judgments made by licensed medical practitioners with a categorical, agency-determined prohibition on reimbursement for healthcare it disfavors.
The coalition argues that the rule runs counter to several federal and state laws. They also assert that the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Since the first day of President Trump’s second term, the administration has launched relentless attacks on this small and vulnerable population in nearly every aspect of their lives, but especially in healthcare. Attorney General Tong is fighting to protect access to gender-affirming care across multiple fronts, including suing and securing federal court orders blocking Trump’s threat to withhold Medicare and Medicaid to hospitals and clinics providing gender-affirming care and his efforts to erase gender-affirming care from Affordable Care Act protections.
Joining Attorney General Tong in leading today’s lawsuit are the attorneys general of Illinois, Maryland, California, and Massachusetts. They are also joined by the attorneys general of Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, along with the governor of Pennsylvania.
Two men charged in connection with an alleged attack on a transgender woman at UW-Madison’s Memorial Union appeared in court Tuesday, where Dane County Court Commissioner Brian Asmus set cash bonds of $75,000 and $100,000.
Yorfred Marcano Gutierrez and Arturo Santos Albujas each face charges of attempted second-degree sexual assault as a party to a crime, strangulation and suffocation as a party to a crime, false imprisonment as a party to a crime and misdemeanor battery.
According to the criminal complaint, the alleged attack happened early Saturday morning at Goodspeed Pier.
The complaint states the two men had been making advances toward other women on State Street before approaching the victim. She told police the men asked her to walk with them to a boat they said they had at the pier. Once there, she became concerned when she did not see a boat and tried to leave.
Tucson police say shooter died at hospital; carried list of local LGBTQ businesses
Aug 31, 2026, 4:30 pm
Mia Kortright
Tucson Sentinel
Two men were killed outside Tucson's Venture-N early Monday morning, while the shooter died at a nearby hospital. Police are investigating the murder-suicide as a hate crime.
Authorities say Ousman Ceesay, 44, fatally shot two men at the business at 1239 North 6th Ave. shortly after midnight.
Ceesay confronted the men in the longtime gay bar's parking lot before shooting them, and then himself, authorities said.
The two victims, 42-year-old Vincent Anthony Siqueiros and 33-year-old Cameron Davis Capara, were pronounced dead at the scene.
Ceesay was found suffering from gunshot wounds and taken to a local hospital, where he died soon after.
Tucson police said they found a note on Ceesay with several LGBTQ-associated businesses written on it.
"Bias-based crimes are especially heinous and have no place in our community. Our investigators are thoroughly examining the evidence and pursuing all available leads as they work to establish the full circumstances surrounding this tragic incident," said Tucson Police Chief Monica Prieto in a news release.
We have to end this cycle of hate! We have to end this institutionalizing of hate. Hate flow from the top down. The swamp creatures need permission to crawl out of the swamp. When those at the top look the other way with a wink and a nod.
When Washington state refused Texas's subpoena for the records of trans children and the records of women from Texas... it was to protect the identities of medical patients.
When Texas refused an extradition order, it was for a criminal assault where a person beatshot [updated] another person and then lied about it. That person was an ICE agent.
Castro is accused of firing gun through door of home
Castro is accused of firing a gun through the front door of a Minneapolis home, shooting Sosa-Celis in the leg. Prosecutors say Castro also falsely accused Sosa-Celis and another man of attacking an ICE officer with a broom handle and a snow shovel.
But while this back-and-forth in the legal system plays out...
By MICHAEL GONZALEZ, VALERIE GONZALEZ and SUDHIN THANAWALA
August 27, 2026
The release of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer from a Texas jail on Thursday despite Minnesota’s request for his return could set a dangerous precedent, increasing friction between states and helping criminal defendants avoid justice, legal experts said.
Christian Castro was released from a detention center in Brownsville after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declined to immediately sign his extradition warrant. A federal judge also declined to block Castro’s release or order Abbott to sign the warrant.
Minnesota officials say they believe Castro could flee to Mexico to avoid prosecution on charges he shot a man and lied about it during an immigration crackdown in Minneapolis in January. Extradition from Mexico would require action by the Trump administration, which opened an investigation into Castro’s actions but also has argued ICE agents have “absolute immunity” for their actions on duty.
A prosecutor planned to file civil rights charges — similar to those brought against the officers who killed George Floyd — against an ICE agent. In an email we exclusively obtained, he reveals that Trump officials quashed those plans.
Propublica
by Megan Rose and Andy Mannix
September 2, 2026
Over the “strongest possible” objections from the federal prosecutor handling the case, leaders at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., quashed plans to bring civil rights charges against an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent accused of shooting a Venezuelan immigrant and then lying about it.
The agent, 52-year-old Christian Castro, allegedly shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg in Minneapolis this January during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s immigration blitz that sent thousands of federal agents into the state. The incident was one of three shootings by immigration agents in the city, the other two of which were fatal.
Federal prosecutors in Minnesota had been preparing to charge Castro with deprivation of rights under color of law for the shooting of Sosa-Celis, according to several people familiar with the case. Those charges are similar to the ones leveled against Minneapolis police officers accused in George Floyd’s killing and can carry hefty prison sentences.
Late on Tuesday, Matthew Evans, the assistant U.S. attorney in Minnesota in charge of the case, told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and other victims to prepare for Castro to be charged “only with False Statements,” according to an email that was reviewed by ProPublica.
You know what that behavior and being above the law reminds me of? The KGB, NKVD, Stasi, Cheka... the whole alphabet soup of Cold War secret police.
U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., an appointee of President Trump who oversees the case, will consider Minnesota’s bid at a Tuesday afternoon hearing in his Brownsville, Texas, courtroom.
It has become a major legal clash between Abbott and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), who requested Castro’s extradition as state authorities charged the ICE officer with four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime.
The officer stands accused of injuring a Venezuelan man in the leg by firing a gun at the front door of an occupied Minneapolis home on Jan. 14 amid an immigration enforcement surge in the Twin Cities. Castro had allegedly told investigators he opened fire in self-defense after being hit with a shovel and a broom, only for video footage to undercut the officer’s claim.
Abbott has refused to sign a rendition warrant that would pave the way for the officer to return to Minnesota for trial.
This is a whole new level of political interference in our legal systems. Think about this for a moment: The governor and the judge are saying that for the shooting, Castro can't be charged, only for the misdemeanor.
This doesn't make sense... for the serious crimes of shooting an individual, they say he can't be charged because it was justified. While he used a lie to justify it! Duh! What circular logic. Has Texas become a "sanctuary state" for all the ICE agents who cross the line?
