David Floyd

@tomselliott @MayorOfLA It was a mostly peaceful day at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Except for 2 hours.

@Z_Archer25 @WhiteHouse Name the felony, Zane. Can’t, can you.

@WhiteHouse I'm relieved. However, you are still: - a convicted felon - an adjudicated fraudster and rapist - an insurrectionist - all over the Epstein Files like a $2 suit. Yeah, "we got him," but the truth has you.

🚨“WE GOT HIM! My fellow Americans, over the past several hours, the United States Military pulled off one of the most daring Search and Rescue Operations in U.S. History, for one of our incredible Crew Office Members, who also happens to be a highly respected Colonel, and who I am thrilled to let you know is SAFE and SOUND!” - President Donald J. Trump 🇺🇸

@bonchieredstate oh my lord, they’re all just little kids with educations that never included history.

“The paper of record”

Dad, what were Democrats like in the 90’s?

Food for thought. Trump, Hormuz and the End of the Free Ride For half a century, Western strategists have known that the Strait of Hormuz is the acute point where energy, sea power and political will intersect. That knowledge is not in dispute. What is new in this war with Iran is that the United States, under Donald Trump, has chosen not to rush to “solve” the problem. In Hegelian terms, he is refusing an easy synthesis in order to force the underlying contradiction to the surface. The old thesis was simple: the US guarantees open sea lanes in the Gulf, and everyone else structures their economies and politics around that free insurance. Europe and the UK embraced ambitious green policies, ran down hard‑power capabilities and lectured Washington on multilateral virtue, secure in the assumption that American carriers would always appear off Hormuz. The political class behaved as if the American security guarantee were a law of nature, not a contingent choice. Their conduct today is closer to Chamberlain than Churchill: temporising, issuing statements, hoping the storm will pass without a fundamental reordering of their responsibilities. Trump’s antithesis is to withhold the automatic guarantee at the moment of maximum stress. Militarily, the US can break Iran’s residual ability to contest the Strait; that is not the binding constraint. The point is to delay that act. By allowing a closure or semi‑closure to bite, Trump ensures that the immediate pain is concentrated in exactly the jurisdictions that have most conspicuously free‑ridden on US power: the EU and the UK. Their industries, consumers and energy‑transition assumptions are exposed. In that context, his reported blunt message to European and British leaders, you need the oil out of the Strait more than we do; why don’t you go and take it? Is not a throwaway line. It is the verbalisation of the antithesis. It openly reverses the traditional presumption that America will carry the burden while its allies emote from the sidelines. In this dialectic, the prize is not simply the reopening of a chokepoint. The prize is a reordered system in which the United States effectively arbitrages and controls the global flow of oil. A world in which US‑aligned production in the Americas plus a discretionary capability to secure,or not secure, Hormuz places Washington at the centre of the hydrocarbon chessboard. For that strategic end, a rapid restoration of the old status quo would be counterproductive. A quick, surgical “fix” of Hormuz would short‑circuit the dialectic. If Trump rapidly crushed Iran’s remaining coastal capabilities, swept the mines and escorted tankers back through the Strait, Europe and the UK would heave a sigh of relief and return to business as usual: underfunded militaries, maximalist green posturing and performative disdain for US power, all underwritten by that same power. The contradiction between their dependence and their posture would remain latent. By declining to supply the synthesis on demand, and by explicitly telling London and Brussels to “go and take it” themselves, Trump forces a reckoning. European and British leaders must confront the fact that their energy systems, their industrial bases and their geopolitical sermons all rest on an American hard‑power foundation they neither finance nor politically respect. The longer the contradiction is allowed to unfold, the stronger the eventual synthesis can be: a new order in which access to secure flows, Hormuz, Venezuela and beyond, is explicitly conditional on real contributions, not assumed as a right. In that sense, the delay in “taking” the Strait, and the challenge issued to US allies to do it themselves, is not indecision. It is the negative moment Hegel insisted was necessary for history to move. Only by withholding the old guarantee, and by saying so out loud to those who depended on it, can Trump hope to end the free ride.

@dom_lucre That’s quite a “fraternity.”

🔥🚨JUST IN: Students in the University of Oklahoma fraternity are going viral after they uploaded this video of them having the time of their lives.

@caringguy1957 @StephenM So it was anticipated that there would be exceptions, even unforeseen exceptions.

Wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution includes “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” for a very specific reason, to carve out narrow, well-understood exceptions, not to create a broad loophole. At the time it was written, everyone in Congress understood that phrase to exclude only a few categories, mainly: Foreign diplomats, because they are immune from U.S. law Children of invading enemy forces occupying U.S. territory Certain members of sovereign Native American tribes at that time

Birthright citizenship means the children of illegal aliens can vote to tax your children and seize their inheritance.

14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens” If they meant ‘anyone born here is automatically a citizen,’ why add ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’? That qualifier wouldn’t be needed if it was truly unconditional birthright citizenship. Right?

I attended today's oral argument and while I'm not sure how it will go, it seemed to me the justices engaged seriously with Sauer's arguments. I'd be surprised if they said the 14th Amendment or Kim Wong Ark support today's radical birthright citizenship regime.

14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens” If they meant ‘anyone born here is automatically a citizen,’ why add ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’? That qualifier wouldn’t be needed if it was truly unconditional birthright citizenship. Right?

Stephen, what a moronic statement. You’re not making a legal argument here, you’re trying to scare people. Birthright citizenship isn’t some loophole, it’s the law. The 14th Amendment is clear, and the Supreme Court settled this over a century ago in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. If you’re born here and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, you’re a citizen. Period. It doesn’t come with asterisks about who your parents are, and it doesn’t change based on politics. What you’re doing is skipping over that basic fact, that a citizen is a citizen, and jumping straight to a fear-based scenario about voting and “seizing inheritance.” That’s not how our system works. Citizens get one vote, same as everyone else. They don’t get special authority to target anyone, and they don’t get to decide taxes on their own. Taxes are set through Congress and apply broadly across the population, not to specific families you don’t like. And the idea that anyone can “seize your children’s inheritance” is just flat-out nonsense. Property rights are protected under the Constitution. There is no mechanism where a group of citizens can just take someone else’s assets because they voted for it. So what you’re really doing here is trying to dress up a political talking point as a constitutional argument, while ignoring the actual Constitution.

14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens” If they meant ‘anyone born here is automatically a citizen,’ why add ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’? That qualifier wouldn’t be needed if it was truly unconditional birthright citizenship. Right?

@StephenM If you are born in the USA, you are a US citizen. You fucking Nazis can cry all you want and come up with conspiracy after conspiracy it doesn't change the facts. Diversity is a strength, only Nazis see it as a weakness.

14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens” If they meant ‘anyone born here is automatically a citizen,’ why add ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’? That qualifier wouldn’t be needed if it was truly unconditional birthright citizenship. Right?

@StephenM This would be a colossally bad outcome—a SCOTUS ruling telling us we have no choice but to reward illegal aliens with citizenship for children born to them on U.S. soil

14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens” If they meant ‘anyone born here is automatically a citizen,’ why add ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’? That qualifier wouldn’t be needed if it was truly unconditional birthright citizenship. Right?

@StephenM Right. Because they’re CITIZENS.

14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens” If they meant ‘anyone born here is automatically a citizen,’ why add ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’? That qualifier wouldn’t be needed if it was truly unconditional birthright citizenship. Right?

14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens” If they meant ‘anyone born here is automatically a citizen,’ why add ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’? That qualifier wouldn’t be needed if it was truly unconditional birthright citizenship. Right?

@christopherrufo @sourpatchlyds Land of opportunity, right?

EXCLUSIVE: Multiple senior HHS officials estimate that, under Gavin Newsom, California's state Medicaid program has lost 25 percent of its budget to fraud. This would mean it is currently losing $50 billion a year to scammers, fraudsters, and organized crime rings.

RE: The Moon Launch OK, look, I admit it. I am an astronaut fanboy nerd (except for one ex-astronaut politician whose head resembles a scrotum). If you are a late Boomer or early Gen Xer, you remember. You heard Genesis read from an astronaut orbiting the Moon. You and all your friends wanted to be astronauts, more than anything. You remember that your parents bought your family’s first color TV to watch Neil Armstrong on the Moon. You built the LEM and CSM models and only killed a few brain cells with the glue. You were scared and prayed during Apollo 13. You had the lunchbox. You were sad when they cut off funding for the rest of the Moon landings. You were amazed when they saved Skylab. You watched all the movies. (You saw “The Right Stuff” and “Apollo 13” at least 20 times each.) You cried over Challenger and Columbia. You got older and wondered why we became so timid. Why not more of the Moon? Why not Mars? Why not beyond? The ISS seemed so…. limiting. You always said that the US space program was the one thing you did not care how much your were taxed for. Elon became a god of space travel, and you were there for it. So it’s our day, fellow astronaut nerd fanboys and fangirls. Put on your make-believe astronaut beanies and goggles, be 8 again, and remember the way you took that refrigerator cardboard box and turned it into the inside of an Apollo capsule with magic markers, Scotch tape and buttons stolen from your Mom’s sewing box. WE’RE GOING BACK TO THE FREAKING MOON BABY!!!!!🚀❤️🤍💙🇺🇸

@ThomasSowell If you’re dead, you really don’t care about anything Except where you’re headed And then, it’s too late

Elie Mystal: "If I get m*rdered by an undocumented immigrant, please tell my children I did not care that they were undocumented."

@Rothmus “Do not. Seek. The Treasure!”

@mikepat711 It is a superior vehicle.

Seriously? Just add the extra 1/10th of a penny at that fucking point. Btw teslas are way better than any gas car on the market and you don’t have to pay for that bullshit

@Rainmaker1973 Gossip. Without a doubt, gossip

What do you suppose they are talking about?