Strains of the pathogen Fusarium graminearum confiscated from Liu Zunyong. (Source: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan)

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has a long history of engaging in agricultural espionage and, potentially, sabotage in the United States.

On Tuesday, June 3rd, two citizens of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), both specialists in the fungus and its modes of transmission and infection in crops, Jian Yunqing (简云青), 33, and Liu Zunyong (刘尊永), 34, were charged in a criminal complaint for conspiracy, smuggling goods into the United States, false statements, and visa fraud.

The pair is accused of conspiring to smuggle samples of the crop-destroying fungus Fusarium graminearum—which the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) describes as “a potential agroterrorism weapon”—into the United States (DOJ, June 3). Consumption of grain contaminated by this fungal blight can cause vomiting and liver damage in humans and livestock.

This is far from the first attempt of Communist China, which may now have a strategy of agroterrorism on America’s food supply.

Iran bet on bluff and delay—but lost its proxies, deterrence, and leverage, leaving a regime rich in threats but bankrupt in power.

Iran apparently had not adjusted to its new 2025 status—or maybe it had.

Most of its bought terrorists are currently either destroyed or anemic.

There is no more ascendant Iranian “Shia crescent” in the Middle East.

Russia is no longer a Middle East power, patron, and protector.

The Assad dynasty imploded, flipping Syria from an Iranian proxy into a likely Iranian enemy.

Hezbollah, once supposedly the most fearsome of all the Iranian terrorist tentacles, was humiliated and neutered by a series of surreal Israeli operations.

With the end of the Biden administration and Obama a distant memory, Iran lost all hope that it could bluster, bluff, and negotiate itself out of sanctions and embargoes—and into nuclear weapons.

There are no more John Kerrys or Antony Blinkens in charge, eager to meet Iranian demands. Ben Rhodes’s “echo chamber” Iran Deal is ancient history.

Israel had done more than all of America’s Middle East wars or all of NATO’s global presence to end Iran’s claims on power and the ability to project its brand of terror and fear throughout the Middle East.

So why did a neutered Iran still sound like the fiery Iran of old, when it once terrorized the Middle East and sent its assassination teams worldwide, with its nearly weekly loud threats to wipe out the one-bomb “Zionist entity?”

What was Iran thinking in refusing to negotiate seriously with the Trump administration to disband its nuclear weapons program and “normalize” its role in the Middle East?

The moment Israeli fighter jets cracked open Iran’s air-defense umbrella last week, the professional panic class—President Trump aptly calls them the “Panicans”—went straight to Defcon Twitter, wailing that World War III had begun and demanding that America stay out of it.

As if we weren’t already in it.

The Pentagon has been clear: our forces are in a defensive posture, which means active radar, ready launchers, and iron in the sky—not a bunch of soldiers sitting around waiting to be target practice.

And now, for anyone still half-asleep, the President just announced that we hold “complete and total control over Iranian skies.”

That is not mission creep; that is mission accomplished at thirty-thousand feet.

First, a little memory‑jog for the amnesiacs.

Candidate Trump never promised monastic isolation. What he promised—and delivered—was an end to feckless, open‑ended nation‑building while preserving America’s right to strike quickly, decisively, and overwhelmingly when genuine threats emerged.

In 2017 he unleashed new rules of engagement that collapsed the Islamic State’s “caliphate” in weeks—something Washington’s polite war managers had failed to do for three long years.

Then came January 3, 2020.

Qassem Soleimani, the terror architect who had American blood on his hands from Baghdad to Beirut, learned in a flash of white light that presidential red lines are real.

Trump’s surgical order saved untold American and allied lives and stunned Tehran into recalculating its aggression.

The strike was not the beginning of a new war; it was the punctuation mark that prevented one.

Nothing about this week’s move contradicts that record.

Approximately a year after tech billionaire Elon Musk acquired X, formerly known as Twitter, in November 2023, a number of major companies collectively removed their ads from the platform.

They all did so while citing dubious concerns that Musk was allowing the promotion of anti-Semitism and “hate speech” on his platform.

The effort to get companies to pull their ads from X was spearheaded by the Leftmedia organization Media Matters.

Companies that pulled ads significantly impacting X’s revenue generation included the likes of Disney, Apple, IBM, Comcast/NBC Universal, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Paramount.

The European Commission also joined in on the ad boycott, with spokesman Johannes Bahrke contending that the EU had “seen an alarming increase in disinformation and hate speech on several social media platforms in recent weeks,” singling out X.

The Biden administration also tacitly supported the campaign against X, with the White House posting the following statement on November 17, 2023: “We condemn this abhorrent promotion of Antisemitic and racist hate in the strongest terms, which runs against our core values as Americans.”

The pretext for all this — what proved to be faux outrage given the subsequent silence on actual anti-Semitism that would soon roil college campuses across the country — was that Musk had dared to agree with an X post observing that Jewish communities support a “dialectical hatred against whites.”

However, the ad boycott was too coordinated to pass the spontaneous, supposedly organic movement sniff test.

Soon, House Republicans began asking questions, with the House Judiciary Committee launching an investigation into the Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM).

The Committee concluded that GARM “likely violated federal antitrust laws.”

The criticisms of our universities seem endless: charges of antisemitism; exorbitant student fees leading to lifetime debt; ridiculous programs with no practical use; the list goes on.

While the Ivies continue to flex their muscles with the Trump administration, very little has changed.

The schools insist that they have no responsibility to the people whose money they receive through taxes, and they should be allowed to function unencumbered.

Gradually, however, potential post-high school students are showing they are smarter than those who think they are superior to them.

The celebrated option is the trade school.

We have been talking about the value and benefits of trade schools for years.

Ten years ago, our current Secretary of State Marco Rubio praised the value of these schools, because they were filling a need in the United States:

“Why did we stop doing vocational education in America, people that can work with their hands; people you can train to do this work while they’re still in high school so they can graduate ready to go work? What’s happening is some of these tech companies are taking centers to Canada because they can get people to go over there instead of here. The ideal scenario is to train Americans to do the work so we don’t have to rely on people from abroad.”

What does the Palestinian jihad against Israel have to do with allowing illegal migrants to remain in Los Angeles?

On the face of it, absolutely nothing, and yet there the jihadis are, out burning down the City of Angels along with their leftist allies.

The immediate explanation for this is that both leftists and jihadis have a common enemy — the United States of America — and while that is certainly true, this is much more than just an alliance of convenience. What we are seeing in Los Angeles is just the latest manifestation of a deep affinity between leftists and jihadis.

The pro-Hamas contingent appears to be well represented in L.A. One photo shows a masked man with a Hamas armband and a Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine headband, waving a Mexican flag next to a car that had been graffitied all over with leftist slogans and set on fire.

In a video, rioters sporting keffiyehs throw burning material from an overpass onto police cars below, trying to set them on fire.

Another keffiyeh-wearing rioter says that the U.S. is the “enemy” and that Los Angeles should burn down. [pictured]

The deeper reason why jihadis as well as leftists are out on the streets of Los Angeles is that both rely on terror as the source of their power.

The right to self-defense, and by extension the right to bear arms, has a long and complex history in Britain.

Today, many see strict gun control as a hallmark of British law, but this was not always the case.

Indeed, Britain has a robust tradition of armed citizenry, rooted in common law, enshrined in the 1689 Bill of Rights, and eroded only in the modern era.

British society faces unprecedented strains, from mass immigration, rising crime and public disorder to distrust of the State, so it is worth re-examining whether Britain has moved too far from its historic principles.

The roots of Britain’s approach to bearing arms can be found in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

The overthrow of King James II and the ascension of William III and Mary II resulted in the English Bill of Rights in 1689.

Mostly focused on the abuses of State (Royal) power, it contained a clause declaring:

“That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

It was not an unlimited right. It was conditioned by status and subject to the law, but it established that the government could not arbitrarily disarm the population.

Throughout the medieval and early modern periods, the English militia system required men to possess and train with weapons to ensure that defense was a civic responsibility, not a purely professional one.

Far from fearing private firearm ownership, the State encouraged it, not least because it lacked a standing army and viewed armed citizens as vital to national defense.

This tradition continued well into the 19th century. Gun ownership was common; regulation was minimal.

This changed after World War I, which left Britain with a surplus of weapons, a newly politicized working class that knew how to use them, and an Establishment fearful of a Bolshevik revolution, culminating in the Firearms Act of 1920, the first major piece of modern gun control legislation.

On a recent podcast episode, Joe Rogan and his guest Cody Tucker found themselves in a discussion that was clearly skeptical of the atheistic consensus among prominent thinkers of the past few generations.

That atheistic consensus generally states that the following is true. There was obviously once a Great Nothingness that suddenly became our universe and the existence of everything within it -- and all of this happened for no reason whatsoever.

Rogan asks a question that every person has likely asked themselves countless times, “wouldn’t it be crazy if there wasn’t something at some point in time?  That seems even crazier than [to think] there has always been something.”

He's not wrong.

To believe that nothing suddenly became everything for no reason whatsoever is an act of pure faith based upon no observable data.

What’s more, the proclamation itself an act of heresy for scientific atheists.

A database search of 12 million books published in the 300 years before 9/11 reveals only one instance of the phrase “Islam is a religion of peace.”

It appears in fiction and is spoken by Ayatollah Mahmoud Haji Daryaei, an Iranian leader in Tom Clancy’s thriller titled Executive Orders.

But the dangerous notion that Islam is peaceful has been so frequently reiterated by world leaders, clerics, and the liberal media-academia complex that it has taken on the status of COWDUNG—a facetious near-acronym for ‘conventional wisdom of the dominant group.’

Denying 1,400 years of history, these apologists would have us believe that extremist Islam is a perversion.

Their sanitized version presents Islam’s prime motif of violent jihad—or religious war against infidels—as an individual’s “inner struggle” for spiritual growth.

To expose these falsehoods—which have circled the globe before the truth even got out of bed—conservative authors Tommy Robinson and Peter McLoughlin wrote Mohammed’s Koran: Why Muslims Kill for Islam.

In light of Robinson’s early release from a British prison a few days ago, an overview of this important book seems fitting.

The key to understanding what the Koran signifies to Muslims is naskh….

As one anonymous and unelected judge after another rules against the Trump agenda, Republicans must decide whether they want to abide by the will of the American people.

If Tren de Aragua gang members aren’t “alien enemies” of the United States, aren’t able to be deported by the American president under the ancient Alien Enemies Act, then language itself has lost its meaning. But that’s the world we’re living in.

In a way, it shouldn’t surprise us. The Left, after all, has been at war with the language — and at war with reality — for decades.

Indeed, they insist that men can become pregnant, that women can only be described by biologists, that pedophiles are merely minor-attracted persons, and that last year’s version of Joe Biden was the best Biden ever.

Nor should the current judicial war against Donald Trump surprise any of us. All throughout his first term, Trump and his agenda were sabotaged from within by entrenched deep-state leftists and by old-guard establishment Republicans.

In this second term, though, with Trump having remade the Republican Party and having cleaned up the executive branch, the attacks are coming from without — from the third and supposedly coequal branch of government that Thomas Jefferson once presciently warned could become despotic: the judicial branch.

Since his inauguration, Trump has been busy trying to unscrew the mess bequeathed him by four years of the Autopen Presidency, but he’s been opposed at nearly every turn — from mass-deporting illegal aliens to ending birthright citizenship to trimming down our grotesquely bloated federal government to imposing tariffs on predatory trading partners — by lower-court judges and, in some cases, by the very Supreme Court justices that he nominated for the bench.

For openers, kudos to President Donald Trump for his leadership on addressing this heretofore missing piece of the energy puzzle.

Incomprehensibly, the preceding administration embarked on a quixotic mission to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, while simultaneously ignoring our single safe, abundant, and non-polluting means of generating electricity.

Somehow, in the midst of ongoing firestorms on immigration, trade, taxes, and two wars, Trump still manages to attend to other important matters that have been lost in the shuffle.

Some call it chaos, but we should be happy to have a president with the stamina to keep so many balls in the air.

Will Trump’s blitz of actions get nuclear power back on track?

The only way to answer that question is to understand how we got so far off track so quickly and so completely.

Why did we suddenly stop building nuclear plants?

It’s a complicated picture with numerous parts and pieces. But in my opinion, it all boils down to one root cause: the realization by prospective investors that nuclear power’s opponents, with sufficient legal and political support, can render a new, multibillion-dollar facility unusable.

If that seems implausible, consider the fate of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, the poster child for anti-nuclear activism.

On May 9, 2024, a fire broke out at an IKEA warehouse in Vilnius, Lithuania (Lrytas, May 20, 2024). Subsequent investigations revealed that the arson was orchestrated by Russia’s military intelligence agency, the Main Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (GRU), and that the suspects were also planning similar attacks in Latvia (LRT, March 17).

The Lithuanian Prosecutor General’s Office classified the incident as an act of terrorism aimed at intimidating the societies of Lithuania and pressuring them to reduce support for Ukraine (LRT, March 17).

Russia’s hybrid warfare strategy extends beyond its war against Ukraine as it also targets other European frontline states through influence operations, election interference, and intimidation.

The Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—are targeted by Russian hybrid tactics as a daily reality and direct challenge to their sovereignty.

Historically, Moscow has used political, economic, energy, and cyber tactics to undermine the Baltics.

Recent efforts, however, are markedly more aggressive, particularly as they involve military pressure.

Understanding the origins of Russia’s hybrid strategy is crucial to recognizing its evolving influence in the region.

A new rapid blood test for newborns could potentially detect genetic mutations linked to thousands of rare diseases all at once, greatly improving on current inefficient detection methods, according to a study to be presented Monday.

The new test developed by Australian scientists has proven highly accurate in identifying gene mutations associated with many rare, inherited diseases, all from just a minimally invasive blood sample taken from infants and children, the authors say.

The study, being unveiled at the European Human Genetics Conference in Milan, Italy, demonstrated that a single, untargeted test capable of analyzing 8,000 human proteins at once was able to correctly identify 83% of people with confirmed rare, inherited diseases.

The "proteomics" test was also able to differentiate between parental carriers of the mutations, who only have one copy of the defective gene, and the affected child, who carries two copies.

Those encouraging results are raising hopes for a new era in which screening infants and children for suspected inherited rare diseases can be accomplished quickly and efficiently for the first time, and that testing can be extended to many more of the estimated 300 million people worldwide affected by these genetic mutations.

Testing for suspected inherited diseases has traditionally been a time-consuming, costly and sometimes painful process that required different procedures for different suspected mutations. But that paradigm could be about to change, the study's lead author says.

Daniella Hock, a senior postdoctoral researcher at the University of Melbourne, told UPI that if the test is implemented in clinical labs, "it can potentially replace multiple functional tests. This can potentially reduce the diagnostic time for patients and families and healthcare costs.

"The test only requires only 1 milliliter of blood from infants, and results can be achieved in less than three days for urgent cases," she said.

The antidote to war is not peace.

The antidote to war is commerce.

This concept of cultivating peace by fostering commerce traces its roots back to Montesquieu and the Enlightenment.

The thought is that increasing commerce leads to shared interests, recognition of the rule of law, and growing prosperity, all of which preclude armed conflict.

At the end of WWII, the U.S. realized that only America, with about fifty percent of the global GDP, could reignite the fires of international trade, production, and competition.

In league with its wartime allies, agreements like Bretton Woods were executed and multilateral regulatory and monitoring organizations like the WTO were established.

With its enormous financial, military, and market clout, America was able to get the flywheel of global commerce moving again.

It worked, of course.

In 1945, global GDP was approximately $1T, while today it is about $117T.

Even better, the percent of the world’s population living in extreme poverty shrank from fifty-five percent to less than ten percent today.

These epic improvements are all due to the expansion of global commerce and free markets, driven by the U.S. sharing its markets, finances, and enforcement power.

But we still have war….it’s obvious to the casual observer that the outstanding component of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy is increasing commerce…

Make no mistake about it: The Democratic Party is facing an existential crisis that even their media allies can't spin anymore.

The New York Times, the crown jewel of the liberal media establishment, just published a devastating analysis showing how the Democrats' supposed stronghold on American politics has crumbled under the MAGA movement.

While Democrats continue their tired routine of Trump-bashing and pretending to care about working Americans, the numbers tell a completely different story.

The Times' analysis reveals a political earthquake that's reshaping the electoral landscape, and it's not in the Democrats' favor.

“All told, Mr. Trump has increased the Republican Party's share of the presidential vote in each election he's been on the ballot in close to half the counties in America — 1,433 in all. It is a staggering political achievement, especially considering that Mr. Trump was defeated in the second of those three races, in 2020. By contrast, Democrats have steadily expanded their vote share in those three elections in only 57 of the nation’s 3,100-plus counties.”

That's not just a loss; that's a political bloodbath.

This week, the Supreme Court continued to deliberate over what to do with the growing number of national or universal injunctions issued by federal district courts against the Trump Administration.

The court has long failed to address the problem, and what I call “chronic injunctivitis” is now raging across the court system.

Justices have only worsened the condition with conflicting and at times incomprehensible opinions.

Both Democratic and Republican presidents have long argued that federal judges are out of control in issuing national injunctions that freeze the entire executive branch for years on a given policy.

For presidents, you have to effectively sweep the district courts 677-to-0 if you want to be able to carry out controversial measures.

Any one judge can halt the entire government.

Under President Barack Obama, Justice Elena Kagan expressed outrage over the injunctions in public comments at Northwestern University School of Law.

Kagan lashed out at the obvious “forum shopping” by then conservative advocates to get before favorable courts, insisting “It just cannot be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years it takes to go through the normal [appellate] process.”

In his first term, Trump faced a more than 450 percent increase in the number of such injunctions over the number issued under Obama — a rise from 12 to 64.

The number then went down to just 14 under former President Joe Biden.

With Trump back in office, district courts have now outstripped that record and may surpass the total from the first term in the first year.

China is the original riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. A country striving for modernity but feudal in its treatment of its citizens, Beijing's economic identity is a combination of Communist orthodoxy and crony capitalism.

As you might expect, the two don't work well together.

On the outside of the riddle, China is booming, the people are subservient and happy, and the government is looking to the future with confidence. This is the picture the Chinese Communists paint for the world to see. The reality is much different.

China is being crushed by debt, has become dependent on high levels of debt, and has created a humongous bubble in several sectors, like housing and household goods.

One noted Chinese economist says, “Basically, China’s economy is all built on speculation and everything is over-leveraged.”  Yet it's not just the debt that's pulling China down. It’s much worse than that.

Former FBI boss James Comey posted an image of seashells forming “86 47” but quickly claimed, “I didn’t realize some folks associate those numbers with violence. It never occurred to me but I oppose violence of any kind so I took the post down.” The Secret Service has good reason to take it as a threat.

“86” is code for “get rid of,” quite possibly in a permanent way. Comey knew exactly what he was doing, Trump said, that the “dirty cop” was calling for the assassination of the president. Comey was aware that Trump had survived two assassination attempts and was lobbying for another. As the people should know, the FBI is also in the “86” business.

In August of 2023, an FBI SWAT team shot and killed Craig Robertson, a 75-year-old woodworker for threats against Joe Biden he allegedly made on the internet. Threats to the president are normally handled by the Secret Service, but this was an FBI operation all the way.

James Comey made no statement or post on the killing that anybody can find. As he had to know, deadly force is a longstanding FBI practice.

Current FBI Director Kash Patel is closing down the agency’s Washington, DC, mothership office and moving at least 1,500 employees out of the DC area to regional offices.  The decision was not just Patel’s.

During the Biden Administration, it was determined that the 50-year-old Hoover building headquarters was structurally decrepit. More germanely, no prior FBI director had ever explained why nearly a third of the FBI workforce was centered in offices in Washington, far from where most of the serious crime in America occurs.

The news is welcome for reasons well beyond the safety of agents in an apparently unsafe headquarters.

It is no exaggeration to state that most of the FBI scandals of the last decade were born in the Hoover building headquarters, suggesting that the agency had long become top-heavy, politically weaponized, and deeply embedded in and compromised by the Washington apparat. Here is a summary of the last ten years of FBI corruption.

In what must be the week's best fun news story, we learn that the new pope, Leo XIV, formerly Cardinal Robert Prevost, is a fitness fanatic.

His personal trainer and the founder of his gym had details for the Italian press about how then-Cardinal Prevost worked out at their local gym in Rome, running on the cardio machines and bench pressing like anyone else in his plain gym clothes, putting in those hours to keep himself fit, sound mind, sound spirit, sound body, in a piece since picked up by Catholic News Agency:

“The then-Cardinal Prevost — who, as is well known, is also a tennis player — spent his free time on the cardio machines, his favorite exercise. He sometimes also used the stationary bikes and treadmills designed to improve cardiovascular endurance and burn calories.

Omega Gym founder Alessandro Tamburlani related, ‘He was a person like so many other members. He dressed like everyone else, in simple gym clothes’.”

So in other words, he was just a dude, going to the gym to keep fit, same as millions of others do.  Pope Leo is MAHA – RFKII should have been with Rubio and Vance when they met him in the Vatican last Sunday.

putin is afraid to fly to Istanbul – the SBU knows exactly why. pic.twitter.com/lYDkaCit9f

— Jürgen Nauditt 🇩🇪🇺🇦 (@jurgen_nauditt) May 15, 2025

The health of Putin, 72, has long been suspected to be deteriorating with his increasing age, and now experts have said that his brutal invasion of Ukraine has sapped much of his remaining energy.

Former commander of the UK’s  Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment, Colonel Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, told the Mirror:

“There are analysts, people who know better than I, who believe Putin is now a dead man walking, a spent force whose war in Ukraine will cause his end.”

Bruce Jones, one of the UK’s  leading analysts of Russia, added:

“Things never end democratically in Russia and the situation is bad for Putin. He has had people killed for years and some in his military have already been dealt with in such a way - he knows the way this goes for a leader in Moscow who is not making good decisions. So he is probably right to be paranoid.”

And Colonel Richard Kemp, former commander of UK forces in Afghanistan, added:

The days of rogue district court judges hijacking executive authority may finally be numbered.

On Thursday (5/15), the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in a consolidated case, Trump v. CASA, which challenges lower court rulings that blocked President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.

Despite the constitutional authority granted to the executive branch on immigration matters, three district judges issued sweeping nationwide injunctions halting the order. Now, the highest court may have the chance to rein in judicial overreach and restore balance between the branches of government.

Even Newsweek seems to believe that the court will side with the Trump administration. Further, in recent years, some justices have expressed criticism of universal injunctions.

Somewhere between 10 million and 12 million illegal aliens were invited into the United States by the Biden administration.

As far as logistics go, former President Joe Biden could not flee Afghanistan without getting 13 Marines killed and abandoning to the terrorist Taliban $50 billion in munitions, a billion-dollar embassy and a $300 million retrofitted huge airbase.

But Biden and his handlers proved far more logistically capable when their target was fellow Americans.

After all, they somehow managed to stop the congressionally approved continuance of the border wall, subvert federal immigration law, emasculate the border patrol and ensure that millions of people around the world could simply walk into the US illegally, unaudited and with impunity.

Why did Biden or his puppeteers do something so anarchic, so injurious to their fellow Americans?

Will Americans soon witness President Trump’s issuance of an executive order suspending habeas corpus for criminal aliens and American enemies who have participated in an invasion against the United States, and who have chosen to remain in our country against the rule of law?

The writ of habeas corpus goes back to 500 B.C. and is a legal action which allows a prisoner to challenge the authority of the jailer to continue holding him. The legal term habeas corpus literally means “you should have the body” in Latin.

This legal privilege allows incarcerated citizens to seek relief from unlawful confinement as outlined in the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended four times: in areas that were in rebellion during the American Civil War; in eleven South Carolina counties that were under threat by the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction; in two provinces of the Philippines during an insurrection in 1905 when the Philippines were a U.S. territory; and in Hawaii subsequent to the bombing of Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan.

In suspending the writ, Trump would be following in the footsteps of Abe Lincoln, who suspended habeas corpus as a war power to protect the Union when the public safety required it.

Revolutions rarely spring into action without notice.  The American Revolution was many years in the making.  The Boston Massacre occurred in 1773, not 1776.  Many of the longstanding oppressive measures that drove the colonists to revolt in 1776 are catalogued in the Declaration of Independence.  As onerous as they were, yet only when the oppression was no longer “sufferable” were the people driven to their last recourse: revolution.

President Trump has been besieged by federal, state, and local judges, even during his campaign.  New York State issued what amounts to a bill of attainder against him, not only crafting a special application of law, in which there were no victims, and designed to prosecute only him, but also assigning to a judge the role of real estate assessor, with the threat of imprisonment in a notorious state penitentiary.  This case, among others, was widely seen as clearly intended only to prevent the re-election of Donald Trump.

A different sort of revolution has been building up in the United States, against a different kind of tyranny: the tyranny of radical leftist judges.  It was only a matter of time before there was outright defiance of those judges.  In one case, federal judge Boasberg complained that his order to turn around deportation airplanes already in flight was ignored.

Now there has been an escalation in that buildup.

[Stephen Miller is the founder of America First Legal and is currently Chief of Staff of the Trump White House.]

Stephen Miller’s America First Legal (AFL) has filed a bombshell lawsuit against Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in his capacity as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and Robert J. Conrad, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

The lawsuit accuses the powerful duo of running what AFL describes as an “unconstitutional shadow agency” and violating federal transparency laws.

The lawsuit, filed on April 22, slams the Judicial Conference of the United States and its administrative arm—both overseen by Chief Justice Roberts—as rogue “executive agencies” that have collaborated with far-left lawmakers to wage lawfare against conservative Supreme Court justices.

According to the lawsuit viewed by The Gateway Pundit: