Tuesday, June 30, 2026

Demanding the right to kill whites


The alleged assault victim also reportedly said her attackers planned to target 'the smallest white girl they could find.'

The alleged victim of a recent physical attack outside a Texas bar said her assailants yelled "free Karmelo" — and now three females face assault charges, the Dallas Express reported.

The alleged "free Karmelo" exclamation presumably was in reference to Karmelo Anthony, a black male who earlier this month was sentenced to 35 years in prison for murdering Austin Metcalf, a white male, at a high school track meet in April 2025.

'Any credible threat, any attempt to organize violence, and any effort to intimidate members of the community will be taken seriously and investigated appropriately.'

Ciarrianne Fuller, 21, and Alana Mumphrey, 25 — both of Longview — and Dejae Shalyn Brown, 26, of Pittsburg, were listed in Gregg County Jail records on warrants for assault causing bodily injury, the Express said.

Fuller was arrested Tuesday, the Longview News-Journal reported, adding that Brown and Mumphrey surrendered to law enforcement and were booked into jail Thursday afternoon; all three were released on $20,000 bonds.

The Express said a woman publicly identified on social media as Sammie Lee alleged that several females attacked her after leaving Whiskey J's in Longview during the overnight hours of June 20 into June 21.

According to the Express, Lee alleged in her public post that the females shouted "free Karmelo" and said they planned to target "the smallest white girl they could find."

Lee said she had not interacted with the three females prior to the assault, the News-Journal reported, adding that Lee posted photos on social media showing her injuries.

The Express said it asked the Longview Police Department for additional comment and clarification regarding if investigators have confirmed Lee's allegation that the suspects yelled "free Karmelo" — or if they've uncovered any motive for the alleged assault — but the paper said it didn't immediately receive a response from police.

RELATED: 'You can't look me in the eyes, but you can stab my f**king son?!' Austin Metcalf's dad humiliates Karmelo Anthony in court

Longview Police Department spokesperson LaDarian Brown did say police are in communication with the FBI about the case because of online conversations "concerning retaliation, division, and attacks between members of our community," the News-Journal reported.

"Any credible threat, any attempt to organize violence, and any effort to intimidate members of the community will be taken seriously and investigated appropriately,” Brown added, according to the News-Journal.

Racial tensions have surrounded the Karmelo Anthony case since its beginnings more than a year ago:

  • Shortly after Metcalf's stabbing death, Anthony supporters went viral on social media, with one declaring that "Austin Metcalf got exactly what he deserved — point blank, period."
  • A high-profile Anthony spokesman reacted to Anthony's indictment last year by calling for a fight against "white supremacy" and blasting "bigots" and "racists."
  • At the start of Anthony's murder trial early this month, the prosecution dismissed all prospective black jurors — and one of the prospective black jurors acknowledged he'd have a "hard time putting a brother in jail."
  • After Anthony's murder conviction, Democrat U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas threw shade at the Metcalf family, saying that "black women, especially black women who have black male children, live in fear and agony every single day — a fear and agony that, I promise you, the Metcalfs probably never spend a day living that way."
  • In addition, a white-hating agitator claiming Anthony was "legally lynched" is a criminal, disgraced ex-judge.



Posted by jerry at 9:06 AM 0 comments

Armed and dangerous and society has no answer


16-year-old male accused of opening fire on occupied home; cops call suspect 'armed and dangerous'




Posted by jerry at 9:00 AM 0 comments

Bill Maher’s warning: Democrats have become too crazy even for Bill Maher


Republicans do not need to become perfect to win disaffected liberals. They only need to stop asking voters to pretend reality is fake.

Bill Maher did not suddenly become a conservative. That is what makes his recent comments to Vice President JD Vance so politically revealing.

Maher is still Maher — a liberal comedian, secular critic of Christianity, supporter of abortion, and longtime enemy of the religious right. He is not about to show up at a Turning Point USA conference in a red cap. He is not quoting Milton Friedman at CPAC. He is not becoming a Baptist.

Bill Maher is not moving right because Republicans suddenly became perfect. He is moving right because Democrats moved left into madness.

Yet in a recent conversation with Vance, Maher said his 2028 vote is “in play.” He said he could imagine voting for Vance or Marco Rubio if Republicans nominated the right candidate.

That should terrify Democrats.

Maher does not represent the average American voter in every respect. But he represents something dangerous for Democrats: the liberal who still remembers what liberalism used to be. He remembers when Democrats imagined themselves as the party of free speech, civil liberties, working-class people, and common sense. He remembers when liberals mocked religious fundamentalists rather than replacing them with secular versions in HR departments, faculty lounges, and school boards.

Maher’s point was not that Republicans have become irresistible. It was that Democrats have become repellent.

That is the real story.

For years, Democrats have comforted themselves with the idea that the country is divided over Donald Trump. Maher’s comments reveal a different problem. What happens when the choice is not Trump? What happens when the Republican nominee is Vance, Rubio, or someone else who can speak fluently about the failures of the left without carrying all of Trump’s baggage?

Then, Democrats have to defend themselves. That is where things get difficult.

Look at New York City.

The city that once elected Rudy Giuliani after years of chaos and vowed never to forget 9/11 is becoming the showcase for democratic socialism and outright communism. Candidates backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America just swept important Democratic primaries.

RELATED: ‘Weak and pathetic’: Mamdani-backed radicals sweep Democratic establishment in New York’s electoral bloodbath

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

These candidates are not progressive in the old sense. They reject the assumptions that once made the Democratic Party nationally competitive. They talk as if capitalism is the enemy, policing is oppression, borders are immoral, and Israel is uniquely evil among nations. They embrace socialism, excuse anti-Semitism, and treat Western civilization as a crime scene.

The old Democratic establishment used to understand that this was a problem. It knew America was not a socialist country. It knew most Americans did not want their cities run by activists. It knew Americans might debate the policies of Israel while still rejecting anti-Semitism.

Now, the Democratic establishment mostly shrugs. Or worse, it congratulates the winners and pretends this is normal.

It is not normal.

It is not normal for open socialists to become the energy center of a major American political party. It is not normal for candidates surrounded by anti-Israel radicalism to be treated as the future. It is not normal for Jewish voters to be told, in effect, that their concerns about anti-Semitism are merely bad-faith efforts to silence criticism of Israel.

That is one reason Maher’s discomfort matters. He is not a Christian Zionist or conservative evangelical. He is an irreverent liberal comedian who can see that something has gone wrong when the left cannot clearly distinguish between criticism of a government and hostility toward Jews as Jews.

Anti-Semitism is not the only issue.

The same problem appears in gender ideology. Americans are generally willing to be kind and decent to adults who identify as transgender. What they will not do is surrender reality.

They do not want boys in girls’ sports. They do not want men in women’s prisons. They do not want children rushed into medical pathways that can alter their bodies permanently. They do not want schools hiding gender transitions from parents. They do not want bureaucrats punishing anyone who says male and female are real categories grounded in nature.

Yet the Democratic Party has made this agenda a test of moral purity. Ordinary Americans who believe the obvious — that men are not women — are treated as bigots.

This is political insanity. It is also moral bullying.

The left first demanded tolerance. Then it demanded affirmation. Then it demanded participation. Now it demands that Americans deny what they can see with their own eyes. If they refuse, they are told they are hateful.

That kind of politics creates backlash. It also creates strange coalitions.

RELATED: Sorry, socialists: The system isn’t the savior

Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg/Getty Images

A voter does not have to become a movement conservative to conclude that Democrats have become dangerous. He may simply want his daughter to play sports against girls. He may want his Jewish neighbor to be safe walking to synagogue. He may want police to arrest criminals. He may want schools to teach reading instead of gender ideology. He may want politicians who like the country they seek to govern.

That is the opening Republicans now have.

The opportunity is not merely to say, “Vote Republican because we are Republicans.” That is not enough. The opportunity is to say, “You may not agree with us on everything, but we are not asking you to pretend reality is fake.”

Maher is not the whole electorate. But he is a warning flare. When even Bill Maher looks at Democrats and says his vote is up for grabs, the problem is not Republican messaging. The problem is Democratic extremism.

Democrats can keep telling themselves that voters are being manipulated by right-wing media. They can keep insisting that concerns about socialism, anti-Semitism, crime, schools, and gender ideology are manufactured panics. They can keep nominating activists who sound as if they are running a graduate seminar in revolutionary decolonization resentment.

Or they can notice what is happening.

Bill Maher is not moving right because Republicans suddenly became perfect. He is moving right because Democrats moved left into madness.

If Democrats keep going, Maher will not be the last liberal to say: enough.

Posted by jerry at 8:53 AM 0 comments

SCOTUS makes the illegal legal


POLITICS

Posted by jerry at 8:48 AM 0 comments

Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are


POLITICS

All 9 justices concurred at least in part with the ruling.

The Supreme Court has come down on the side of common sense when it comes to boys infiltrating girls' sports.

In a decision in which all nine justices concurred at least in part, the court ruled that laws in West Virginia and Idaho could limit sports teams to biological sex without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

'The challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status ... but instead on the basis of biological sex.'

"The argument that the challenged laws unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender individuals is unavailing. Under this Court’s decision in Skrmetti, the challenged laws do not classify based on gender identity or transgender status, see 605 U. S., at 517, but instead on the basis of biological sex," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion released Tuesday in which six total justices concurred on the core issues.

"The classification at issue readily satisfies rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny."

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wrote separate concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a separate opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that concurred in part and dissented in part.

Jackson also wrote a separate opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part.

In his opinion, Thomas went further and affirmed that so-called transgender identity does not affect biological reality:

Men and boys with gender dysphoria are not women or girls, even if they believe that they are. Sex is an immutable “biological” characteristic, see ante, at 10; it is binary; and “man” and “woman,” “boy” and “girl,” are the terms that correspond to adults and children of each sex. See A. Byrne, Are Women Adult Human Females? 177 Philosophical Studies 3783, 3786–3787 (2020). To use language to obscure reality — to show “indifference regarding the truth” — is to lie to the public and cease to treat our fellow citizens “as equal[s].” 

This is a breaking story.


Posted by jerry at 8:46 AM 0 comments

The Supreme Court puts border judges back in their lane


Two immigration rulings remind lower courts they are not America’s border czars. Immigration policy belongs to Congress and the president.

For years, America’s immigration policy has been determined less by the elected branches of government than by a handful of federal district judges. Presidents proposed policies, Congress enacted statutes, and almost inevitably, a single judge somewhere in the country would issue an order purporting to suspend those policies nationwide.

That era may finally be drawing to a close.

Federal judges possess neither the democratic legitimacy of Congress nor the political accountability of the president.

The Supreme Court’s two immigration decisions issued last week mark an important turning point — not simply because they uphold significant Trump administration immigration policies, but because they reaffirm a more fundamental constitutional principle: Immigration policy belongs primarily to the political branches, not the judiciary.

The court’s decisions addressed different questions: Mullin v. Doe concerned the executive’s authority over Temporary Protected Status, while Mullin v. Al Otro Ladoinvolved the government’s ability to regulate when and how aliens arriving at the border may invoke asylum procedures.

Both opinions reject the increasingly common assumption that federal judges may freely substitute their policy preferences for those of Congress and the president in matters of immigration.

That conclusion should surprise no one familiar with the Constitution or with the current court’s commitment to adhere to its original meaning.

Article I gives Congress authority over naturalization and immigration. Article II charges the president with faithfully executing the immigration laws and conducting the nation’s foreign affairs. The judiciary’s role is different. Courts are supposed to resolve concrete legal disputes — not make immigration policy. For too long, however, that distinction has been blurred.

Beginning during the first Trump administration and accelerating in recent years, nationwide injunctions or nationwide class actions have become the preferred weapon of litigants seeking to defeat executive policies with which they disagree. A single district judge can effectively veto the actions of the elected branches for the entire nation, often within days of a complaint being filed and long before appellate review. Nothing in the Constitution contemplates such extraordinary judicial power.

Federal judges possess neither the democratic legitimacy of Congress nor the political accountability of the president. Their authority extends only to deciding the cases before them and granting relief necessary to protect the specific parties before the court. They were never intended to function as a continuing supervisory council over every major policy dispute in the country. Last week’s decisions reflect a welcome recognition of that important constitutional principle.

Immigration, perhaps more than any other area of law, requires political judgment. Decisions concerning border security, humanitarian protection, foreign relations, labor markets, and national sovereignty inevitably involve competing policy considerations that courts are poorly equipped — and constitutionally unauthorized — to balance.


Reasonable people may disagree about how policy judgments in the area of immigration should be resolved. Americans have long debated the proper scope of asylum protections, the wisdom of Temporary Protected Status, and the best means of securing the southern border.

But under our constitutional system, such decisions are supposed to occur in Congress, at the White House, and ultimately at the ballot box — not through nationwide decrees issued by unelected trial judges.

Critics will undoubtedly portray the Supreme Court’s two rulings as victories for one political party or another. That misses the larger point. The real winner is the constitutional separation of powers.

When courts respect the limits of judicial authority, they strengthen rather than weaken the rule of law. Judicial modesty is not judicial abdication. Courts remain fully empowered to decide actual cases, interpret statutes, and enforce constitutional guarantees. What they are not empowered to do is assume responsibility for making national immigration policy, a distinction that protects everyone.

The precedents the Supreme Court established will not apply only to Republican presidents or conservative policies. They will constrain future courts considering the actions of Democrat administrations as well. Constitutional principles endure precisely because they are not dependent upon agreement with the policy of the moment.

The framers deliberately divided governmental power among three separate branches because concentrated power is dangerous regardless of who exercises it. Judicial overreach is no less inconsistent with constitutional government than executive overreach or legislative overreach.

The Supreme Court’s decisions on immigration represent an encouraging course correction. They remind lower courts that judges are not policymakers. They reaffirm that immigration decisions belong principally to the elected branches. And they take another step toward restoring the proper constitutional balance among the three branches of government.

That is good news not only for immigration policy, but also for the Constitution itself.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally at the American Mind.


Posted by jerry at 8:41 AM 0 comments
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)