two men wearing American flag facemasks and tactical gear. Look at the picture above. One of these is a member of a private militia that supports the President and was involved in an violent effort to overturn the election, the other is an agent of the state. Can you tell the difference?

The omniforce is accountable only to Trump: they ignore state and local guidance, or court decisions. Forget about knowing the identity of the official. Now you may not know which agency he works for, or even if he is an agent of the state.

How terrifying for him and his parents. Shameful

And it will remain, most likely. Ive not lived in the Midwest in abt 30 years and I still say it.

The delivery guy put the package in our skeleton decorations lap and sometimes I'm just so charmed by humanity. So simple, yet delightful.

"... And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare..."

bsky.app/profile/iamk...

Ckear day at the White cliffs of Dover

Cold at Dover, too, but lovely

No. No, thank you.

Here’s video of the incident

Gonna be thinking about this lede for a minute.

Lovejoy

Lololol- you beat me by about a minute

And every single one must've happened in Midsommer. Dammit Barnaby- do better.

Look. Invading our own country is about as straightforward a case as you can have for impeachment. The GOP abandoning the Constitution is kind of the only story there is and it gets no coverage.

This week in Texas: roughly one white Evangelical megachurch pastor per day is arrested, charged or convicted of sex offenses involving children. And how many trans people or drag queens face such charges? Zero.

Furthermore, this country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs. “That tradition has deep roots in our history and found early expression, for example, in . . . the constitutional provisions for civilian control of the military.” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 15 (1972); see also James Madison, Address to the Constitutional Convention (1787), reprinted in 1 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 465 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) (“A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence [against] foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.”). This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power—to the detriment of this nation.

"This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs. ...

"This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law."

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life. Transform a man into a fish and you enable him to roam the cool waters of the Atlantic, free from the burdens of the human world

The Government now asks us to reverse the preliminary injunctions in these cases. We see no reason to do so. The Government is right that the Framers of the Citizenship Clause sought to remove the stain of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 119 How.) 393 (1857), which shamefully denied United States citizenship to "descendants of Africans who were imported into this country, and sold as slaves," even when the descendants were born here. Id. at 403. But the Framers chose to accomplish that just purpose in broad terms, as both the supreme Court in United States . Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and Congress in passing § 1401(a) have recognized. The Government is therefore wrong to argue that the plaintiffs are not likely to succeed in showing that the children that the EO covers are citizens of this country at birth, just as the Government is wrong to argue that various limits on our remedial power independently require us to reverse the preliminary injunctions.?

The analysis that follows is necessarily lengthy, as we must address the parties' numerous arguments in each of the cases involved. But the length of our analysis should not be mistaken for a sign that the fundamental question that these cases raise about the scope of birthright citizenship is a difficult one. •It is not, which may explain why it has been more than a century since a branch of our government has made as concerted an effort as the Executive Branch now makes to deny Americans their birthright.

Thus, it is no surprise that, when presented with even more uncontroverted evidence by the State-Plaintiffs about the need for an injunction of the current breadth, the District Court again found that a narrower injunction would leave unremedied "administrative and financial harms." We therefore decline to conclude that the District Court has abused its discretion in fashioning relief. See Philip Morris, Inc. v. Harshbarger, 159 F. 3d 670, 680 (1st Cir. 1998) (explaining that "[als a general rule, a disappointed litigant cannot surface an objection to a preliminary injunction for the first time in an appellate venue" because doing so deprives the district court of the opportunity to "consider [the objection] and correct the injunction if necessary, without the need for appeal" (quoting Zenon, 711 F.2d at 478)).

The "lessons of history" thus give us every reason to be wary of now blessing this most recent effort to break with our established tradition of recognizing birthright citizenship and to make citizenship depend on the actions of one's parents rather than -- in all but the rarest of circumstances -- the simple fact of being born in the United States. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 595 (1948). Nor does the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, which countermanded our most infamous attempt to break with that tradition, permit us to bless this effort, any more than does the Supreme Court's interpretation of that amendment in Wong Kim Ark, the many related precedents that have followed it, or Congress's 1952 statute writing that amendment's words in the U.S. Code. The District Court's order for entry of the preliminary injunctions is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further consideration consistent with this decision.

BREAKING: The First Circuit rejects Trump's executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. In the New Jersey-led multistate case, the appeals court, in a 100-page ruling, keeps the nationwide scope of the injunction blocking the EO in place. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

All I want is a politician that says “this is unequivocally wrong and here’s what I’m doing to stop it,” it’s not complicated!!!

Maybe the media can start covering this shit like it is setting policy then?

you got lied to and then printed the lies…that should piss you off

Holy hell. DHS just openly stated that its agents use “reasonable suspicion” to make ARRESTS. This is blatantly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is clear that you need probable cause to arrest someone, as opposed to stop them to ask them a question or two. This is huge b/c…

Christ this is shameful

Wtf. Let's just say their scenario is accurate- resisting does not call for fatal use of force.

That seems... pretty dire, actually

Someone with a platform (and soul) needs to smack THESE ARE MOSTLY LAW ABDIDING CITIZENS. THEY WILL DO THE SAME TO TOU in huge, bold letters and run print, web, and TV ads

Someone with a platform (and soul) needs to smack THESE ARE MOSTLY LAW ABDIDING CITIZENS. THEY WILL DO THE SAME TO TOU in huge, bold letters and run print, web, and TV ads.

Lol damn

This is so indefensibly insane: Speaker Johnson is refusing to seat Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva because she'll be the 218th vote to release the Epstein files. Johnson swore in Rep Walkinshaw (VA) w/in 24 hours.

Johnson is abandoning his job to instead protect a convicted child sex predator

On the Gaza flotilla live stream, one by one, boats are intercepted by IDF & blasted with water cannons until comms are jammed & the feed for each boat goes down.

Israel is illegally kidnapping civilians on international waters, & they're preventing the world from witnessing.