Conservative Blogger
Tuesday, August 25, 2026
Supreme Court Opens Door to Trump Mail-Ballot Restrictions Before Midterms
 |
The Supreme Court on Monday cleared a major legal hurdle for President Donald Trump's administration to implement an executive order restricting the use of mail-in ballots ahead of the November midterm elections, but the justices did not issue a final ruling on the legality of the order. The justices granted a Justice Department emergency request to put on hold a June injunction issued by Boston-based U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani
that had blocked the administration from implementing the directive in 23 mostly Democrat-governed states and Washington, D.C., that sued to stop it. The ruling allows the administration to move forward with the directive despite that injunction, but it does not resolve the underlying legal dispute. Instead, Monday's action was a ruling on whether the lower-court injunction should remain in effect while the case proceeds, leaving open the possibility of further litigation as the midterm elections approach. The Supreme Court did not act on a separate nationwide injunction Talwani issued on Aug. 11 that blocks the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing the directive's tighter rules for voting by mail. The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to make clear that its decision applied to both injunctions, but the justices did not do so. That means Monday's ruling does not give the administration an unrestricted green light to implement every part of Trump's order. The three liberal justices dissented from Monday's decision. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Trump's executive order, issued in March, directed the Department of Homeland Security to compile and transmit to the states a list of U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state. It also directed the Justice Department to prioritize investigating and prosecuting state and local election officials who issue ballots to people deemed "not eligible" to vote in federal elections. The order further required the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to voters on each state's approved mail-in-ballot list. The Postal Service has moved to implement Trump's directive, although enforcement of its new rules remains blocked by Talwani's separate nationwide injunction. Trump has vowed to end the use of mail-in ballots nationwide before the midterms and has long raised concerns about the security of mail voting. Republicans are seeking to retain control of Congress in the closely contested midterm elections. Restrictions on mail-in voting could have a greater impact on Democrats because Democrat voters have traditionally been more likely than Republicans to use mail ballots. Talwani ruled in June that the president lacked authority to order changes in how states administer federal elections, noting that the Constitution gives states a role in determining voter-eligibility requirements. She also concluded that federal agencies lacked the ability to compile accurate citizenship lists for each state. The Justice Department had argued that the states' lawsuit was premature and that they lacked legal standing to challenge Trump's directive because federal agencies had not yet taken concrete actions affecting them. The administration argued that any harm claimed by the states was therefore speculative. The states countered that the administration's effort to change mail-voting rules ahead of the midterms created immediate election-administration concerns, including potential compliance costs and changes to voting procedures. Talwani rejected the administration's arguments, finding that the states had legal standing because they faced election-administration disruptions, compliance costs, and a credible threat of criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court's Monday order changes the immediate effect of Talwani's June ruling, but it does not settle the broader constitutional questions surrounding Trump's executive order. The states remain able to pursue further litigation, and the dispute could return to the Supreme Court as the November elections approach. Trump's executive order is part of his broader effort to make changes to U.S. election procedures. He has also pressed the Republican-controlled Congress to pass a package of voting restrictions called the SAVE America Act. © 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved. |
'Life's Too Short': Buc-Ee's CEO Thumbs His Nose at Liberal States, Will Build Where He's Wanted
 |
I haven’t had the good fortune of visiting a Buc-ee’s convenience store/gas station/monster-sized extravaganza, but several of my RedState colleagues have. I feel left out because even “Freddy the German,” the soccer-loving tourist who came to the U.S. to watch the FIFA World Cup and then went viral for his awestruck reactions on social media to his wonderful experience in America, has been to the mega-gas stations with apparently incredible food. I’ll get there. But it probably won’t be in a blue state, because Buc-ee’s founder and CEO Arch "Beaver" Aplin III
said he’s going to focus on expanding his operations in conservative locales with traditional values that match his own and which actually support something known as “business.” Here he is at a Buc-ee’s opening in Benton, Arkansas, on August 17: Aplin:
He’s following the same trend that California Gov. Gavin Newsom knows all too well (not that he cares) as corporations flee the Golden State — if you spit in their faces, they will leave for places where they’re actually valued. Aplin continued, saying that it’s not that complicated a subject: treat people well, and they will come back for more. Treat them like horse manure, and they’ll find someplace else to go:
Why wouldn't you go to somewhere like Arkansas, or… Texas? ON MY BUCKET LIST: Everything's Bigger: 75,000 Square Foot Buc-ee's Opens in Texas Get Ready America: Buc-ee’s Debuts in 6 New States This Year and Next One could argue that we’re seeing a Great Sorting: businesses — and citizens — are fleeing mostly blue northern states to red southern ones that value freedom, capitalism, and the American way. Will blue states get the message, or just continue to hurtle down their suicidal paths?
It’s a battle that’s far from over, and the socialists and progressives are determined to reimagine this country in their own impossible, imaginary image. We must work tirelessly to ensure their failure because Marxism has never worked, and it never will. Who would have thought that a gas station chain would become a symbol of our Great Divide? |
Hoo Boy: El-Sayed's Train Wreck Appearance With Jesse Watters May Sink His Chances
 |
On Monday, the Democrat nominee for Senate in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed, appeared on Jesse Watters' show on Fox. You had to figure that was going to be an interesting exchange, and you would be right. El-Sayed was slick, but ultimately that backfired. He kept trying to talk over Watters. When asked about abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), El-Sayed claimed that we used to have the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
Watters had to explain to him that yes, INS did the same things as ICE. Yes, they carried guns, apprehended illegal aliens, and removed them. Back then, however, you didn't have a radical left agitating against them to the degree you have now. El-Sayed had the nerve to compare ICE to "tyranny" that we threw off 250 years ago, insulting all the hard-working federal agents and the job they do to protect us. That's turning reality on its head, where enforcing the law is somehow "tyranny." Then he tried to ridiculously gaslight everyone, saying that because we had fewer illegal aliens when INS was in force, that proved "ICE was not working." That, first of all, isn't a logical conclusion, and second, it's just flat-out false. The reason we have more illegal aliens now is thanks to the Democrats, because Joe Biden didn't secure the border. Watters finally stopped him, saying it was Biden who blew open the border. El-Sayed tried to dodge, saying that's a "CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) issue." No, if they enter illegally, you still have to deport those people, and that's what ICE does, so it's very much an ICE issue. That's why there are so many millions of illegal aliens. But President Donald Trump showed what mattered was who was occupying the office; he was able to almost immediately secure the border and stop the influx after he took office. Watters also asked El-Sayed how much people were going to have to pay for his Medicare for All plan. El-Sayed kept ducking the question and not answering. He'd slipped up on that question in the past and essentially admitted people would have to pay more in taxes. READ MORE: Whoops: Abdul El-Sayed Slips Up, Makes Revealing Admission About Taxes, Healthcare El-Sayed also laughably tried to defend Barack Obama's Iran deal as actually being nuclear weapon containment. It didn't properly check the Iranians; it wouldn't have stopped them from getting a weapon, and Obama helped to prop up the mullahs in the process. It was a joke. His deflection when he was asked about whether he had said he wanted to replace the Second Amendment with a "right to healthcare" was troubling. He didn't deny he said it and actually shrugged his shoulders.
“I think more people are worried about whether or not they can see a doctor than whether or not they can have a gun," he said. Watters accused him of dodging the question. He ultimately said he was "fine" with people having "hunting rifles." That's not the same thing as saying you support the Second Amendment. Jesse asked him about saying the NFL was racist. He deflected to ticket prices being too much. But perhaps the worst exchange was the circumcision one. Yes, I said that, and you probably won't believe it. When asked if he was for sex changes for minors, he talked about circumcision.
"Circumcision is different from castration," Watters tells him. The procedures are not comparable, and the fact that he pulled that out was bizarre. "Michigan is not going for that. That is sick stuff," Watters asserted. That might have done him in, right there. |
This Bill Maher Guest Had a Wild Take on Who the Next President Will Be
 |
Bill Maher had academic Scott Galloway
on Club Random, and there were some good and some very bad moments. Scott Galloway thinks Gavin Newsom will be the next president, that we’re a sexist, racist country, and that he cannot fathom how Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election.
First, no, Newsom is not centrist. Second, Hillary Clinton sucked and will never be president. Democrats are still moaning about losing that cultural victory because they know the first female president will be a Republican. Yet, Galloway did make some interesting points about social media and algorithms, though he never said it was the left that seems to be radicalized by them the most. BILL MAHER: "If you ask me what I think the bottom line problem is it's hate. It's just everyone is just so hateful of the other side. You can't I know this as a stand up that if you make the crowd hate you, you can say the funniest thing in the world, they will not laugh."
In case you forgot who Galloway is, it’s this guy:
Maher also gave another full-throated defense of America and capitalism. |
Did the UK Police Do This to Paint Henry Nowak As a Racist?
 |
On December 3, 2025, Henry Nowak, 18, was murdered by Vickrum Singh Digwa
in Southampton, U.K.. Digwa falsely alleged that Nowak assaulted him and hurled a racial slur when police arrived, prompting them to handcuff the dying Nowak, who later succumbed to his injuries. The police response has led to a gross misconduct investigation. What’s worse is that new court transcripts appear to show police scrolling through old texts from Nowak, trying to find evidence that he was a racist. These are texts from a 12-year-old. What the hell, guys (via UnHerd):
Yeah, I’m sorry, it may seem like standard operating procedure, and maybe it is, who knows — but there are too many instances of UK police acting more like the political correctness Stasi. Until that changes, grill these clowns. Need I say more about how British policing has become a clown show: the ‘openly Jewish’ nightmare of 2024 (via BBC):
So, yeah, it doesn’t shock me if cops were trying to find something on Nowak to justify them handcuffing and letting him bleed out. |
Washington Post ordered to rehire opinion writer who labeled Charlie Kirk a 'White man that espoused violence’
 |
| If she were White there would have been 🦗 |
An arbitrator has directed the Washington Post to rehire Karen Attiah, the opinion columnist who was fired last September over comments she made on social media about conservative activist Charlie Kirk on the day he was brutally assassinated.
Monday’s decision to reinstate Attiah caps off an 11-month battle that began when Attiah referred to Kirk as a “White man that espoused violence.”
“Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence,” Attiah had wrote on social media. “Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for White men who espouse hatred and violence.”
In a statement, Attiah defended her previous comments, attributing them to her role as an opinion writer at the Washington Post.
“This decision confirms what we’ve said from the start: I was doing my job as an opinion journalist, and doing that job is not misconduct,” Attiah said in a statement. “After spending over a decade of my career at the Post as an editor and an opinion columnist focusing on race, gender and global human rights, I’m relieved to finally have that record set straight … I hope that this win sends a message to journalists and media institutions everywhere that freedom of expression is always worth fighting for.”
Attiah was later fired “for gross misconduct,” on September 11, 2025 after she had held the role for 11 years.
The union representing Attiah, however, claimed that she had not violated company policy, “let alone gross misconduct,” and that her position at the Post included expressing her opinions.
Attiah also received support from both the Washington-Baltimore News Guild — the main union representing Washington Post staff — and Democracy Defenders Action, a group co-founded by Norm Eisen.
Eisen praised the ruling as a major victory and argued it was a critical milestone for all journalists.
On Monday, arbitrator Sarah Miller Espinosa
ruled that the outlet had violated Attiah’s rights as a union-protected employee and ordered the outlet to reinstate her and reimburse her for lost wages.
“In the Arbitrator’s view, the Post’s witnesses’ testimony seems to attempt to hold the Grievant accountable for the actions of bad actors who were posting threats against her and The Post on social media,” Espinosa wrote. “To imply that the Grievant’s posts were justifiable provocation for threatened criminal acts or that the Grievant’s employment may be terminated for just cause because bad actors threatened The Post is unsupportable.”
Nonetheless, the outlet maintained that Attiah violated the company’s social media policy which states that employees “must not harm the editorial integrity or journalistic reputation of the Post.”
Former opinion editor for the Washington Post, Adam O’Neal, said Attiah’s comments were “beyond the pale- completely unacceptable for someone associated with Opinions.” He added that Attiah’s posts also created major security risks for the company.
“People were at this intense moment of violence in America, and we didn’t know what was coming next,” he said in a hearing for the case. “And we’re walking into a building that says Washington Post on top of it, and here there’s a columnist at Washington Post on this account that’s making these horrific comments and that was of deep security concern beyond the professional – beyond the publication standards and our policies.”
It remains unclear whether the Post plans to appeal the reinstatement ruling. However, a spokesperson for the company said the news outlet respects the decision to reinstate Attiah but declined to comment further.
Iran State TV Targets Barron Trump With $10M Bounty
Iran’s state media has reportedly aired a chilling, stylized segment titled “Where to Kill Barron Trump?” that mapped alleged habits and locations of President Donald Trump’s son and—according to translations circulated by regional monitors—invoked a $10 million bounty for his assassination. The clip is being treated as more than propaganda. American protectees and the agencies that guard them deserve real answers and action, not hand‑wringing and wishful thinking.
What the broadcast claimed: Iran state TV and the $10 million bounty
According to multiple news monitors, the roughly three‑minute piece showed animations of alleged locations, social ties, and daily routines tied to Barron Trump. Translations circulated by journalists reported the segment included a taunt—“Barron Trump, wait for us”—and referenced a $10 million reward for killing him. Whether Channel 3 or an IRGC‑linked outlet produced the piece, the imagery was clear: it aimed to put a target on a young man who happens to be the president’s child.
Why this matters: state threats, not idle chatter
Calling this mere rhetoric misses the point. Iran’s state and IRGC‑linked media
have a record of personal threats against U.S. leaders. Past episodes tied to Tehran included materials aimed at the president and first lady that U.S. agencies couldn’t ignore. Even if some elements of the new clip are theatrical, a hostile regime publicly fantasizing about murder is not something to shrug off. Protecting American citizens and deterring state‑sponsored violence should be a top priority for the administration and Congress.
Secret Service response
What is verified — and what is not
The United States Secret Service has said it is aware of the video and “investigates anything that can be perceived as a threat toward our protectees,” according to spokesperson Nate Herring. That’s the correct, sober reaction. At the same time, several reporting outlets caution that the original Channel 3 upload and documentary proof of a formal $10 million payout were not independently verified. Operational claims in the clip—details about Secret Service positions, hacked accounts, or named friends—remain unproven in public sources. Treat the allegations seriously, but state them as allegations.
Conclusion: call for clarity and a tougher response
Public threats against an American president’s child are corrosive and dangerous, even when wrapped in flashy graphics. The White House, State Department, and Treasury should say plainly how they will respond if Tehran or IRGC proxies are found responsible. Congress should demand briefings, and protective agencies should get what they need. Iran’s propaganda should not get to set the terms of the conversation; the United States must. And for those who think this is just “theater,” remember: theater can turn deadly when a regime decides to move from words to action. That is a risk no one should bet on.
Immigrant Grocers Sue Mayor Zohran K. Mamdani Over City Supermarkets
The big news this week is a courtroom showdown over Mayor Zohran K. Mamdani’s plan to open city‑owned grocery stores across New York City. The Multicultural Business Coalition — a group that represents dozens of immigrant‑owned grocers — filed a verified Article 78 petition in New York County Supreme Court asking a judge to stop the “N.Y.C. Groceries” program before it launches. This is not just politics. It’s small businesses versus a municipal retail experiment that promises savings on paper and trouble on Main Street.
What the lawsuit actually says
The petition names the Multicultural Business Coalition, its chairman Frank Garcia and president Kenneth Roldan as petitioners, and Mayor Zohran K. Mamdani and the City of New York as respondents. It asks the court for declaratory relief and a permanent injunction, arguing the city skipped required land‑use reviews and other administrative steps. The coalition warns the city’s plan — one municipal grocery per borough, a promised 30% discount on a “core basket,” roughly $70 million in capital, and an RFP for operators — gives a city‑backed store an unfair, structural advantage over mom‑and‑pop grocers.
Legal theories: antitrust, predatory pricing and civil‑rights claims
Public statements from MBC leaders make clear they plan to press antitrust and predatory‑pricing claims in federal court while using Article 78 in state court to attack procedural flaws and possible discriminatory impacts. Kenneth Roldan has said the state claims will include tortious interference and possibly discriminatory practices. In short: the coalition is arguing the city’s move is not only bad economics, it may be illegal and harmful to minority‑owned businesses that already operate on thin margins.
Why this matters to immigrant‑owned small businesses
The coalition represents Asian, African, Caribbean, Hispanic, Middle Eastern and Jewish‑owned grocery stores. These are neighborhood businesses that employ locals and provide culturally specific foods ordinary chains ignore. A city‑owned store that pays no rent and uses public capital to undercut prices can drive those small grocers out of business. Yes, a 30% discount sounds nice in a press release, but the long run may be fewer stores, less choice, and one more municipal program replacing private livelihoods.
What to watch next — and the political reality
Procedurally the case will move through NYSCEF and the county clerk, and petitioners could seek a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. The coalition has signaled a parallel federal antitrust case could follow. City Hall will likely defend the program as necessary to fight high food prices and will point to its RFP and site selections like La Marqueta and Hunts Point. The question for judges will be simple: did the city follow the law, and does the program unlawfully injure private businesses?
Bottom line
This fight should not be framed as rich versus poor. It’s government power versus immigrant entrepreneurs who built neighborhoods and pay taxes. If Mayor Mamdani wants to lower grocery costs, there are smarter, less heavy‑handed ways: targeted subsidies, food vouchers, or tax relief — not a city‑run supermarket that puts small grocers on the chopping block. The courts now have to decide whether good intentions excuse bulldozing local businesses. Spoiler: they shouldn’t.
Monday, August 24, 2026
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
We’ll discuss her bizarre press conference later this morning, but New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill wants to shift focus away from the thousa...
-
U.S. President Donald Trump dances after speaking at General Motors’ Milford Proving Grounds on July 27, 2026 in Milford, Michigan. Trump i...
-
There was a horrific shooting at the Bite of Seattle food festival over the weekend. On Sunday, two suspects reportedly engaged in a gun ...
