Conservative Blogger
Saturday, August 29, 2026
Trump Appeals New Court Block on Mail-In Ballot Order as Midterms Near
The Trump administration on Friday appealed a federal judge’s latest ruling that blocked implementation of President Donald Trump’s order to impose new restrictions on mail-in voting. The move escalated a court fight over election rules just days before states are scheduled to begin sending ballots for the November midterm elections. The notice of appeal came after U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston issued a 14-day temporary restraining order Thursday blocking the U.S. Postal Service from enforcing key portions of a new rule stemming from Trump’s March executive order. The case is now headed to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and could ultimately return to the Supreme Court, which only days ago gave the administration an interim victory by lifting an earlier lower-court block while leaving the underlying legal questions unresolved. Trump signed the executive order on March 31, directing the administration to take a series of steps aimed at tightening requirements for mail-in and absentee voting in federal elections. Among other provisions, the order directed federal agencies to create state-specific lists of eligible voters and instructed the Postal Service not to transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from individuals who were not included on those lists. The order also directed USPS to establish new requirements for ballot envelopes and other election-mail procedures. The White House has said the measures are intended to strengthen election integrity and ensure that mail ballots are distributed only to eligible voters. The order immediately prompted legal challenges from states and voting-rights organizations, which argued that Trump was attempting to exercise authority over election administration that the Constitution assigns to states and Congress. The challengers also argued that the president lacked authority to direct USPS to impose new election requirements on states. Talwani initially sided with the challengers, blocking major portions of Trump's order as the litigation moved forward. The administration appealed and ultimately asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the lower court should not have blocked the order while the Postal Service was still developing the regulations needed to implement it. The Supreme Court on Aug. 24 sided with the administration on that procedural question. In a 6-3 decision, the justices stayed the lower-court injunction, allowing the administration to continue moving forward with the plan while the broader litigation proceeded. But the Supreme Court did not issue a final ruling declaring Trump's executive order lawful. Instead, the majority focused on the timing of the states' original lawsuit, concluding that the challenge had come before USPS had issued its final rule. The court said that because the final rule had not yet been issued, the states' alleged injuries were not sufficiently concrete to support the earlier challenge. The Supreme Court's opinion explicitly left the door open for the states to challenge the final USPS rule once it was issued. That is precisely what happened. After USPS finalized its new rule, a coalition of states and voting-rights groups returned to court with fresh challenges targeting the completed regulations. The new litigation includes more than two dozen states, according to reports, and argues that the USPS requirements are unconstitutional and could impose substantial administrative burdens on state election systems.
The final rule requires states to provide USPS with information about voters receiving mail ballots and establishes new requirements for ballot envelopes. Among the changes are requirements involving standardized envelope formats and individualized tracking technology, as well as a USPS-managed system for election-related voter information. USPS has argued that the changes are intended to create greater consistency in election mail and help ensure that ballots being mailed correspond to eligible voters. Opponents contend that the rules go beyond the Postal Service's authority and could interfere with states' constitutional responsibility for administering elections. The timing has become one of the central issues in the latest court battle. States would have to make changes to ballot envelopes, election-management systems and other procedures while preparing for an election that is now only weeks away. Talwani's latest ruling concluded that the states face significant practical difficulties in implementing the new requirements on such a compressed timetable. Her temporary restraining order will remain in effect for 14 days while she considers whether a longer-lasting injunction should be issued. A hearing is scheduled for Sept. 3. The administration's Friday appeal seeks to overturn that temporary block and allow USPS to enforce the new requirements while the broader legal dispute continues. The appeal also sets up the possibility of another rapid trip through the federal courts, potentially putting the matter before the Supreme Court again before the November election. The stakes are significant because mail voting is a major component of American elections. More than 30% of voters used mail ballots in the 2024 presidential election, according to Reuters, meaning changes to the rules governing ballot delivery could affect millions of voters and election officials. The dispute ultimately raises a broader constitutional question over who has authority to establish rules governing federal elections. The Trump administration maintains that the president and federal agencies have authority to ensure the integrity of federal election procedures and that the new requirements are necessary to protect the voting process. The states challenging the order argue that the Constitution gives state legislatures the primary role in prescribing the rules for federal elections, subject to Congress' authority, and does not give the president unilateral power to rewrite those rules. The Supreme Court has not yet resolved that underlying question. For now, the legal fight is unfolding against an increasingly tight election calendar. North Carolina is scheduled to be the first state to begin mailing absentee ballots for the November general election, with county boards of elections set to begin sending requested ballots on Friday, Sept. 4, according to the North Carolina State Board of Elections. Other states also have early mail-ballot schedules, meaning election officials around the country are preparing to send ballots while the courts are still deciding whether the new federal requirements can take effect. © 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved. |
James Talarico's Church Is a Big, Hot Mess of Woke Nonsense
 |
James Talarico, the Texas Democrat who is vying with Texas's Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton
for the Lone Star State's open Senate seat, is trying to pass himself as a moderate. A churchgoing moderate, even. This guy is probably the softest political candidate for statewide office in history, and he's trying to claim to be a moderate. There's just one problem with his claims: They are utter horse squeeze. A look at his church will tell you a lot about how moderate James Talarico is; you can judge him by the company he keeps, and the company he keeps is... weird.
Well, that's a word salad of woke that makes one have to double-check to make sure it wasn't something uttered by Kamala Harris.
I mean, isn't scripture, sin, salvation pretty much what the Christian faith is all about? When do they get past the "all ages sex and gender identities, races, color, and ethnicities," to start talking about, well, religion? This doesn't appear to be much of a church. It's more like a carnival freak show of woke. But wait! There's more!
This is the church chosen by the guy who is trying to convince Texas that he's the reincarnation of Lyndon Johnson. Or, at least, a moderate. Look, the Constitution recognized and guarantees that James Talarico has the unassailable right to attend the church of his choice. It also recognizes and guarantees that his church can hold to whatever tenets it pleases, as long as it doesn't break any laws. From what we can see here, it doesn't look like St. Andrew's is breaking any laws, with one possible exception; more on that in a moment. They are, though, operating on a level of woke that would make Code Pink jump up and let out shouts of geriatric joy. As far as the laws go, there is one case where St. Andrew's certainly brushed up against them; James Talarico, none other, in an earlier interview, had bragged about his church hiding a family of illegal aliens, with the church acting as a sanctuary. The law there is fuzzy; proponents of that cite the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but the notion of churches acting as unquestioned sanctuaries for people who have broken the law, like, say, illegal aliens, is far from decided. The Supreme Court has never weighed in. So, in this, James Talarico's church may indeed have broken the law. But it's the woke hooraw emanating from St. Andrew's that may just sink Talarico's Senatorial hopes. Ken Paxton's campaign should be shouting this weirdness from the rooftops, because it's a safe bet that it won't fly with a majority of Texans. |
Bitter, or on Point? Michelle Obama Lights Up the Internet Again With Her Hot Take on Parenting
 |
Former First Lady Michelle Obama keeps finding herself in the news because she has a podcast with her brother where she often sounds bitter about the amazing life God has provided for her. The Obamas are multi-millionaires with mega-mansions in Hawaii and Martha’s Vineyard; her husband Barack was, as we all know, the first black American president, and they are both cult-like figures for many on the Left who pour constant adulation on them. But for Michelle, her monologues make it sounds like it was all too much, and her journey was marred by a racist America, an unfair press (they weren’t adoring enough, Michelle?), and the fact that as the partner of the once most powerful figure in the most powerful nation on the planet, people paid attention to what she said, what she wore, and what she did. It kinda goes with the job, but to Mrs. Obama, it was all sheer drudgery. Now she’s riled the masses again with her hot take on parenthood. Appearing on Jon Stewart’s podcast IMO on Wednesday, she said she’s just glad raising kids is in her rearview mirror:
The daily grind of taking care of children and ensuring their safety was a bit too much for the former First Lady:
It's a bit weird that she used a loaded word like "emancipation." Parenthood isn't about infringing on kids' freedoms; it's about nurturing them and keeping them safe. Unless parents are abusive, they don't need to fight for their "freedom" from us. "I love my schedule,” she added. Because that’s the most important thing in life, evidently: making sure your schedule doesn’t involve caring for other human beings. “I have a great schedule, and it’s all mine." I can sympathize with her that raising kids while in the White House must have been extremely challenging, with the never-ending scrutiny and criticism. I can only share my own experience, though, and I can tell you that raising my four children with my mama-bear wife has been the most amazing experience in my life, bar none, and even though they’re now in various stages of young adulthood, it continues to be. Does it come with worry and sacrifice? Yes, of course, and that’s what makes it all the more meaningful. Plenty of people had thoughts, and many of them weren’t kind. Conservative pundit Matt Walsh didn’t hold back:
Wrote political commentator Link Lauren: “This podcast is just her sitting around her mansion in Martha’s Vineyard complaining about how hard her life of luxury is, and how much she despises her husband and children.” The episode airs as a disturbing number of women are supporting Lindsay Clancy, who stands accused of strangling her three children to death. Instead of condemning the heinous act, many leftists are sympathizing with her and saying the trauma of being a mom was just too much for her, as our Brandon Morse has been reporting. Some of those types are totally down with Michelle’s position, pointing out that raising your kids into independent adults should be considered a victory. There's merit to that argument; turning out well-functioning adults is the end-game when raising kids, but to myself and many others, Michelle's point seemed to be about something more: parenthood sucks, and I'm glad to wash my hands of it. California Republican Party Delegate and mom Elizabeth Barcohana
said none of this is relatable to the devoted and loving moms and dads around the country:
I’m so sorry Michelle Obama has lived such a beleaguered existence. It’s beyond me what exactly it is that would make her happy. For myself, though, I’ve loved every minute of parenthood. Now I want me some grandkids. Get on it, offspring of mine! |
Empires Fall Because Their People Have No Clue It’s Happening
 |
Most people don't want to see the country they live in fall to pieces around them. They understand that such would probably have negative repercussions for them personally. There are Democrats in America today who do hate the country so much they want to see it wiped off the face of the earth, and they are working overtime to make that happen. But most rank-and-file Democrats probably don't want America to disappear; they just want certain changes that would appeal to whatever worldly philosophy they have, if indeed they even have one. "Leave me alone" is probably a very common philosophy, but Democrats who believe that aren’t intelligent enough to realize that is the exact opposite ideology of the party they vote for. The Democratic Party leadership doesn't want to leave people alone; they want to totally control them, not let them act without government consent. I lived in a country for 10 years (China) which has exactly that philosophy, and I eventually learned I wasn't allowed to breathe without the CCP's blessing. But most Chinese people, like Democrats, don't know that is what their party believes. Most people have some vague notion of wanting "freedom" without really having knowledge of what it is. Again, to them, freedom might mean "leave me alone to do what I want to do," but that has no possibility of success if criminals and government are given the same right. The very essence of criminality is to NOT let other people alone — others have something they want — and the same is true of government. Government can't leave people alone, because the essence of government, the very nature of government, is control, force, and power, not freedom. There has never been a government yet that wanted its people to be free from government control. That just isn't what government is all about. Our Founders knew that, and that is why they desperately tried to limit government and teach Americans what true freedom is. But, alas, they were defeated by the nature of man and history. But this is why Thomas Jefferson said, “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” Again, criminals take from us, limiting our freedom; so does government. This is the major reason why the Democrats love the welfare system so much — the government gets to "take care of," i.e., enslave and control people. They even euphemistically call that "freedom." It's almost incredible how many people accept the government's definitions. But, all through history, many people have been more comfortable under the "protection" of slavery than under the risks of freedom. Countless people are simply constitutionally, mentally, and spiritually incapable of taking care of themselves. We say we hate slavery; it's supposedly the greatest crime in human history, but frankly, all many Americans have done is exchange one form of slavery — personal chattel slavery — for something similar — government dependence. And called it “freedom.” Control the language, and you control the people. Government criminality is further evident in that it is, by far, the greatest mass murderer in human history. And when government kills its own people, what can they do about it? Nothing. Just ask the Chinese under Mao, the Russians under Stalin, or the Jews under Hitler. Government is not only the greatest mass murderer in history, but it is also the most successful propaganda machine, especially when it controls the education system. Put people in slavery, call it “freedom,” and those who don’t know what either is will fall for it completely. Government can also hand out benefits to influential elements of society (such as the media) to get their assistance in this effort at tyranny. Jefferson, especially, repeatedly warned us about the media. But eventually, the laws of history catch up, and every tyranny collapses under the weight of its own evil and bureaucratic monstrosity. And the bigger the government, the harder, more tragic for its people, and sadder, the fall. Do you think the frog placed in the pot of cool water knows what is happening when the heat is turned up, and he starts getting cooked? Do you think the people of the Roman Empire (or Assyrian, or Babylonian, or Persian, or British) knew when their empire was collapsing? Maybe a few, but not many, and certainly not enough to prevent it from happening. How many people in America today realize what is occurring in our country? Some do, especially those who know true history and can look back and see the incredible parallels to the breakdown of other empires. But most Americans are clueless. No nation in human history has ever been perfect, not even America, but there are certain principles that all successful (for a time) nations have: they are built upon spiritual courage, moral strength, hard work and industry, and usually with a little bit of ruthlessness, which sometimes, though not always, is necessary when a determined foe threatens. Rome lost all of that when the barbarians arrived, and the Roman Empire is no more. The British Empire is gone now, too, and for the same reason. The American “empire” is swilling down the same toilet. All three collapses were led by self-indulgent, power-hungry people who had no knowledge of what made their nation great, and thus no idea how to keep it great — even if they wanted to. Leaders must know, because the people rarely do. The Democrats are directing gullible Americans down a primrose path to hell, and their sheep are, smilingly, following right along behind them, totally oblivious to where they are going, or what will happen when they get there. Just “leave me alone” and “let me be free,” neither of which is happening, or will. Empires collapse because the people therein never recognize it happening. |
It's Official: We Secured a Massive Oil Deal With Venezuela
 |
Well, it’s reportedly a done deal: we’ve secured a massive agreement with Venezuela, which President Trump calls “the biggest oil deal in the world.”
Rumblings of a deal were mentioned yesterday, which is welcome news, given that our Strategic Petroleum Reserve was exsanguinated by Joe Biden. It’s at a 40-year low. This deal could potentially double oil reserves overnight. More from Axios:
|
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation faces backlash after internal memo directing journalists to avoid calling 9/11 attacks a 'terrorist attack' surfaces
 |
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) faced political and public backlash after an internal memo surfaced directing journalists to avoid calling the September 11th attacks a “terrorist attack.” The directive, issued ahead of the 25th anniversary of the 2001 tragedy by CBC’s Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust, Basem Boshra,
instructed newsroom staff not to refer to the 9/11 attacks as terrorist attacks. Instead, it directed them to state that the “hijackings” led to passenger jet crashes in Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania and Manhattan, and that the World Trade Center was destroyed. The memo was first reported by Canadian columnist Warren Kinsella, sparking quick pushback across Canada and internationally. Critics from political sectors and advocacy groups condemned the language guidance. Conservative Party of Canada Leader Pierre Poilievre described calling 9/11 anything other than a terrorist attack as an appalling distortion of history that dishonors the victims, their families, the survivors and the first responders. U.S. lawmakers and public figures also weighed in with harsh criticism, while the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs accused Canada’s public broadcaster of attempting to sanitize history and failing basic journalistic standards. Initial defenses from CBC spokespeople emphasized that the internal guidance reflected a long-standing policy regarding neutral language. The network pointed to editorial standards “previously outlined by General Manager and Editor-in-Chief Brodie Fenlon,”
who stated that CBC News avoids assigning labels like “terrorist” or “terrorism” on its own authority — applying the restriction across various historic events including bombings in London, Madrid, and Moscow — to preserve impartiality and avoid “emotionally charged” terminology. CBC maintained further that its policy was designed to attribute such terms to government officials or investigating bodies rather than declaring them as neutral editorial facts. Following days of public outcry and political pressure, CBC reportedly updated its guidelines. In an official editor’s blog post, Boshra acknowledged that the leaked memo excerpt had created significant concern, anger and hurt, clarifying that the network never intended to minimize the horror of the attacks or deny al-Qaeda’s responsibility. To eliminate what it called an “unintentional impediment to public understanding,” CBC News formally adjusted its editorial standards, removing the requirement for direct attribution when describing the historic September 11, 2001, events as terrorism. |
Golf Controversy Sparks Outrage: Corporate Cancel Culture Strikes Again
 |
The latest controversy surrounding Good Good Golf blew up after the company posted a short promotional clip for a co-branded Callaway driver that showed Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark shoving fellow creator Alexis Miestowski to the ground before telling her not to touch his club. The clip was quickly deleted, but the damage was done: Callaway severed its partnership, multiple retailers pulled Good Good merchandise, and the PGA Tour title sponsorship tied to the group evaporated amid the backlash. This cascade of consequences shows how one tone-deaf piece of content can trigger a corporate meltdown in a matter of days. Make no mistake — the footage was ill-advised and the creators involved have apologized, but the broader reaction reads like a page ripped from the cancel-culture playbook rather than a measured response. Callaway’s own CEO Chip Brewer
admitted the company approved the ad before it went live, which makes their public severing of ties look less like accountability and more like a panic-driven PR purge. Conservatives should be clear-eyed: we reject violence and trivialization of real harm, but we also reject the reflexive corporate capitulation to outrage mobs that propels overreach and hypocrisy. What followed was textbook corporate virtue signaling — retailers from Dick’s to Golf Galaxy and others pulled stock, Golf Channel delayed and then canceled its Big Break x Good Good reboot, and Callaway pledged a million dollars to anti-violence causes as part of the fallout. Businesses are free to make their own decisions, and the market will punish missteps, but there’s a difference between accountability and performative destruction of people’s livelihoods. Conservatives pride themselves on fair play and due process, not piling on until every last agreement is torn up in public. The PGA Tour and Golf Channel moved fast to distance themselves: the Good Good Championship was quietly stripped of its sponsor name and relisted as the Austin Championship, and Golf Channel said the intended outcome of the Big Break series could no longer be fulfilled. Those are real, tangible losses for the creators and the crews who built the shows, and the scramble to erase association shows how fragile partnerships are when corporations fear reputational damage more than discernment. This is a cautionary tale for any creator or brand trying to navigate today’s tribalized media environment. Still, patriots who believe in free enterprise should also believe in second chances. If Good Good made a mistake, fix it transparently, compensate those harmed, and move on — don’t allow mobs and headline-chasing executives to make permanent examples out of relatively small, stupid decisions. The real power lies with American consumers and creators: buy where values align, invest where judgment is sound, and refuse to normalize a system that rewards public floggings over clear-eyed restoration. No one should be above criticism, but no one should be erased without the chance to learn and rebuild. At the end of the day hardworking Americans who love the game of golf — and who love the freedom to speak, create, and compete — should watch this episode and learn two things: be responsible, and don’t let fear rule the market. Stand for accountability that’s fair, not for opportunistic virtue-signaling that ruins livelihoods and chills creativity across an entire industry. We can insist on decency without surrendering our principles to the next trending outrage. |
Leftist Media's Unjust Smear Campaign Against Natalie Harp
 |
The left-wing media’s latest feeding frenzy over Natalie Harp is as predictable as it is petty, and Americans deserve better than this manufactured outrage. Liberal outlets seized on a snide quip by Senator Jon Ossoff
and turned it into a weeklong obsession, hyping innuendo instead of reporting facts about a hardworking White House aide. Natalie Harp
is not some mysterious operative; she is the president’s executive assistant who has earned a reputation for loyalty and efficiency by being at his side and keeping him informed throughout the day. Reporters describe her as the president’s constant companion who prints and delivers information on the spot — a practical helpmate in a fast-moving administration. Rather than treat Harp like a human being with a job to do, many on the left have resorted to ugly insinuations about her appearance and motives, exposing more about their own character than hers. The smear campaign across liberal outlets has focused less on policy or governance and more on cheap shots that would be embarrassing coming from a middle-school yearbook. Republicans and fair-minded voters should also demand clarity on bureaucratic matters that actually matter — like reports about security-clearance procedures — instead of letting the media bury those facts under tabloid gossip. Investigations have raised questions about routine clearances and administrative practices that deserve sensible oversight and transparency, not theatre. Let’s not forget Harp’s backstory: she has spoken publicly about surviving cancer and even lauded initiatives like the Right to Try Act, a personal testimony that humanizes her commitment to public service rather than diminishes it. Her emergence in the spotlight is the result of her proximity to the president and her willingness to do the unglamorous work others won’t, not the product of scandal. Conservative commentators and allies have rightly pushed back against the smear, calling out the double standard when liberal staffers or aides are treated with a fraction of the scrutiny. Far from being a liability, Harp is praised by supporters for competence and discretion, and conservatives should defend loyal public servants against vindictive press mobs. Hardworking Americans know the difference between real news and character assassination, and they expect their media to do better. Instead of piling on a personal attack, journalists ought to focus on real policy debates and the actual performance of this administration; until they do, patriotic conservatives will keep calling out the hypocrisy. |
Friday, August 28, 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 ...
