[PJM] It's been coming for a while, but this week, the once-conservative firebrand Tucker Carlson has doubled down on a version of reality that would make Iran's mullahs blush. Carlson used an appearance on the East Meets West with Olga and Tara podcast to unload on a provision in the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would expand defense-technology cooperation between the United States and Israel. His verdict? Lawmakers who back the measure are acting against America's own interests, effectively merging our nations’ militaries.
Carlson didn't stop at policy disagreement. He accused the Republican Party of handing the country's sovereignty to a foreign government, sparing only two members from his contempt.
"The Republican Party has decided that the interest of Israel is more important than the interest of the United States," Carlson said on the podcast. "There are a couple of exceptions Marjorie Taylor Greene, Thomas Massie, and they were driven out of the Republican Party. So it tells you what the priority is. The priority is serving Israel." Both of those POS's will be gone by 2027, MTG already
Coming from a man who has spent years cozying up to authoritarian regimes and excusing Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, that's rich. But consistency has never been Carlson's strong suit.
He then accused Israel's Mossad of feeding American policymakers fabricated intelligence for decades.
"Mossad has fed, repeatedly, disinformation lies to American policymakers over decades, including the lie that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction," Carlson said. "That fundamentally came from Israel. There's no dispute about that."
There's plenty of dispute about that, because it's false.
British intelligence, French intelligence, German intelligence, and Spanish intelligence all concluded Iraq likely possessed chemical and biological weapons and was in defiance of the United Nations.
From there, Carlson's rhetoric went from conspiratorial to unhinged. He called the defense-technology partnership a "generational disaster" and framed it as proof Americans no longer control their own country.
"It's the definition of treason," Carlson said. "This is treason. This is acting against your own nation, on behalf of a foreign nation."
Then came the real bombshell. Carlson wants President Donald Trump and the Republicans who support the NDAA provision put on trial for it.
"The idea that the Republican Party would support merging U.S. and Israeli intelligence, IDF and Pentagon is so deranged that you have to root for treason trials, for Nurnberg trials at some point," Carlson said. "And the president could veto it; he won't because he's a slave to Israel."
Let's be honest here. Comparing a defense-cooperation bill to the crimes of Nazi Germany while demanding war-crimes-style tribunals against your own president isn't principled dissent. This is full-on loony talk here. He sounds no different than the socialist candidates running for Congress nationwide... and, let’s be honest, some Democrats in Congress today.
Carlson closed out his rant by accusing anyone who defends Israel of defending genocide.
"We're against genocide, we're against book burning, that's what we learned from the Nazi period," Carlson said. "And all of a sudden you wake up and we're like, 'No, no, genocide's totally fine, as long as Israel's doing it.' In fact, if you call it genocide, you're the bad person."
I don’t know what happened to Tucker. I remember being excited when he started his show on X, but now, he’s become indistinguishable from far-left crazies. Calling for treason trials against a sitting president over a defense bill is the sign of an absolute meltdown.
#5
Seems like a pattern for "influencer" types to get more and more outrageous... need to escalate to keep those views up. In Carlson's case though, the pure craziness makes me think he's a candidate for a neuro checkup. Wouldn't be surprised to learn he has an unwelcome boarder upstairs.
[IntelliNews] Weeks of anti-government protests in Albania, initially sparked by opposition to a luxury tourism development near protected wetlands, have evolved into the most significant grassroots challenge to Prime Minister Edi Rama in years, exposing broader anger over corruption, environmental degradation and economic inequality, according to a comment from Warsaw-based think tank the Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW).
The demonstrations, dubbed the “Flamingo Revolution”, began on May 30 near the village of Zvërnec, where activists sought to halt construction linked to a luxury resort project near the Vjosa wetlands, an ecologically sensitive area that is home to hundreds of bird species, including flamingos.
What started as a local environmental protest quickly spread to Tirana and other Albanian cities including Vlorë, Durrës and Korçë, while members of Albania’s large diaspora staged parallel demonstrations abroad.
According to the OSW, the movement signals “a break with the stagnation that has characterised Albania’s civil society in recent years”, with protesters increasingly targeting the political establishment as a whole rather than a single policy dispute.
Demonstrators are now calling for Rama’s resignation, corruption investigations and what they describe as a fundamental overhaul of an economic model dominated by oligarchic interests and organised crime.
The project at the centre of the unrest has attracted international attention due to links to investors associated with the family of US President Donald Trump. Though investment vehicles linked to the president’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner have reportedly stepped back formally, the couple is believed to remain involved privately.
The resort, estimated to cost at least $1.4bn, has become symbolic of what critics call Albania’s increasingly tourism-dependent growth model. Protesters argue large-scale luxury developments enrich elites while offering limited benefits to ordinary citizens and doing little to reverse emigration among young professionals.
“The protesters have also criticised the government’s emphasis on developing tourism,” the report said, arguing its “large scale and increasingly luxury-oriented character” has accelerated environmental harm.
Albania, with a population of roughly 2.8mn, receives more than 12mn visitors annually, making tourism a major pillar of economic growth.
Investigations by Albania’s anti-corruption prosecutor, SPAK, have added to the controversy. Although authorities reportedly unfroze investor funds after determining their origins were legitimate, investigators are now examining land transactions surrounding the project amid allegations of speculative purchases and possible money laundering.
The protests also reflect deeper frustrations over governance. OSW pointed to “mass emigration of young and educated people, pervasive corruption, vote-buying in elections and persistent rule-of-law concerns” as major drivers of public anger.
Rama’s government initially dismissed the demonstrations, but as international scrutiny intensified, the prime minister responded with accusations of foreign interference.
OSW said Rama “continued to reject the protesters’ demands and to look for those responsible beyond Albania’s borders”. According to the report, he first accused Greece of fomenting unrest to weaken Albanian tourism, before later suggesting Iran was behind the protests in retaliation for Tirana’s support for US-Israeli military actions and its hosting of Iranian dissidents. The report noted Rama “has not presented any evidence to support these claims.”
European institutions are also paying closer attention. The protests have received support from members of the European People's Party and the European Democratic Party, while the European Commission has reportedly warned the development could complicate Albania’s EU accession path. Environmental compliance is particularly sensitive because Chapter 27 of accession talks covers climate and environmental standards.
Opposition leader Sali Berisha has backed the protests rhetorically but remains absent from demonstrations. Protest organisers have deliberately kept traditional opposition parties at arm’s length, seeking to maintain the movement’s anti-establishment credibility. OSW said the opposition is “not welcome at the demonstrations, as they are directed against the political establishment as a whole.”
Despite continued control over state institutions, signs of strain are emerging within Rama’s governing Socialist Party. One lawmaker has left the party, in a second internal split in recent months.
For now, OSW analysts do not expect Rama to yield quickly, especially given the geopolitical implications of abandoning a project involving high-profile foreign investors. Still, the think-tank warned the protests have already weakened his political standing.
Whether the movement can translate street anger into lasting political change remains unclear. But for the first time in years, Albania’s ruling establishment faces a broad-based civic uprising capable of reshaping the country’s political landscape.
[JonathanTurley.org] Below is my column on Fox.com on the most recent controversial decision from Chief Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C. While accusing President Trump of a sweeping view of his power, the court seems to have an equally expansive view of its own power.
Here is the column:
Chief Judge James Boasberg is frustrated... and he is not alone. Recently, the D.C. federal judge reportedly "groused" that the D.C. appellate court had ordered him to reconsider a case about whether the D.C. government engaged in biased enforcement against political graffiti. Conversely, the litigants are equally irked over what they see as Boasberg’s bias after he responded by, again, dismissing their claims without a trial.
For a second time, Boasberg has barred pro-life groups from access to a jury after members were arrested for writing in chalk "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter" on a sidewalk while Black Lives Matter writings were left untouched.
I wrote earlier about the emerging body of "Boasberg’s Law," cases in which the judge has increasingly shown an untethered and expansive view of his own authority. Recently, Boasberg was found to have committed an "abuse of discretion" in twice finding that the Trump Administration was in contempt of court for failing to turn around deportation flights.
My disagreements with Boasberg are not over the underlying issues, but rather the court’s rejection of basic limits on its own authority. While chastising President Trump for exceeding his authority, Boasberg has been reversed for exceeding his own.
In the earlier case, Boasberg dismissed grand jury subpoenas in the probe of Fed Chair Jerome Powell. I have been critical of that probe, but Boasberg’s refusal to allow the subpoenas to be executed was based on an opinion that was rife with open hostility for President Trump, dubious sources, and biased observations.
I have similar reservations in this latest case. During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, streets in Washington were covered with BLM graffiti and the police watched as protesters wrote slogans and slurs on stores, streets, and sidewalks. The government itself even commissioned a massive painting of the message on a street near the White House.
However, when Frederick Douglass Foundation and Students for Life of America wrote their pro-life version of the slogan, they were immediately arrested and the chalk protest removed.
The D.C. Circuit’s reversal of Boasberg in the case was a major victory for free speech. Boasberg had applied the wrong standard to kill the case, holding that the group could not challenge the selective enforcement of the laws. In reaching that conclusion, Boasberg applied the wrong standard, imposing the heavy burden of proving that the city was engaged in "invidious enforcement." While that standard was used correctly to dismiss an equal protection claim, it is not the standard for a free speech challenge.
The Court did not hide its dissatisfaction with the thrust of Boasberg’s opinion in dismissing the First Amendment claim:
"The First Amendment prohibits government discrimination on the basis of viewpoint. ’To permit one side... to have a monopoly in expressing its views... is the antithesis of constitutional guarantees.’ The protection for freedom of speech applies not only to legislation, but also to enforcement of the laws."
The appellate court sent the case back to Boasberg with the opportunity to apply the correct standard and to create a substantive record before issuing a ruling on the free speech claim.
Boasberg took the case and ruled again that the groups would not be allowed a trial. The new dismissal was issued despite the standard that, in seeking such a dismissal before a trial, the court must accept all material facts in favor of the nonmoving party or, in this case, the pro-life and pro-free speech litigants.
Boasberg rejected the factual claim that they were "similarly situated" to the BLM protesters. The litigants presented the results of discovery on the point, but Boasberg dismissed the claim on his own subjective view of the evidence.
They have now filed again with the appellate court to appeal his order.
Some of Boasberg’s factual findings are baffling. For example, he maintains that the groups did not show that MPD officers "even witnessed any specific defacement during [Black Lives Matter] protests." However, the groups presented such evidence as bodycam video of officers watching as a protester spray-painted ’I can’t breathe’ on the street near the White House two weeks after the arrests of the pro-life protesters. They submitted other video evidence of officers watching protesters spray-painting BLM messages outside of the Department of Justice.
Moreover, they presented what they claimed is guidance from Assistant Chief of Police Jeffery Carroll, in charge of the Metropolitan Police Department’s Special Operations Division, in the application of different treatment for graffiti.
Carroll reportedly admitted to being "present" at BLM protests featuring "defacement" of property, public and private and Lt. Jason Bagshaw admitted that he also saw defacement "related to" BLM protests.
This does not mean that a jury would rule for these litigants but rather that court cannot substitute its judgment for a jury when a credible and supported claim has been made by litigants.
Boasberg declares that no such credible evidence was presented. The fact is that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was a different treatment shown in the enforcement of these laws based on the content of the speech.
The biased enforcement of laws is a common reality in other countries where courts enable such selective enforcement. In countries such as Iran and China, no level of evidence is sufficient to overcome the bias of courts in showing a preference for one side.
Judge Boasberg has had a distinguished career that is now being undone by a lack of restraint in these decisions. Again, I believe that the judge has been on solid ground in some of these conflicts, including criticizing the use of "intemperate and disrespectful" language in filings and demanding compliance with his orders. However, while Chief Judge Boasberg has described the President’s claim of expansive powers as "awfully frightening," the same can be said about a judge who substitutes his own judgment for juries and disregards legal standards for disfavored groups
#4
“Judge Boasberg has had a distinguished career that is now being undone by a lack of restraint in these decisions.”
Im pretty skeptical about that statement.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/27/2026 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hang a few in full view of the entire nation (for just cause, not just because they're a$$holes) and this will stop. This will continue as long as there are no consequences.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/27/2026 12:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
...The best description I've seen yet of Boasberg is "he looks like he's about to announce he's running a highway through Toon Town."
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/27/2026 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Congress has already proven what it could do when in 1863 during the Civil War, by a simple majority vote, it ABOLISHED the then-existing federal district court for the District of Columbia, rendering it null and void and at the same time rendering unemployed the current staff of federal judges for DC. Within a few days, Congress established a substitute DC federal court and appointed new judges. All this without a single impeachment. Naturally, this (IMNSHO) momentous event in US judicial history NEVER gets mentioned by any of the vast number of lawyer / commentators / politicians.
#9
Until the black robed tyrants are off the bench and strict, legal boundaries with harsh consequences are put in place to keep more from issuing these rulings, they will always be venom in the bloodstream of the Republic.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
