https://www.facebook.com/199240536601331/

Josh Elkin, 7136 Asheville Highway, Spartanburg, IN (2026)

05/28/2026

U.S. Strikes Iranian Drone Command Center in Daring Preemptive Blow

Bandar Abbas, Iran – In a sharp escalation that underscores America’s zero-tolerance policy toward imminent threats, U.S. forces destroyed an Iranian ground control station in Bandar Abbas that was moments away from launching an attack drone, senior officials told Fox News.

The precision strike, described as “measured and purely defensive,” also saw American assets shoot down four additional Iranian one-way attack drones threatening commercial and military shipping in the critical Strait of Hormuz.
“These actions were measured, purely defensive, and intended to maintain the ceasefire,” a U.S. official said.

The dramatic development comes amid fragile tensions in the region. According to officials, intelligence indicated the Iranian ground station was actively preparing a drone for launch toward U.S. or allied targets. Rather than wait for the attack, American forces acted decisively to neutralize the threat at its source.

The targeted facility in Bandar Abbas, a key Iranian naval and Revolutionary Guard base on the northern shore of the Strait of Hormuz, serves as a major hub for Tehran’s growing fleet of attack drones. Destroying the control station likely disrupts Iran’s ability to coordinate further launches from that location in the immediate future.

The four additional “kamikaze-style” drones were intercepted and destroyed before they could reach their intended targets in the narrow waterway that carries nearly 20% of global oil trade. Officials emphasized that the shoot-downs prevented what could have been a serious disruption to international shipping and a direct challenge to freedom of navigation.

This operation marks a significant show of U.S. resolve. By striking the ground control station rather than just the airborne threats, the U.S. sent a clear message: it will not tolerate Iran using proxy or direct drone attacks under the cover of a ceasefire.

Strategic Implications
The Strait of Hormuz has long been a flashpoint. Iran has repeatedly threatened to close the waterway or harass shipping using swarms of cheap, explosive-laden drones. Wednesday’s U.S. action demonstrates both the capability and willingness to neutralize these threats proactively.

Defense analysts note that hitting a ground control station raises the stakes, showing that the U.S. is prepared to strike Iranian territory when American or allied lives and interests are at risk.

No U.S. casualties have been reported, and officials say the operation was conducted with minimal collateral damage in line with strict rules of engagement.

As of now, there has been no official statement from the Iranian government, though state media is expected to denounce the strikes as “aggression.” Tehran has a long history of promising retaliation following such incidents.

The White House and Pentagon have declined to comment publicly on the operation at this time, consistent with standard practice for sensitive counter-threat missions.

05/26/2026

DEFIANT: Marine Vet Prosecutor Vows to Reject "Unconstitutional" Virginia Assault Weapons Ban

Spotsylvania County Commonwealth's Attorney Ryan Mehaffey tells local sheriff the new law "cannot be lawfully enforced" as gun rights groups race to block it before July 1 effective date.

In a bold stand that's sending shockwaves through Virginia's political landscape, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran and elected prosecutor has declared he will not enforce Governor Abigail Spanberger's newly signed assault weapons ban, calling it a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Spotsylvania County Commonwealth's Attorney G. Ryan Mehaffey sent a pointed letter to Spotsylvania County Sheriff Roger L. Harris, stating that the Assault Weapons Ban (SB 749/HB 217) — along with a related public carry restriction — is "undoubtedly inconsistent with the historical tradition of Virginia" and cannot be lawfully enforced.

Mehaffey, citing landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedents like District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, argued that the ban targets commonly owned semiautomatic fi****ms, including the popular AR-15, which he says are protected for both self-defense and militia purposes.

"The Assault Weapons Ban and the Public Carry Ban are unconstitutional and cannot be lawfully enforced," Mehaffey wrote. He went further in follow-up statements, confirming he would dismiss any related criminal charges brought in his jurisdiction.

A Marine's Oath to the Constitution
Mehaffey's refusal isn't just political theater — it's rooted in his background as a Marine veteran who takes his constitutional oath seriously. He joins at least one other Virginia prosecutor, Smyth County Commonwealth's Attorney Phillip Blevins, in publicly rejecting enforcement of the new restrictions.

The law, signed by Gov. Spanberger on May 15, 2026, prohibits the future sale, manufacture, import, purchase, or transfer of certain "assault fi****ms" — primarily semiautomatic centerfire rifles and pistols with magazines over 15 rounds. It also bans magazines exceeding that capacity. Existing owners can keep what they already possess, but violations of the new rules carry misdemeanor penalties of up to a year in jail and $2,500 in fines. The measures take effect July 1.

Legal Firestorm Erupts
Gun rights organizations wasted no time mounting a challenge. The National Rifle Association (NRA), along with the Second Amendment Foundation and Fi****ms Policy Coalition, filed lawsuits in both state and federal courts shortly after Spanberger signed the bills.

The suits argue the ban infringes on Virginians' constitutional rights and seek to block enforcement pending full litigation.

Mehaffey's letter has drawn both praise from Second Amendment advocates and criticism from gun control supporters, highlighting the deep divisions in Virginia over fi****ms policy. Some sheriffs in other counties have also expressed reservations about enforcing the new restrictions.

As the legal battles unfold, Mehaffey's stance underscores a growing tension in American governance: the question of whether local elected officials must enforce laws they believe violate the Constitution — especially when those laws target rights affirmed by the nation's highest court.

Virginia, once a battleground state with strong gun culture roots, continues to shift politically, but resistance at the local level shows the fight over the Second Amendment is far from over.

05/25/2026

"Activists' War on AI: How the Same Network Fueling Climate and Anti-Israel Protests Is Sabotaging America's Edge Against China's Coal Boom"

A growing alliance of environmental activists, anti-Israel demonstrators, and aligned groups is increasingly turning its focus to blocking critical AI data center projects across the United States, experts warn. This network, which has mobilized for climate causes and campus encampments, is now delaying or derailing billions in infrastructure essential for U.S. technological competitiveness with China.

According to reports tracking opposition, activist groups have helped stall or cancel data center projects worth tens of billions of dollars. One analysis identified at least $64 billion in projects blocked or delayed in recent years, with estimates climbing higher in subsequent quarters—reaching $98 billion in one period alone amid surging resistance. Over 140 activist organizations across more than 20 states are actively organizing against these facilities, citing concerns over energy consumption, water usage, noise, and local environmental impacts.

The Overlapping Networks
Observers note significant crossover between these campaigns. The same coalitions active in climate protests and demonstrations related to Israel have appeared at rallies and public hearings opposing data centers. Hudson Institute fellow Zineb Riboua has highlighted an "anti-American trend" uniting these efforts, arguing they converge around opposition to U.S. power and industrial strength.

Groups like the NAACP's environmental justice campaigns and local chapters of organizations such as the Sierra Club have joined community pushback, framing data centers as "dirty" infrastructure disproportionately affecting certain neighborhoods. Polls reflect broader sentiment: roughly 70% of Americans oppose new AI data centers in their local areas, driven by fears of higher electricity bills, strained grids, and resource demands.

This resistance has real consequences. Projects in states from Virginia and Georgia to Michigan, Arizona, and Utah face moratoriums, denied permits, withdrawn tax incentives, and lawsuits. In some cases, local voters have ousted officials who approved developments. Tech giants like Meta, Google, and Microsoft have seen timelines slip, forcing redesigns or relocations.

The China Contrast
While U.S. activists slow domestic AI buildout, China accelerates its own energy infrastructure with little domestic equivalent obstruction. In 2025, China commissioned a record 78 GW of new coal power capacity—the highest in a decade—and proposed or revived another 161 GW. It maintains a massive pipeline of hundreds of GW in coal projects, even as it expands renewables.

China's strategy supports its aggressive AI ambitions, including massive data center builds powered by reliable (if carbon-intensive) baseload energy. Analysts point out the asymmetry: Western environmental pressure hampers U.S. hyperscale computing facilities, while Beijing prioritizes industrial output and technological parity regardless of emissions.

Critics, including investor Kevin O'Leary in comments on specific projects, have described some opposition as involving "professional protesters," with allegations of foreign-linked influence networks in certain campaigns—though these claims remain debated and unproven in many instances.

Experts Sound the Alarm
National security and technology experts warn that unchecked delays risk ceding ground in the AI race. Data centers are the physical backbone of advanced AI training and inference; without sufficient U.S.-based capacity, America could face higher costs, supply vulnerabilities, and slower innovation in a domain where compute power translates directly to economic and military advantage.

Bipartisan local concerns—grid reliability, water scarcity, and taxpayer burdens—are legitimate and deserve address through smarter permitting, efficiency standards, and community benefits. However, when ideological networks treat all large-scale American energy and tech projects as inherently suspect, the cumulative effect favors adversaries unburdened by similar internal divisions.

As AI demand surges for everything from national security applications to scientific breakthroughs, the U.S. must balance genuine local impacts with strategic imperatives. Otherwise, while American activists protest data centers, China's coal plants will keep humming—powering a rival's ascent.

05/24/2026

Trump Scores Major Diplomatic Win: "Largely Negotiated" Iran Deal Could End War and Reopen Strait of Hormuz

Washington, D.C. — In a stunning late-night announcement, President Donald J. Trump declared that a comprehensive agreement with Iran is “largely negotiated” following a high-stakes conference call with key Arab leaders, raising hopes for an end to the devastating conflict in the region and the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Speaking from the White House, Trump described the breakthrough as a triumph of his “America First” deal-making approach.

“We just got off a very productive call with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and others. The Iran deal is largely negotiated. They want peace, they want to sell oil, and they don’t want endless war. This could be one of the biggest deals ever made,” Trump told reporters.

The development comes amid escalating tensions that had threatened global energy markets. The Strait of Hormuz — through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil passes — had been partially disrupted by Iranian actions and retaliatory strikes. Sources close to the negotiations say the emerging agreement includes Iran agreeing to significantly scale back its nuclear program, halt support for proxy militias, and guarantee safe passage for commercial shipping in exchange for sanctions relief and security assurances.

Arab leaders, who have grown increasingly frustrated with Iranian aggression, reportedly played a pivotal role in pressuring Tehran to the table. One Gulf official familiar with the call described the mood as “pragmatic and urgent,” with multiple nations emphasizing the economic devastation caused by prolonged conflict.

Trump, who has long criticized previous Iran policies as weak and ineffective, framed the deal as a victory for stability and American interests.

“Under the last administration, Iran was on the march. Now they’re calling me to make a deal. That’s what strength looks like,” he said.

While details remain under wraps, preliminary outlines suggest the agreement could include:

A verifiable freeze on Iran’s uranium enrichment beyond civilian levels
Joint security mechanisms to patrol the Strait of Hormuz
Phased lifting of economic sanctions tied to compliance benchmarks
Normalized economic relations between Iran and several Sunni Arab states

Markets reacted swiftly to the news, with oil futures dropping more than 6% in overnight trading as traders priced in the potential return of stable energy flows through the critical chokepoint.

Critics, however, remain skeptical. Some foreign policy analysts warn that Iran has a history of reneging on agreements, while others question whether the deal adequately addresses Tehran’s ballistic missile program and regional terror financing.

Still, the announcement marks a dramatic shift from months of shadow war and direct confrontations. Trump’s team is reportedly aiming to finalize the full agreement within weeks, potentially setting the stage for a formal signing ceremony that could reshape the Middle East for decades.

05/23/2026

Trump Honors 9/11's Red Bandana Hero: Posthumous Medal of Freedom for Welles Crowther

Lasting Legacy: The 24-Year-Old Who Walked Into Hell to Save Lives
In a powerful tribute that bridges nearly 25 years of American resilience, President Donald Trump has announced the posthumous awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Welles Remy Crowther — the legendary “Man in the Red Bandana” whose extraordinary courage on September 11, 2001, saved at least 18 lives before he made the ultimate sacrifice.

The announcement honors a young man whose story has become one of the most inspiring symbols of selflessness from that tragic day. Crowther, a 24-year-old equities trader and volunteer firefighter from Nyack, New York, was working on the 104th floor of the South Tower when United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into the building.

Instead of fleeing downward like thousands of others, Crowther tied his trademark red bandana around his face to shield against the choking smoke and flames. He repeatedly climbed back up to the devastated 78th-floor sky lobby, where he found injured and disoriented survivors.

Witnesses described a calm, commanding voice cutting through the chaos: “Everyone who can stand, stand now. If you can help others, do so.” He carried a badly burned woman on his back down 17 flights of stairs, directed groups to the only viable stairwell, extinguished small fires, and administered first aid. After leading one group to safety, he turned around and went back up — this time joining firefighters in their ascent. He was never seen again. The South Tower collapsed at 9:59 a.m.

His mother, Alison Crowther, has long kept his memory alive, sharing how Welles’ red bandana — a gift from his father when he was just a boy — became his lifelong symbol of readiness to serve. Crowther had dreamed of becoming a firefighter, a calling he fulfilled in his final moments.

The push for this high honor gained momentum last year when Rep. Mike Lawler (NY-17) publicly called on President Trump to recognize Crowther, presenting the president with one of Welles’ red bandanas during a 9/11 commemoration at Yankee Stadium. Lawler, joined by Crowther’s family and local officials, emphasized that Welles embodied the very best of American character.
“Welles didn’t see strangers that day — he saw people who needed help,” one survivor recalled. “He came out of the smoke like an angel.”

The Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, will formally recognize Crowther’s extraordinary bravery and humanity. The announcement comes ahead of the 25th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, serving as a reminder that even in America’s darkest hour, light emerged through individuals like Welles Crowther.

His story continues to inspire: Boston College, where he played lacrosse, hosts an annual Red Bandanna Game. The 9/11 Memorial & Museum displays his bandana. And now, a grateful nation will enshrine his name among its greatest heroes.

05/22/2026

Mace Drops Bombshell: No More Foreign-Born Lawmakers in Congress — "Loyalty to America Only"

In a move that's igniting fireworks across Capitol Hill, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) has introduced a constitutional amendment that would slam the door shut on naturalized citizens serving in Congress, as federal judges, or in top Senate-confirmed positions.

The proposal would require "natural-born" citizenship for these roles — the same standard already applied to the President and Vice President. And it's already drawing blood.

Mace didn't mince words. She singled out Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), born in Somalia, along with other foreign-born Democrats like Pramila Jayapal and Shri Thanedar, accusing them of putting "America Last."

"For too long, we have allowed foreign-born members to hold seats in this government while making clear they are America last, not America first," Mace stated. "Ilhan Omar. Shri Thanedar. Pramila Jayapal. All born in foreign countries, none were citizens by birth. All sitting in the United States Congress."

A Direct Shot at "Divided Loyalties"
Mace's joint resolution argues that those writing America's laws, confirming judges, and representing the nation on the world stage must have "one loyalty: America." She framed the amendment as "long overdue," closing a loophole that allows naturalized citizens to wield significant power.

The proposal lands like a gr***de because it wouldn't just target Democrats. It would impact more than a dozen current members of Congress — including several Republicans born overseas. Names like Victoria Spartz (Ukraine), Young Kim (South Korea), and others could find their eligibility challenged if the amendment ever gains traction.

Firestorm Ensues
Critics are calling it xenophobic and un-American. Naturalized Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, who came to the U.S. as an infant, blasted the move as a "betrayal" of the American promise.

Supporters, however, see it as common sense in an era of heightened global tensions and questions over allegiance. "Why should someone born and raised in another country be making laws for Americans?" one backer put it.

Steep Climb Ahead
Passing a constitutional amendment is no small feat — it requires two-thirds approval in both chambers of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. For now, Mace's resolution lacks cosponsors and faces long odds.
But the message is loud and clear: In Mace's vision, the highest levels of American government should be reserved for those born into the American story — not those who joined it later.

Whether this bold play energizes the base or backfires by alienating naturalized Americans and immigrant communities remains to be seen. One thing's certain: Nancy Mace just made Washington a lot more interesting.

05/21/2026

Judge Drops '1984' Bombshell: Orders Trump White House to Obey Presidential Records Law

In a pointed rebuke invoking George Orwell, a federal judge rules the administration must preserve history — handing a temporary victory to historians and government watchdogs.

Washington, D.C. — Senior U.S. District Judge John Bates opened his opinion with a chilling reference to George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984, then delivered a clear order: the White House must comply with the Presidential Records Act (PRA).

In a ruling issued Wednesday, Bates determined that the American Historical Association (AHA) and American Oversight have “established a substantial risk” that the Trump administration is no longer fully complying with federal record-keeping requirements. The decision was based in part on the government’s own statements indicating it did not believe it was bound by the law’s mandates.

Post-Watergate Safeguard at Stake
The Presidential Records Act, enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon’s attempts to control his own presidential materials, established that presidential records belong to the American people — not the president.

The law gives the United States “complete ownership, possession, and control” over records created or received by the president and White House staff. It requires the chief executive to “adequately” document activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies tied to official duties so they can eventually be turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for preservation and public access.

Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, sided with the plaintiffs, at least for now, requiring the White House Office and various officials to adhere to the PRA’s requirements.

Why Historians and Watchdogs Went to Court
The American Historical Association and American Oversight argued that proper documentation of this administration’s activities is essential for future accountability, scholarship, and transparency. They contended that any erosion of the PRA threatens the historical record of the presidency itself.

The groups’ legal challenge highlighted concerns that the administration’s position — essentially claiming it didn’t have to follow the law — created a real and imminent danger of missing or destroyed records.

The Orwellian Warning
By leading his opinion with a quote from 1984, Judge Bates appeared to underscore the gravity of the issue: the importance of preserving an accurate record of government actions versus the risks of rewriting or erasing history.

The decision acts as a strong judicial reminder that even presidents are not above the record-keeping laws designed to protect democratic transparency.
For now, the ruling stands as a win for the plaintiffs. However, given the high stakes and the administration’s previous stance, further legal battles and appeals are widely expected.

05/21/2026

Trump's "Loyalty Test" for Judges? Press Group Slams "Enemy-List" Bench Standards

A prominent press advocacy group has fired a sharp complaint against President Donald Trump, accusing him of applying a single, self-serving litmus test for federal judges: how effectively they can advance legal attacks on his perceived enemies.

The allegation lands amid escalating tensions over judicial independence, as Trump's ongoing high-profile defamation lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize board continues to wind its way through the courts. Law&Crime has tracked the case since its inception, documenting every twist in what has become a flashpoint battle over journalism, accountability, and presidential power.

In February 2025, Chief Judge Jeffrey K***z of Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal delivered a significant victory for Trump. The appellate court ruled that the former—and now current—president had "sufficiently pled that the [18] defendants engaged in a conspiracy to defame him." The suit centers on a statement issued by the Pulitzer board defending the 2018 prizes awarded to The

New York Times and The Washington Post for their reporting on the Mueller investigation into Russian election interference, often dubbed "Russiagate" by critics.

Trump has long maintained that the coverage was riddled with falsehoods and that the Pulitzer organization doubled down on the alleged misconduct by standing behind the awards. The appellate decision allowed the case to proceed, handing the defendants a major loss that still resonates.

The latest complaint from the press advocacy group paints a darker picture of Trump's approach to the judiciary. It argues that fitness for the federal bench, in Trump's eyes, begins and ends with one criterion: usefulness in bolstering cases targeting political opponents. Critics see this as a direct threat to the separation of powers and the impartiality expected of lifetime-appointed judges. Supporters counter that Trump is simply demanding accountability from institutions they believe have been weaponized against him.

The timing of the complaint underscores the stakes as Trump, back in the White House, shapes the federal judiciary for years to come. With nominations expected to favor those who demonstrate fierce independence from what he calls the "deep state" or legacy media influence, the debate over what constitutes a "qualified" judge is intensifying.

Legal observers note that while presidents have always considered ideological alignment in nominations, explicit framing around utility in specific litigation raises novel concerns about judicial neutrality. The Pulitzer lawsuit itself serves as Exhibit A for both sides: a test of whether powerful media institutions can be held accountable in court, or whether such suits represent an abuse of process designed to chill reporting.

As the case against the Pulitzer board advances and new judicial nominees face Senate scrutiny, the press advocacy group's complaint is likely only the opening salvo in a broader fight over the soul of the federal bench. Whether Trump's standards prioritize loyalty over law—or restore balance to a system he views as corrupted—will be one of the defining legal stories of his second term.

05/20/2026

Judge Torches Pete Hegseth’s “Spectacular Overreach” in Stunning AI Contractor Ban Showdown

DC Appeals Court Veteran Shocks Courtroom: No Evidence of Maliciousness in Defense Secretary’s Move Against Anthropic

In a high-stakes hearing that could reshape how the Pentagon handles emerging AI technologies, a veteran federal appeals judge delivered a withering assessment of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s decision to blacklist a major military AI contractor. The case, described by observers as a “first of its kind” clash between national security powers and private innovation, centered on Hegseth’s use of a supply-chain risk designation to sideline Anthropic.

U.S. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee and the longest-serving member of the panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, cut through the arguments with remarkable clarity. While her colleagues — Trump appointees Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas — pressed Anthropic’s attorney Kelly Dunbar on potential off-ramps for the government, Henderson left little doubt about her view of the Defense Secretary’s actions.

“For the life of me,” Henderson said, turning to the text of 41 U.S. Code § 4713, “I do not see any evidence of maliciousness” to justify the supply-chain risk designation in the first place.

Her remarks, delivered after she confirmed she could be heard on her remote connection, reportedly caught even Anthropic’s legal team by surprise with their directness. The judge’s intervention stood in contrast to earlier portions of the argument, during which Rao and Katsas had aggressively questioned the contractor’s position.

From Online Rhetoric to Contract Ban
The dispute traces back to Hegseth’s public criticisms of certain AI firms, which critics have labeled “crazy rhetoric” on social media and in interviews. Those comments preceded the Pentagon’s decision to bar Anthropic from military contracts, citing a risk analysis the company contends was fundamentally flawed, along with alleged procedural violations in how the designation was applied.

Anthropic argues the move represents executive overreach that could chill innovation in critical dual-use technologies at a time when the U.S. is racing to maintain technological superiority over adversaries like China. The government, by contrast, maintains it has broad discretion under national security authorities to manage supply-chain risks in sensitive defense work.

Legal watchers noted the unusual dynamics on the panel. Henderson, who had drawn recent scrutiny for her questioning in a separate case involving Hegseth and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), mostly listened quietly before delivering her pointed critique. Her focus on the statutory language — particularly the lack of demonstrated malicious intent — appeared to narrow the legal justification for the ban.

What’s Next for Pentagon AI Policy?
The hearing underscored the thorny intersection of rapid AI development, political rhetoric, and traditional national security contracting rules. Even if the panel ultimately tips toward the government on procedural or deference grounds, Henderson’s sharp rebuke signals potential vulnerabilities in Hegseth’s approach.

Supporters of the Defense Secretary argue that vigilance against supply-chain risks is essential in an era of sophisticated cyber threats and foreign influence operations targeting American tech firms. Critics counter that weaponizing regulatory tools based on public disagreements risks politicizing the Pentagon’s procurement process and driving talent away from defense work.

As the court deliberates, the case is being closely watched by defense contractors, AI executives, and Capitol Hill. A ruling against the administration could force a rethink of how “supply-chain risk” designations are issued and reviewed. A win for Hegseth, even if tempered by Henderson’s skepticism, would affirm broad executive latitude in an increasingly contested technological battlefield.

For now, one thing is clear: when the Secretary of Defense moves against a major player in the AI space, even seasoned conservative judges are willing to ask the tough questions about evidence, procedure, and overreach. The full panel’s decision will determine whether those questions ultimately reshape Pentagon policy.

Josh Elkin

05/28/2026

05/26/2026

05/25/2026

05/24/2026

05/23/2026

05/22/2026

05/21/2026

05/21/2026

05/20/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share