New Study Says Sugar Substitute in Zero Sugar Sodas, Diet Sodas, Gum and Other Foods May Raise Risk of Stroke

Aspartame — the artificial sweetener found in everything from Diet Coke and sugar-free chewing gum to children’s medications — may raise the risk of the most common type of stroke by causing inflammation and disrupting blood vessel health and blood flow, according to new research.

Published last month (July 2025) in Scientific Reports, the study is the first to combine advanced computer modelling techniques to examine how aspartame interacts with processes in the body that can lead to a stroke or affect its severity, its authors said.

The findings add to longstanding concerns about the sugar substitute’s impacts on the brain and heart.

“Given that aspartame is one of the most pervasive artificial sweeteners used in the global food industry, its cumulative effects from long-term, low-dose exposure may indirectly affect cerebrovascular [brain blood vessel] health through metabolic interference,” the researchers said.

Ischemic stroke, which accounts for about 87% of all strokes in the U.S. and is a leading cause of death globally, occurs when a blood clot blocks a brain blood vessel, cutting off oxygen and causing brain cells to die. Common risk factors include high blood pressure, smoking and Type 2 diabetes.

Aspartame — also marketed as NutraSweet, Equal, Sugar Twin and AminoSweet — is up to 200 times sweeter than sugar and promoted as a way to cut calories and sugar intake, especially for people with diabetes.

Its safety has been debated for decades, with studies linking aspartame consumption to chronic diseases, weight gain and even aggressive brain cancer.

This study provides preliminary systematic insights into the potential neurotoxicity mechanisms of aspartame, its authors said. They found that aspartame strongly binds to and influences five key genes that code for proteins linked to ischemic stroke.

These proteins help regulate inflammation (the body’s response to injury or infection), blood pressure, and the strength and function of blood vessels. Disruptions may:

• Raise blood pressure.

• Trigger inflammation in the brain and blood vessels.

• Weaken blood vessel walls and the brain’s protective barrier (blood-brain barrier), allowing harmful substances to enter the brain and worsen a stroke. [MORE]

"Gun-Free Zones" are Safe Spaces that Notify Criminals that Its Safe to Commit Crimes Against Unarmed Victims: 94% of Mass Public Shootings Occurred in Places Where Guns are Prohibited

From schools to military installations, gun-free zones have a long history of turning otherwise secure places into hunting grounds for criminals.

The recent active shooter incident at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta on August 8, 2025, resulted in the death of one police officer and the gunman himself. Like all federal facilities, the CDC bans firearms on its premises, creating the type of target-rich environment that attracts mass shooters. Although this shooting did not turn into a mass casualty event, that risk remains high when gun-free zones remain in place.

The shooting at Fort Stewart further demonstrates the absurdity of disarming trained military personnel on their own installations. When Army Sergeant Quornelius Radford opened fire on his colleagues with his handgun, fellow soldiers were forced to tackle him with their bare hands while he continued shooting. These are the same warriors we trust to defend America overseas with sophisticated weaponry, yet they cannot defend themselves or their comrades on American soil.

The data on gun-free zones presents an undeniable pattern that policymakers and pundits continue to overlook. Research from the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that an overwhelming majority of mass public shootings occur in areas where firearms are prohibited.

According to pro-gun researcher John Lott’s findings, “since 1950, 94% of the mass public shootings have taken place in areas where law-abiding citizens have been banned from having guns.” Even more damning, Lott’s research reveals that mass shooters often seek out gun-free environments because they understand these zones guarantee minimal resistance. This pattern demolishes the naive assumption that posted signs and regulations deter criminals who are hell-bent on committing dastardly deeds. [MORE]

California Gun Control Law Tossed by Court for Violating 2nd Amendment: 9th Circuit Rules ‘One-Gun-Per-Month’ Law Unconstitutional

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners secured a major victory today after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mandate overturning California’s “one-gun-per-month” restriction, setting a historic precedent.

In June, a unanimous decision from the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of SAF and its partners in Nguyen v. Bonta, SAF’s challenge to California’s one-gun-per-month gun rationing law. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two FFL gun dealers, and six private citizens, including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case is named.

Background on Nguyen v. Bonta.

California’s “one-gun-per-month” law, first enacted in 1999, limited most people to buying only one handgun in any 30-day period, later expanding the restriction to include all firearms. Supporters claimed the rule would curb straw purchases and illegal gun trafficking.

In 2020, Michelle Nguyen, other individuals, two gun stores, and several pro-Second Amendment groups—including the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition, and San Diego County Gun Owners PAC—filed suit, arguing the law violated the Second Amendment.

The case reached the Ninth Circuit after SAF won a summary judgment in federal district court. In June 2025, a unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the law was facially unconstitutional, finding that the Second Amendment protects the right to own multiple firearms and to acquire them without “meaningful constraints.” The court also concluded there was no historical tradition in America supporting a law like California’s.

On August 14, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its formal mandate, making the decision final—marking the first time the court has struck down a gun control law outright for violating the Second Amendment. [MORE]

Georgia’s New Wrongful Conviction Compensation Law Entitles People to $75,000 for Each Year of Unlawful Incarceration

Georgia’s new wrongful conviction compensation law entitles people to $75,000 for each year they wrongfully spent behind bars, and $100,000 per year for time spent on death row. But receiving that money isn’t automatic. The law replaces Georgia’s old system, which required navigating the highly politicized world of the General Assembly and often led to wildly inconsistent awards, if they were granted at all. Two people who could be impacted by the law are Ashley Jordan and Albert Debelbot — a Columbus couple who spent 12 years in prison for the death of their newborn daughter before ultimately having their convictions overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court.[MORE]

White Lives Matter More to DeSantis: Suit says Racist Suspect Governor is Only Executing Prisoners who Killed White People. Not a Single Execution for a White Prisoner who Killed a Non-White Victim

From [HERE] Over the past two weeks, two Florida death row pris­on­ers filed fresh chal­lenges to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’ deci­sions to sign his tenth and eleventh death war­rants of 2025. On July 29, 2025, Kayle Barrington Bates (also known as Maud Dib Al Sharif) brought a civ­il suit against Gov. DeSantis alleg­ing Florida’s exe­cu­tion war­rant process ​“is infect­ed with racial dis­crim­i­na­tion and uncon­sti­tu­tion­al arbi­trari­ness.” Included in the claim is a sta­tis­ti­cal analy­sis show­ing that ​“95% of the exe­cu­tions that Governor DeSantis has autho­rized involved white victims.” 

“Governor DeSantis has not exe­cut­ed a sin­gle white defen­dant for killing a non-white defendant[.]”

On the after­noon of the same day Mr. Bates’ law­suit was filed, Gov. DeSantis issued a war­rant for the exe­cu­tion of Curtis Windom, who was con­vict­ed of the killing of Johnnie Lee, Valerie Davis, and Mary Lubin, all of whom were Black. On August 3, 2025, attor­neys for Mr. Windom filed a motion argu­ing that ​“the post­con­vic­tion defense bar [is] over­whelmed by an unprece­dent­ed num­ber of death war­rants being signed [this] year…every two weeks,” and that ​“the time in which post­con­vic­tion coun­sel can even respond has been reduced by 33%.” 

Florida’s process for deter­min­ing exe­cu­tions and clemen­cy oper­ates in com­plete secre­cy. Under Gov. DeSantis, Florida has already car­ried out more exe­cu­tions than any oth­er state this year, and has sched­uled the exe­cu­tions of Mr. Bates for August 19, 2025, and Mr. Windom for August 28, 2025. There are many ques­tions sur­round­ing the governor’s secre­tive deci­sion-mak­ing process — he alone decides who will be exe­cut­ed, and when, and refus­es to pro­vide the pub­lic with an expla­na­tion for this decision. 

On July 29, 2025, Mr. Bates’ attor­neys filed a civ­il law­suit against Gov. DeSantis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleg­ing racial bias in Florida’s exe­cu­tions war­rant process. Mr. Bates, who is Black, was orig­i­nal­ly sen­tenced to death in 1983 by an all-white jury. His con­vic­tion rest­ed on a con­fes­sion made under the pres­sure of a five-hour inter­ro­ga­tion by police and with­out the pres­ence of legal coun­sel. He was resen­tenced to death in 1995 in a non-unan­i­mous 9 – 3 jury vote. Florida and Alabama are the only two states that autho­rize juries to rec­om­mend death sen­tences with a non-unan­i­mous vote. The U.S. Supreme Court has nev­er direct­ly ruled on whether jury una­nim­i­ty is required in death sentencing. 

Mr. Bates’ com­plaint seeks declara­to­ry and injunc­tive relief, includ­ing a stay of exe­cu­tion. It presents sta­tis­ti­cal evi­dence of racial dis­par­i­ties in Florida’s use of the death penal­ty, not­ing ​“under Governor DeSantis’ administration…a defen­dant who is con­vict­ed of killing a white vic­tim is over fif­teen times more like­ly to be exe­cut­ed than a defen­dant whose vic­tims are not white.” It notes as well that “[n]early 88% of Florida’s mod­ern exe­cu­tions have been for cas­es with white vic­tims,” and argues that ​“Florida’s cur­rent pri­or­i­ti­za­tion of white lives can­not be viewed inde­pen­dent­ly of its deval­u­a­tion of Black lives.” [MORE]

Lawsuit Claims Children at DC's Overcrowded Youth Jail (which is 95% Black) are Being Raped and Sexually Assaulted by Prison Cops

Two D.C. civil rights attorneys believe there are more victims of violence and abuse inside D.C. juvenile justice facilities, and they want to hear from their families.

Tuesday in downtown D.C., the attorneys E. Paige White and Bernadette Armand announced a lawsuit against the District, D.C.’s Department of Youth and Rehabilitation Services (DYRS), DYRS Director Sam Abed and Kelvin Powell, a former guard at DC’s Youth Services Center (YSC). The YSC is the District’s juvenile jail.

Powell was convicted in July of repeatedly sexually abusing a 17-year-old girl under the care of DYRS.

"It is clear by the fact that this happened over and over and over again that nobody was watching,” White said Tuesday.

"Powell's assaults occurred over several months between late 2021 and early 2022 while the victim was residing at the YSC in Northeast D.C.," according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office of D.C.

In the lawsuit, White alleges DYRS didn’t monitor surveillance video that would have shown Powell, the guard, allegedly going in and out of the girl's cell and taking the girl off the unit. The suit alleges those movements are outside DYRS policy but were not caught.

The suit also alleges Powell had a history of sexual abuse at DYRS. [MORE]

7th Circuit Court Blocks Indiana Police ‘Buffer Law,’ which made it Illegal to be within 25 feet of a Cop if he Ordered you to Stop Approaching

In Indiana, a "buffer" law makes it illegal to approach within 25 feet of a police officer who has ordered you to stop approaching. District court: preliminarily enjoined as vague. Seventh Circuit(link is external): Totally agree. The law gives officers unfettered discretion to arbitrarily issue do-not-approach orders and then start making arrests. "The Fourteenth Amendment will not tolerate a law subjecting pedestrians to arrest merely because a police officer had a bad breakfast—no matter how bitter the coffee or how soggy the scrambled eggs." [MORE]

Destruction of Sacred Apache Land Now Imminent

Defenders of a swath of Apache holy land marked for doom may be out of options after a federal judge again denied motions for preliminary injunction. 

While acknowledging in a 94-page ruling that the transfer of eastern Arizona’s Oak Flat into the hands of a private copper mine will permanently destroy the tribe's historical place of worship, devastate the area with a huge amount of toxic waste and draw enormous quantities of water from an already drought-stricken area, U.S. District Judge Dominic Lanza found that the San Carlos Apache Tribe and conservation groups challenging the transfer have not established a likelihood of success on their claims, giving the U.S. Forest Service the green light to hand the land over to Resolution Copper. 

The transfer is authorized by a last-minute amendment to a 2014 national defense bill, passed by Congress in the final hours of the session and signed by then-President Barack Obama. The amendment says the Oak Flat must be transferred to Resolution Copper within 60 days of the Forest Service's issuance of its final environmental impact statement, which assesses potential impacts of any action taken by the agency, including transferring land ownership. That 60-day window will close on Tuesday.

Though the plaintiffs raise numerous issues with the impact statement including a lack of copper consultations and violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, Lanza, a Donald Trump appointee, says none of those claims can override a congressional decision. [MORE]

Backing Escalation in Gaza, Freedumb and Piece Lover Trump Says Israeli Captives Will Be Released Only If ‘Hamas Is Confronted and Destroyed’

From [HERE] President Trump said on Monday that the only way the remaining Israeli captives would be freed from Gaza is if Hamas is “confronted and destroyed,” a statement that provides backing for the Israeli government’s plans to escalate its genocidal war on the Palestinian territory.

“We will only see the return of the remaining hostages when Hamas is confronted and destroyed!!! The sooner this takes place, the better the chances of success will be,” the president wrote on Truth Social.

The next phase of Israel’s offensive will focus on taking over Gaza City and involves forcibly displacing 1.2 million Palestinian civilians to the south as part of an ethnic cleansing campaign. The plans to escalate come as Palestinians are starving to death in Gaza every day due to the Israeli blockade, and a new mass displacement will make the humanitarian situation significantly worse.

While Trump claims escalation is the only way to free the captives, relatives of the Israelis who remain in Gaza and former hostages are urging for a diplomatic solution. The Israeli military has also been warning that plans to escalate with the goal of the full occupation of Gaza would risk harming or killing the remaining captives, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t concerned.

Trump also claimed in his post that he was responsible for freeing “hundreds” of Israeli hostages, a reference to the ceasefire deal that was signed in January, under which Hamas released 30 living Israeli captives. Hamas also later released Edan Alexander, an Israeli-American IDF soldier, as a goodwill gesture to the Trump administration. More than 100 civilian Israeli hostages were released as part of a short truce deal in November 2023, and just eight Israelis have been recovered alive by the Israeli military. [MORE]

U.S. Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low, CDC Data Show

The fertility rate in the U.S. dropped to an all-time low in 2024 with fewer than 1.6 children being born per woman, federal data released Thursday shows. The U.S. was once among only a few developed countries with a rate that ensured each generation had enough children to replace itself — about 2.1 kids per woman. But it has been sliding in America for close to two decades as more women are waiting longer to have children or never taking that step at all.

The new statistic is on par with fertility rates in western European countries, according to World Bank data. Alarmed by recent drops, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase falling birth rates, like issuing an executive order in February meant to expand access to and reduce costs of in vitro fertilization and backing the idea of “baby bonuses” that might encourage more couples to have kids. White House staff secretary Will Scharf remarked to reporters at the time that in vitro treatments “have become unaffordable for many Americans or been unaffordable for many Americans.”

Health insurance companies aren’t required to cover IVF treatments, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars. But there’s no reason to be alarmed, according to Leslie Root, a University of Colorado Boulder researcher focused on fertility and population policy. “We’re seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay. We know that the U.S. population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase — more births than deaths,” she said. [MORE]

A White Man Started "the Cincinnati Bar Fight" But White Liberal Prosecutor Won't Charge Him for Assault b/c White Privilege ("an invisible package of unearned assets bequeathed to all Caucasians")

Questions of "bias in the investigation" of the downtown Cincinnati brawl were raised on Monday at a meeting of African American leaders and community members.

That question was from an Ohio state representative, who was among about 150 people gathered at a church in Roselawn to voice their demands for equal justice to Cincinnati Police leadership, who were conspicuously not present.

Questions of "bias in the investigation" of the downtown Cincinnati brawl were raised on Monday at a meeting of African American leaders and community members. (Leohna Alia La JCannon via Facebook, WKRC)

“The Black community of this city demands to be respected,” said State Rep. Cecil Thomas (D), Cincinnati.

Lesley Jones, a pastor with Truth & Destiny Covenant Ministries Fellowship, followed with saying, "We demand the arrest of all individuals involved.”

Leaders of Cincinnati's African American community were directing demands at the Cincinnati Police Department, who, to this point, have only arrested and charged the Black people allegedly involved in July's downtown melee, not any of the white people who were involved.

“A riot doesn't happen till after the slap,” said Pastor Damon Lynch from New Prospect Baptist Church. “So, what incited, and who incited the riot? If the riot is because of the slap, who incited the riot? And why are the only people charged, again, I'll say it, are the ones who look like me?”

The slap to which Pastor Lynch referred was shown at the meeting.

“He re-engages,” said Lynch. “He walks back into the ring and slaps, not the guy that he was just squaring up with, but actually slaps the guy he had earlier squared up with. And I'm asking myself, how many Black men did you think you were going to whoop that night?”

Present at the meeting were Cecil Thomas and Cincinnati Councilman Scotty Johnson, both former CPD investigators.

Local 12 asked them what could be taking so long to decide on prosecution.

“I don't know,” said Scotty Johnson, (D) Cincinnati City Council. “Because honestly, we've solved homicides in two weeks. So, I don't know. That's a great question. That's a question for the police department. As a former investigator, between us two right here [referring also to Thomas], you’re talking 30 years of investigations, specifically with the city of Cincinnati. I don't know.”

“The method by which this situation has been handled raises serious questions as to whether there's bias involved in the investigation," said Thomas.

One person mentioned at the meeting that even the woman named "Holly," who was infamously knocked unconscious in the incident, is seen pushing a Black man right before she gets decked by another Black man.

The seven people who have been arrested so far are all African American, and most were still in jail awaiting trial. [MORE]

Theatrical, Sarcastic Antics Not Relevant to Stopping Violent Crime in DC: Govt Sent 20 Cops w/Riot Gear To Rearrest an Upper Crust White Guy who Threw a Sandwich at Fed Cop Now Overcharged w/a Felony

By now there's a strong chance you've heard about an upper crust white man in Washington, D.C., who stands accused of what is, at the moment, arguably the most highly-publicized crime in the city.

On Sunday, Sean Dunn—who, at the time, was an employee for the Justice Department—threw a Subway sandwich at a cop while wearing a pink polo and was subsequently charged with felony assault of a federal law enforcement officer. His arrest comes as 500 federal agents and 800 National Guard troops have been deployed to the district after President Donald Trump took federal control of D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).

But the sandwich story—which already feels like it could've played out on Veep—took another turn Wednesday when the federal government sent "20 police officers to [Dunn's] home" to rearrest him on a federal warrant, according to his attorney Sabrina Shroff. A video released by the White House corroborates that account, with the clip showing a large federal law enforcement presence, complete with riot gear, arriving at Dunn's apartment complex and leading him out in handcuffs.

There are a couple of takeaways here. One: People still go to Subway. Did not know that. Two: The government's disproportionate response to this offense epitomizes why Trump's plan appears to be, at least for now, more political theater than a real solutions-oriented approach.

Some of this debate has focused on whether or not crime is actually a problem in D.C. It is, but the picture is more complicated than many would like to admit. While some have been quick to furnish violent crime statistics that are at a 30-year low, it is difficult to trust those numbers in the context of an investigation alleging the MPD misclassified various crimes to make the city appear safer than it is. A review of homicides—a crime that can't easily be misclassified—is more instructive: In 2024, D.C. reported 187, down from 274 in 2023. (This year, the city has reported 101 homicides thus far, down from 113 during the same period last year.) It's trending in the right direction. [MORE]

After Black Voters Have Delivered MILLIONS of Votes to Elite Dumbocrats for Their Causes, fake Pabst-Blue-Ribbon-Cracker, Joe Scarborough/Other Elite Liberals Fail to Defend the Rights of Blacks in DC

Did Black Voters Hear Joe Scarborough and the Political Silence from Other Elite, White Liberals about the DC Crime Emergency? The Black political scientist Robert C. Smith told Black people that their votes only count on election day. Although, the democratic party has depended on loyal Black votes over the past 5 decades it has nevertheless maintained a strategy of ignoring their political and policy concerns while pandering to racist sentiment among whites - for the past 5 decades. As explained by Dr. Amos Wilson, these sophisticated neuropeans ‘project a so-called civilized, fraternal, egalitarian, liberal face while concurrently seeking to maintain White supremacy.’

According to FUNKTIONARY:

political silence – the study of the art of control. 2) censored and muted voices of the dispossessed always strengthens those privileged by the status quo. Scientists who actually engage in scientific inquiries do not take votes. (See: Voting)

Sleeping Tom – a person of Afrikan descent who has not consciously awakened to fully embrace his or her own asili (connective cultural tissue, heritage, imprimatur, and imperative). 2) a socially unconscious person of Afrikan descent who participates in secret balloting (voting). A sleepin’ Tom lives and reacts out of another culture’s asili or out of the mind of another; not their own. 3) a Negro who is unaware that he is all souled-out. 4) a Negro who isn’t aware that he is in fact and in deed a certified Sambo. 5) a broken, token Negro; a coin-operative. (See: Straw Boss, Asili, Doublemindedness, Sambo, Uncle Tom-Tom, Coin-Operated, Black Flask Brigade & Secret Ballots)

Contrary to Joe Scarborough’s purposefully stupid assertions (its all an act for the camera), the relevant question isn’t whether a city has a crime problem or not – many US cities have crime problems relative to one another (by size, population density) and it is also not an absurd question of whether law abiding Black people like crime or want crime in our communities – everyone wants to live in a safe community so long as they can enjoy their god given freedoms to go about their affairs without government interference. Rather, in The Spectacle, the media and Trump have mislead the public to believe that the federal government, specifically the president, has the authority to assert rulership over an elected City, county or state government if there is a perceived “uncontrollable level” of crime deemed an emergency by federal authorities. Yet, in reality, no such executive authority exists. Also, they have mislead the public to believe an imposition of authority may be based on immeasurable criteria or subjective beliefs. This misleading assumption confuses state authority to declare “emergency authority” within its own borders under state law with the federal government, which has no such power to do so. Wash, D.C. of course is not a state. Nevertheless, this imaginary, magical federal power also does not exist over DC due to the Home Rule Act granted by Congress in 1972. Under the Home Rule Act Congress granted the president limited authority to require DC police to provide services only for “federal purposes,” only for “48 hours” during “an emergency.” Again, no such authority exists for Trump to seize control over the DC police department or to command the DC police.

Here then, for the future, elites have set precedent in the minds of Americans that federal authority can take over local affairs whenever they deem it so, wherever they want and whether it is based on crime or some other manufactured emergency based on arbitrary criteria. Naturally, Trump cheerleaders and most racists are blind to this delusion because Black people are involved with the current emergency (just as elites have done to so-called “4th Amendment” freedoms which have become nearly meaningless for all people because of what elites have done to Black defendants with the lathered up approval of ignorant racists enjoying Black domination).

It is contemptible hypocrisy that probots such as Scarborough, government authorities and other persons professing to be ‘freedom loving’ conservatives would push the propAgenda that emergency authority (in situations where it may be lawfully invoked) can be based on immeasurable criteria, such as hyperbole, subjective perceptions, opinion polls, sad crime stories or emotional pleas etc and actually ridicule the use of statistics to justify the grant of such extraordinary, temporary authority. First of all, Trump’s emergency order is in fact based on statistics - his emergency order cites statistics from the Justice Department from 2024 - but it does so inaccurately. According to the DC Attorney General’s complaint,

“Publicly available data from both federal and local sources demonstrate that violent crime in the District is trending significantly downward. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “[t]otal violent crime for 2024 in the District of Columbia [was] down 35% from 2023 and [was] the lowest it [had] been in over 30 years. That downward trend has continued. In 2025, violent crime is down 26% from this time in 2024, 51% from this time in 2023, and 35% from 2019, prior to the pandemic. Both President Trump and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia have acknowledged the decline in violent crime in D.C. in 2025.

In an April 28, 2025 press release, former interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, Jr. marked the first 100 days of President Trump’s second term “by highlighting a 25 percent drop year-to-date in violent crime across the District, credited in part to the ‘Make D.C. Safe Again’ initiative and the U.S. Attorney’s partnership with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and [the] Metropolitan Police Department.”17

Shortly thereafter, on May 7, 2025, President Trump praised Mr. Martin, stating that on his watch, “[c]rime is down in Washington, D.C.—street crime, violent crime—by 25%. And it’s . . . people have seen . . . they’ve noticed a big difference [MORE]

Courts have made it clear that an emergency declaration must be based on substantial evidence that is verifiable and objective and which shows such action is necessary for the imminent preservation of the public peace, health, safety, welfare or morals of people. Courts have explained that an ‘emergency must be grounded in a finding of facts and not just mere statements of the motivation for the enactment and must otherwise provide an adequate basis for review. The DC Court of Appeals has explained ‘the declaration of an emergency must be ‘supported by substantial evidence in the record that shows an emergency existed.’ Hobson v. D.C., 304 A2d 637, 637 and 640 (D.C. 1973). Arbitrary declarations are a goose step in the wrong direction. Based on such “clogic” it is easy to foresee future emergencies demanding people to immediately shelter in place because authorities believe the flu “is going around” and “gotten bad” or perhaps a declaration to confiscate all firearms from all licensed gun owners in a city because of an authority’s emotional based perceptions about the ‘scourge of gun violence’ and so on.

The specific details of their crime in DC is spelled about below in the introduction of the DC Attorney General’s complaint against the Blight House. Please indulge.

INTRODUCTION

“1. More than 50 years ago, Congress empowered the people of the District of Columbia to govern themselves through the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (“Home Rule Act”), Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (1973) (codified as amended at D.C. Code §§ 1-201.01, et seq.). Invoking its constitutional authority “[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the] District,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17, Congress gave the inhabitants of the District of Columbia many of the “powers of local self-government” that other Americans enjoy: to elect a Mayor and a City Council, to adopt local laws, and to operate the institutions of local government—including local law enforcement—largely as they see fit. Home Rule Act, § 201. Congress reserved for itself the authority to review the District’s laws and legislate on matters of federal concern. But it otherwise left the operation of the local government in local hands.

2. By contrast, Congress gave the President an exceedingly narrow role in the governance of the District. In Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, Congress provided that if the President “determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist,” the President may require that the Mayor “provide such services” of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) as the President deems necessary for “federal purposes.” D.C. Code § 1-207.40(a).

3. In the 52 years since the enactment of Home Rule, no President has ever attempted to exercise this limited authority.

4. The President’s authority under Section 740 is sharply limited in time: it must terminate within 48 hours unless the President sends proper notice to Congress, and, in all events, it must terminate upon the expiration of the emergency or within 30 days, whichever comes first. Id. § 1-207.40(a)-(b). For the President to obtain MPD’s services for longer than 30 days—even in the face of an ongoing emergency—Congress must pass a joint resolution permitting the extension. Id. § 1-207.40(d).

5. Moreover, by its terms, Section 740 only permits the President to require the Mayor to “provide services” of MPD for “federal purposes.” Id. § 1-207.40(a). It does not permit the President to seize control of MPD. Nor does it authorize the President to direct MPD in the policing of local crime. Congress left that responsibility to local leaders. Id.

6. In violation of the plain language of Section 740, the President announced on August 11, 2025, that he was “placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control,” and that Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi was “taking command” of MPD “as of this moment.” He also stated that he was appointing Terrance Cole, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), as the “interim commissioner” of the MPD. Attorney General Bondi later added that Gady Serralta, the Director of the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”), would be “supervising command and control” of “the entire operation” of MPD.

7. That same day, the President issued an Executive Order that invoked his authority under Section 740 of the Home Rule Act. See “Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia,” Exec. Order No. 14,333 (Aug. 11, 2025) (“EO”). The President did not identify any new or unusual exigency that justified the invocation of Section 740. Instead, he claimed that violent crime in the District is “increasing,” id. § 1, when, in fact, it has fallen 26% since 2024. The President also did not limit the scope of his order to specific “federal purposes,” instead directing the Mayor to provide any services the Attorney General deemed necessary to “maintain[] law and order in the Nation’s seat of Government.” Id. §§ 2-3. And in neither the EO nor his notice letter to Congress did the President state the period of time during which the need for MPD services was likely to continue.

8. For four days, the Administration asserted in public statements and social media posts that it had taken direct operational control of MPD, while District Mayor Muriel Bowser and MPD Chief of Police Pamela Smith stated that they were still in charge of MPD.

9. Then, on the evening of August 14, 2025, without any advance warning to MPD, Defendant Bondi issued Order No. 6370-2025, “Restoring Safety and Security to the District of Columbia” (“Bondi Order”).1 The Bondi Order purports to “order the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the [MPD] to immediately implement” multiple directives.

10. Defendant Bondi ordered that, “effective immediately,” Defendant Cole “shall serve as MPD’s Emergency Police Commissioner for the duration of the emergency declared by the President.” She further ordered that “Commissioner Cole shall assume all of the powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police.” And she stated that “the current Chief of Police” and all other senior leadership at MPD “must receive approval from Commissioner Cole before issuing any further directives to the MPD.”

11. The Bondi Order further purports to rescind or suspend provisions of three MPD orders issued by the Chief of Police that address MPD officers’ involvement in immigration enforcement. It also directs MPD to enforce “to the maximum extent permissible by law” certain municipal laws and regulations pertaining to unlawful occupancy of public spaces.

12. Finally, the Bondi Order generally “rescind[s]” any existing MPD directives that conflict with any of its provisions.

13. In every respect, the Bondi Order and Defendants’ assertions of authority over MPD exceed the narrow delegation that Congress granted the President in Section 740.

14. First, the Bondi Order purports to effect a complete takeover of MPD by the federal government. It installs a handpicked federal official as chief of police, grants him sweeping power to issue commands directly to MPD, and bars MPD senior leadership from acting without his approval. It also purports to suspend MPD policies that Defendant Bondi dislikes, impose enforcement policies she favors, and rescind any existing orders that stand in the way. In short, it attempts to divest the District and its residents of any control of their local police force and place it, for all purposes, under the control of the federal government.

15. Section 740 does not authorize this brazen usurpation of the District’s authority over its own government. That narrow statute permits the President and his delegee to request that the Mayor provide the “services” of MPD—nothing more. None of the directives in the Bondi Order fall within the compass of that limited grant of authority.

16. Second, Defendants have unlawfully made demands of MPD that far exceed the constraints of Section 740, which only permits the President to request “services” for a “federal purpose.” The Bondi Order directly interferes with and directs policies and enforcement related to purely local matters. The Order displaces the local Chief of Police, necessarily impacting MPD’s purely local, municipal policing functions. The Order directs enforcement of a local statute governing public disturbances on local lands. The EO additionally directs MPD to provide services to engage in purely local law enforcement activities, including “maintaining law and order” throughout the District. EO § 2. The entire structure of the statute reflects Congress’s judgment that control over local affairs should be left to the people of the District—not seized by the President based on his disagreements with local law enforcement policy.

17. Third, in invoking his authority under Section 740, the President has not articulated the nature of the “special” and “emergency” conditions with the specificity needed to determine when the purported emergency will end, as required by the Home Rule Act. On the contrary, his assertion that crime in general—and declining crime at that—represents the sort of “special” and “emergency” conditions that can trigger his authority under Section 740 sweeps so broadly that it would undermine Congress’s decision to transfer control for day-to-day governance of the city to locally elected and accountable leaders.

18. These unlawful assertions of authority will create immediate, devastating, and irreparable harms for the District. Most critically, the order threatens to upend the command structure of MPD and wreak operational havoc within the department, endangering the safety of the public and law enforcement officers alike. There is no greater risk to public safety in a large, professional law enforcement organization like MPD than to not know who is in command.

19. To redress these unlawful assertions of authority, the District seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, declaratory relief, vacatur, and all other appropriate relief to ensure that control of MPD remains with the people of the District of Columbia and that the Home Rule Act is followed as Congress directed.” [MORE] and [MORE]

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Attempt to Takeover DC Police

From [HERE] A federal judge Friday effectively halted President Donald Trump’s unprecedented attempt to take over the D.C. Police Department.

District Judge Ana Reyes, appointed by former President Joe Biden, said in a hearing that Attorney General Pam Bondi likely violated federal law by attempting to replace the D.C. police chief with a federal official.

However, Reyes stopped short of immediately issuing a temporary restraining order after the Department of Justice said Bondi would rewrite her directive. Reyes gave Bondi until 6:30 p.m. to make the changes, warning she would issue the order if the directive was not rewritten.

The judge’s decision came just hours after D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb sued the Trump administration, alleging the attempted takeover violated the Home Rule Act of 1973, which allows D.C. residents to elect their mayor and council members.

Section 740 of the Home Rule Act allows the president to request the use of the Metropolitan Police Department for federal law enforcement purposes in emergency situations, but the act keeps control of the department with the mayor and police chief. The authority is also limited to no more than 30 days without congressional approval.

Bondi’s original directive claimed to replace MPD Chief Pamela Smith by appointing Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Terry Cole as “emergency police commissioner,” granting him “all the powers and duties vested in the D.C. Chief of Police.”

During an evidentiary hearing Friday, Reyes appeared skeptical of the DOJ’s claim that Bondi could replace Smith and issue orders directly to the MPD. The judge said such an arrangement would effectively give Trump personal control over the police department.

“The statute would have no meaning at all if the president could just say we’re taking over your police department,” Reyes said.

Reyes also noted that the DOJ was arguing Trump could personally control the MPD even though the Home Rule Act bars the president from directly communicating with the department.

“You’re making the argument that the president can basically run the entire police department based on language that doesn’t even allow the president to talk to the police department,” she told DOJ lawyers.

Bondi’s Backtrack

By Friday evening, Bondi issued a revised directive. The new order abandons the provision giving Cole full control over the MPD and instead lists specific “services” the attorney general deems necessary under Section 740(a). The mayor must provide these services and Cole is tasked only with overseeing those limited functions.

The revised order still directs MPD to:

• Assist with enforcing federal immigration law and locating undocumented immigrants.

• Comply with all federal law enforcement database and information requests.

• Strictly enforce D.C.’s unlawful public space occupancy law.

The changes avoid directly replacing the chief or requiring all MPD orders to go through Cole, but they maintain aggressive policy shifts on immigration enforcement and homelessness.

Legal Stakes

In his suit, Schwalb alleged Trump, through Bondi’s directive, far exceeded his authority under the Home Rule Act and violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the Constitution.

The lawsuit argues Bondi’s original directive endangered public safety by upending MPD’s command structure.

“There is no greater risk to public safety in a large, professional law enforcement organization like MPD than to not know who is in command,” the complaint reads.

During the hearing, DOJ lawyers acknowledged Trump will have no authority to continue using the MPD if Congress does not pass legislation extending his order federalizing the department — contradicting the president’s earlier claims that he could act without Congress in an emergency.

“If it’s a national emergency we can do it without Congress, but we expect to be before Congress very quickly,” Trump said earlier this week.

The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In addition to attempting to federalize the MPD, Trump has sent hundreds of federal law enforcement agents and deployed the D.C. National Guard to the capital.

He claimed the National Guard deployment and surge in federal personnel were needed to address rampant homelessness and violent crime, even as MPD data show crime is declining.

Trump’s use of the National Guard within the district could be affected by an upcoming court decision over his deployment of military troops in Los Angeles earlier this year.

[Are We Being Hoaxed?] Trump’s “DC Takeover” is Mostly Happening on TV and in Court: No Troops or Fed Cops Present in the Most Crime Ridden Hoods. No Evidence, like Iran's "obliterated" nuclear sites

From [HERE] President Donald Trump's deployment of federal law enforcement and National Guard troops has produced Humvees on the National Mall and roving bands of agents in tourist areas as part of his stated effort to crack down on crime in the nation’s capital. 

But many residents of the city's highest-crime neighborhoods say they haven’t yet seen the results of Trump’s surge in the places it is needed the most.

"He probably doesn’t even know where Anacostia is," Charles Wilson, whose neighborhood has one of DC's highest rates of murder and violent crime. Wilson says the low-income area in DC's Ward 8 has endured several shootouts in which bullets struck houses, cars and even lodged in children’s bedrooms in recent years.

"I think this is all pomp and circumstance,” Wilson says, “to distract people from everything else he is doing."

One Anacostia resident, standing outside his home and watching the cruiser, confirmed that the officer was a neighborhood beat cop – and that he’s seen no additional MPD officers, federal agents or National Guard troops since Trump made his announcement, despite nightly gunshots, carjackings and other crime. He too declined to give his name, citing a pending background check for a job.

Back across the Anacostia river near the Capitol, the rough-and-tumble H Street commercial and nightlife corridor appeared quiet the night of Aug. 13. It was the site of one of the attacks cited by Trump – the 2023 near-fatal stabbing of an aide to Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky “by a demented lunatic as he walked down the street just absolutely for no reason.”

The only visible security presence was the occasional MPD cruiser driving by. But shop owners and barflies said the area has been swarmed by federal agents and police late at night since Trump's announcement.

Johnny Lu showed USA TODAY a video he took of a team of seven FBI, ICE and DEA agents patrolling the area late the night of Aug. 12, questioning and even arresting people for drinking and smoking marijuana in public. [it should go without saying that smoking and drinking are not violent crimes and not the stuff of an “emergency authorization” to suspend locally elected rule.]

Trump Delusion Syndrome? His Cheerleaders Believe; Emergency Rule Can be Imposed Anywhere Based on Arbitrary Criteria, Anything Can be an Emergency and He Can Ignore Acts of Congress (Home Rule Act)

The relevant question isn’t whether a city has a crime problem or not – many US cities have crime problems relatively to one another, and it is also not a question of whether law abiding Black people like crime in our communities – everyone wants to live in a safe community so long as they can enjoy their god given freedoms to go about their affairs without government interference). Rather, in The Spectacle, the media and Trump have mislead the public to believe that the federal government, specifically the president, has the authority to assert rulership over an elected City, county or state government if there is a perceived “uncontrollable level” of crime deemed an emergency by federal authorities. Yet in reality, there is no such executive authority. Also, Trump authorities and the media have mislead the public to believe an imposition of authority may be based on immeasurable criteria or subjective beliefs. This misleading assumption confuses state authority to declare “emergency authority” within its own borders under state law with the federal government, which has no such power to do so. Wash, D.C. of course is not a state. Nevertheless, this imaginary, magical federal power also does not exist over DC due to the Home Rule Act granted by Congress in 1972. Under the Home Rule Act Congress granted the president limited authority to require DC police to provide services only for “federal purposes,” only for “48 hours” during “an emergency.” Again, no such authority exists for Trump to seize control over the DC police department or to command the DC police.

Here then, for the future, elites have set precedent in the minds of Americans that federal authority can take over local affairs whenever they deem it so, wherever they want and whether it is based on crime or some other manufactured emergency based on arbitrary criteria. Naturally, Trump cheerleaders and most racists are blind to this delusion because Black people are involved with the current emergency (just as elites have done to so-called “4th Amendment” freedoms which have become nearly meaningless for all people because of what elites have done to Black defendants with the lathered up approval of ignorant racists enjoying Black domination).

It is also irrational hypocrisy for Scarborough to claim an emergency in general need not be based on statistics or verifiable measurable evidence. First of all, Trump’s emergency order is in fact based on statistics - the emergency order quotes statistics from the Justice Department from 2024 - but it does so inaccurately.

“Publicly available data from both federal and local sources demonstrate that violent crime in the District is trending significantly downward. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, “[t]otal violent crime for 2024 in the District of Columbia [was] down 35% from 2023 and [was] the lowest it [had] been in over 30 years. That downward trend has continued. In 2025, violent crime is down 26% from this time in 2024, 51% from this time in 2023, and 35% from 2019, prior to the pandemic. Both President Trump and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia have acknowledged the decline in violent crime in D.C. in 2025.

In an April 28, 2025 press release, former interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, Jr. marked the first 100 days of President Trump’s second term “by highlighting a 25 percent drop year-to-date in violent crime across the District, credited in part to the ‘Make D.C. Safe Again’ initiative and the U.S. Attorney’s partnership with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives and [the] Metropolitan Police Department.”17

Shortly thereafter, on May 7, 2025, President Trump praised Mr. Martin, stating that on his watch, “[c]rime is down in Washington, D.C.—street crime, violent crime—by 25%. And it’s . . . people have seen . . . they’ve noticed a big difference [MORE]

DO THE CRIME STORIES IN DC SOUND GOOD OR BAD TO YOU?

Secondly, it is contemptible that probots such as Scarborough, government authorities and other persons professing to be ‘freedom loving’ conservatives would push the propAgenda that emergency authority (in situations where it may be lawfully invoked) can be based on immeasurable criteria, such as hyperbole, subjective perceptions, opinion polls, sad stories or emotional pleas etc and actually ridicule the use of statistics to justify such extraordinary, temporary power. Courts have made it clear that an emergency declaration must be based on substantial evidence that is verifiable and objective and which shows such action is necessary for the imminent preservation of the public peace, health, safety, welfare or morals of people. Courts have explained that an ‘emergency must be grounded in a finding of facts and not just mere statements of the motivation for the enactment and must otherwise provide an adequate basis for review. The DC Court of Appeals has explained ‘the declaration of an emergency must be ‘supported by substantial evidence in the record that shows an emergency existed.’ Hobson v. D.C., 304 A2d 637, 637 and 640 (D.C. 1973). Arbitrary declarations are a goose step in the wrong direction. Based on such “clogic” it is easy to foresee future emergencies demanding people to immediately shelter in place because they believe the flu “is going around” and “gotten bad” or a declaration to confiscate all firearms from all licensed persons in a city because of authority’s emotional based perception about of the ‘scourge of gun violence’ and so on.

The specific details of their crime in DC is spelled about below in the introduction of the DC Attorney General’s complaint against the Blight House. Please indulge.

“1. More than 50 years ago, Congress empowered the people of the District of Columbia to govern themselves through the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (“Home Rule Act”), Pub. L. No. 93-198, 87 Stat. 774 (1973) (codified as amended at D.C. Code §§ 1-201.01, et seq.). Invoking its constitutional authority “[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over [the] District,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17, Congress gave the inhabitants of the District of Columbia many of the “powers of local self-government” that other Americans enjoy: to elect a Mayor and a City Council, to adopt local laws, and to operate the institutions of local government—including local law enforcement—largely as they see fit. Home Rule Act, § 201. Congress reserved for itself the authority to review the District’s laws and legislate on matters of federal concern. But it otherwise left the operation of the local government in local hands.

2. By contrast, Congress gave the President an exceedingly narrow role in the governance of the District. In Section 740 of the Home Rule Act, Congress provided that if the President “determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist,” the President may require that the Mayor “provide such services” of the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”) as the President deems necessary for “federal purposes.” D.C. Code § 1-207.40(a).

3. In the 52 years since the enactment of Home Rule, no President has ever attempted to exercise this limited authority.

4. The President’s authority under Section 740 is sharply limited in time: it must terminate within 48 hours unless the President sends proper notice to Congress, and, in all events, it must terminate upon the expiration of the emergency or within 30 days, whichever comes first. Id. § 1-207.40(a)-(b). For the President to obtain MPD’s services for longer than 30 days—even in the face of an ongoing emergency—Congress must pass a joint resolution permitting the extension. Id. § 1-207.40(d).

5. Moreover, by its terms, Section 740 only permits the President to require the Mayor to “provide services” of MPD for “federal purposes.” Id. § 1-207.40(a). It does not permit the President to seize control of MPD. Nor does it authorize the President to direct MPD in the policing of local crime. Congress left that responsibility to local leaders. Id.

6. In violation of the plain language of Section 740, the President announced on August 11, 2025, that he was “placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control,” and that Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi was “taking command” of MPD “as of this moment.” He also stated that he was appointing Terrance Cole, the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), as the “interim commissioner” of the MPD. Attorney General Bondi later added that Gady Serralta, the Director of the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”), would be “supervising command and control” of “the entire operation” of MPD.

7. That same day, the President issued an Executive Order that invoked his authority under Section 740 of the Home Rule Act. See “Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia,” Exec. Order No. 14,333 (Aug. 11, 2025) (“EO”). The President did not identify any new or unusual exigency that justified the invocation of Section 740. Instead, he claimed that violent crime in the District is “increasing,” id. § 1, when, in fact, it has fallen 26% since 2024. The President also did not limit the scope of his order to specific “federal purposes,” instead directing the Mayor to provide any services the Attorney General deemed necessary to “maintain[] law and order in the Nation’s seat of Government.” Id. §§ 2-3. And in neither the EO nor his notice letter to Congress did the President state the period of time during which the need for MPD services was likely to continue.

8. For four days, the Administration asserted in public statements and social media posts that it had taken direct operational control of MPD, while District Mayor Muriel Bowser and MPD Chief of Police Pamela Smith stated that they were still in charge of MPD.

9. Then, on the evening of August 14, 2025, without any advance warning to MPD, Defendant Bondi issued Order No. 6370-2025, “Restoring Safety and Security to the District of Columbia” (“Bondi Order”).1 The Bondi Order purports to “order the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the [MPD] to immediately implement” multiple directives.

10. Defendant Bondi ordered that, “effective immediately,” Defendant Cole “shall serve as MPD’s Emergency Police Commissioner for the duration of the emergency declared by the President.” She further ordered that “Commissioner Cole shall assume all of the powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police.” And she stated that “the current Chief of Police” and all other senior leadership at MPD “must receive approval from Commissioner Cole before issuing any further directives to the MPD.”

11. The Bondi Order further purports to rescind or suspend provisions of three MPD orders issued by the Chief of Police that address MPD officers’ involvement in immigration enforcement. It also directs MPD to enforce “to the maximum extent permissible by law” certain municipal laws and regulations pertaining to unlawful occupancy of public spaces.

12. Finally, the Bondi Order generally “rescind[s]” any existing MPD directives that conflict with any of its provisions.

13. In every respect, the Bondi Order and Defendants’ assertions of authority over MPD exceed the narrow delegation that Congress granted the President in Section 740.

14. First, the Bondi Order purports to effect a complete takeover of MPD by the federal government. It installs a handpicked federal official as chief of police, grants him sweeping power to issue commands directly to MPD, and bars MPD senior leadership from acting without his approval. It also purports to suspend MPD policies that Defendant Bondi dislikes, impose enforcement policies she favors, and rescind any existing orders that stand in the way. In short, it attempts to divest the District and its residents of any control of their local police force and place it, for all purposes, under the control of the federal government.

15. Section 740 does not authorize this brazen usurpation of the District’s authority over its own government. That narrow statute permits the President and his delegee to request that the Mayor provide the “services” of MPD—nothing more. None of the directives in the Bondi Order fall within the compass of that limited grant of authority.

16. Second, Defendants have unlawfully made demands of MPD that far exceed the constraints of Section 740, which only permits the President to request “services” for a “federal purpose.” The Bondi Order directly interferes with and directs policies and enforcement related to purely local matters. The Order displaces the local Chief of Police, necessarily impacting MPD’s purely local, municipal policing functions. The Order directs enforcement of a local statute governing public disturbances on local lands. The EO additionally directs MPD to provide services to engage in purely local law enforcement activities, including “maintaining law and order” throughout the District. EO § 2. The entire structure of the statute reflects Congress’s judgment that control over local affairs should be left to the people of the District—not seized by the President based on his disagreements with local law enforcement policy.

17. Third, in invoking his authority under Section 740, the President has not articulated the nature of the “special” and “emergency” conditions with the specificity needed to determine when the purported emergency will end, as required by the Home Rule Act. On the contrary, his assertion that crime in general—and declining crime at that—represents the sort of “special” and “emergency” conditions that can trigger his authority under Section 740 sweeps so broadly that it would undermine Congress’s decision to transfer control for day-to-day governance of the city to locally elected and accountable leaders.

18. These unlawful assertions of authority will create immediate, devastating, and irreparable harms for the District. Most critically, the order threatens to upend the command structure of MPD and wreak operational havoc within the department, endangering the safety of the public and law enforcement officers alike. There is no greater risk to public safety in a large, professional law enforcement organization like MPD than to not know who is in command.

19. To redress these unlawful assertions of authority, the District seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction, declaratory relief, vacatur, and all other appropriate relief to ensure that control of MPD remains with the people of the District of Columbia and that the Home Rule Act is followed as Congress directed. “ [MORE]

In Jesus' Name Mike Huckabee Justifies Israeli Military Murdering Aid Seekers in Gaza During the Real Crime Emergency

From [HERE] The US ambassador also mocked the idea of using 'non-lethal' forms of crowd control by suggesting to send the 'girl scouts'

In an interview published by The Times of Israel on Wednesday, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee justified the Israeli military’s shooting of unarmed Palestinians attempting to get aid in the Gaza Strip.

Defending the US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), Huckabee downplayed the reports of people being killed by the IDF near GHF sites but admitted that it does happen. “Have there been instances where maybe people were shot by IDF soldiers? Best I can tell, that has happened,” the ambassador said.

Huckabee claimed that IDF soldiers only fire at civilians when they’re being rushed by a large crowd. “You have a group of, let’s say, 10 or 15 IDF soldiers. They’re manning a perimeter. You have 2,000 or 3,000 people who suddenly are rushing toward a position. They’re first given a verbal warning. Please stop. Second thing they get, shots fired in the air. Third thing, shots fired at the ground. And if they’re still rushing toward them, it’s probable that some people are shot in the midst of that because [the soldiers] don’t know why they’re coming. Are they coming to overrun the position?” he said.

But eyewitness accounts from Palestinians contradict Huckabee’s claims, and videos have shown groups of unarmed Palestinians coming under fire while taking cover. Tony Aguilar, a retired US Army Green Beret who worked at GHF sites, has said the IDF regularly fires live ammunition at unarmed people as a form of “crowd control,” including when their backs are turned and they are walking away from GHF sites.

Israel’s use of live ammunition on aid seekers has included tank and artillery shells. Huckabee appeared to mock the idea of using “non-lethal” means of crowd control during the interview. The interviewer said that he wished there were “non-lethal crowd control methods” being used in Gaza, and Huckabee replied, “Don’t we all.”

The interviewer then noted that there are non-lethal means to control a crowd, to which Huckabee replied, “What are you going to do? Get Girl Scouts to take them in?”

Since the GHF began operating at the end of May, the Health Ministry in Gaza has recorded the killing of 1,881 aid seekers and the wounding of 13,863. The majority of the casualties occurred near GHF sites, while many others were killed or hurt while attempting to reach UN aid trucks. According to UN numbers from August 1, 1,373 Palestinians have been killed while seeking food; 859 in the vicinity of the GHF sites and 514 along the routes of food convoys.

Just Like Jesus Said, 'Crush the Homeless, Can't Live Outside Unless the Government Sayeth So:' On Trumps Order Authorities Tear Down Encampments and Cram People’s Belongings into Garbage Trucks

From [HERE] After President Donald Trump said homeless people in D.C. must be moved far from the city, crews tore down an encampment near the Kennedy Center on Thursday morning and crammed people’s belongings into a garbage truck.

A homeless senior citizen and members of a small group of protesters quoted the Bible as they urged the federal government and D.C. to protect homeless people.

“I look at it as anti-Christian. I remember the passage of, ‘As you have done to the least of these, you have done unto me.’ The idea that he’s targeting us and persecuting us feels wrong to me,” said David, a 67-year-old who said he had stayed at an encampment in the Foggy Bottom area for over six months. He quoted Matthew 25:40.

News4 video shows crews jamming a mattress into a garbage truck. We saw a heap that included tables, appliances and what appeared to be gas-powered heater. Some people stacked their belongings in shopping carts and left the area.

Like David, protesters also quoted Scripture.

“Whoever oppresses the poor shows contempt for their maker. Proverbs 14:31,” one sign said.

White House officials said earlier this week that homeless people in D.C. can go to shelters, treatment or jail.

“Homeless individuals will be given the option to leave their encampment, to be taken to a homeless shelter, to be offered addiction or mental health services, and, if they refuse, they will be susceptible to fines or to jail time,” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday.