John Q. Hosedrinker

Activists Destroy $1M in Ukraine Aid, Mistakenly Targeting Equipment for Israel: A Terrorist Act

In a misguided act of activism, over 100 pro-Palestinian vandals caused more than $1.1 million in damage to Ukrainian military equipment at a Belgian defense facility. The “Stop Arming Israel” group targeted the OIP Land Systems hangar, where they vandalized armored vehicles with hammers and graffiti. Despite the group’s focus on Israeli armament, the damaged equipment was designated for Ukraine, not Israel, and has caused a one-month delay in delivering vehicles. The company has provided hundreds of armored vehicles to Ukraine since the beginning of the war against Russia.

Read More

Inflation Rises, Spending Falls: Stagflation Fears Grow

In May, a key inflation gauge indicated that prices remained stubbornly high, with prices up 2.3% compared to the previous year. Core prices, excluding food and energy, rose 2.7% annually, exceeding the Federal Reserve’s 2% target. Simultaneously, consumer spending decreased by 0.1% for the first time since January. While tariffs have influenced prices of certain goods, falling prices in other areas have offset these increases.

Read More

Trump’s Call for Iran Inspections: Echoing Obama’s Abandoned Deal

Following recent military actions, President Trump stated that Iran must allow international inspections to verify its nuclear program, and that the United States is open to talks next week. However, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi has indicated that the possibility of new negotiations is complicated by the recent American attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, which caused “serious damage”. The U.S. and Israel have both claimed to have severely damaged Iran’s nuclear capabilities, though the extent of the damage and the future of inspections remains uncertain. Iran has yet to decide whether to allow IAEA inspectors to assess the damage.

Read More

Supreme Court Limits Judges’ Ability to Block Trump’s Executive Orders

The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision restricting federal judges’ ability to issue universal injunctions, impacting cases like those challenging President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. This ruling, split along ideological lines, enables the Trump administration to advance its policies and reinforces claims of judicial overreach. The case involved nationwide injunctions used to halt the order’s enforcement while lawsuits progressed. Ultimately, the court determined that universal injunctions likely surpass the authority granted to federal courts by Congress.

Read More

Supreme Court Rules in Trump’s Favor on Birthright Citizenship, Sparks Outrage

The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling, partially blocking nationwide injunctions against Donald Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett writing the majority opinion. The court’s decision limits the ability of lower courts to issue broad injunctions, aligning with arguments that such measures overreach the executive branch’s policy-making authority. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissent, argued the ruling would disproportionately impact the vulnerable. The court did not address the merits of the birthright citizenship order itself, maintaining the status quo while returning the case to lower courts to reconsider the scope of their orders.

Read More

Lawsuit Challenges 2024 Election: Voting Machine Details and Potential Fallout

As part of the discovery process, SMART Legislation submitted extensive document requests and questions to the Rockland County Board of Elections regarding the 2024 election results. The requests seek information on voting machines, software, security protocols, and communications with vendors, including software updates. The inquiries also questioned the use of technologies like Starlink’s Direct to Cell service. Furthermore, the lawsuit, with a full hand recount requested, highlights discrepancies in vote counts and statistical improbabilities within the 2024 election data. The next court hearing is a compliance conference set for September 22, 2025, at the Rockland County Courthouse.

Read More

Sotomayor Warning Sparks Fear of Citizenship Revocation After Birthright Ruling

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday restricting the ability of lower courts to issue “nationwide injunctions,” specifically impacting the enforcement of potential orders, such as those from the Trump administration, that target civil liberties. The majority opinion, while not addressing the constitutionality of the executive order, stated that such injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority granted to federal courts. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, with the former strongly criticizing the decision and the latter authoring a separate dissenting opinion. The dissenters felt this ruling provides fuel for attacks on civil liberties.

Read More

Mexican Senate Unanimously Bans Dolphin Shows, Raises Concerns About Animal Welfare

The Mexican Senate has unanimously approved a nationwide ban on dolphin and marine mammal shows, amending the General Wildlife Law to prohibit “extractive exploitation” with exceptions for verified scientific research. This legislative victory follows a three-year effort fueled by public concern over animal welfare violations and the delayed implementation of a 2022 law. The new law, nicknamed the “Mincho Law,” was prioritized by President Claudia Sheinbaum and mandates humane lifetime care for existing captive mammals while imposing significant fines for noncompliance. The legislation comes after intensified enforcement actions against violators and will affect the approximately 350 captive dolphins in Mexico, a country that ranks among the top 10 dolphinarium operators worldwide.

Read More

Newsom Sues Fox News for Defamation, Seeking $787 Million

California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a defamation lawsuit against Fox News, seeking $787 million in damages. The lawsuit, filed in Delaware, centers on comments made by Jesse Watters alleging Newsom lied about a phone call with former President Trump. Newsom’s suit accuses Fox News of distorting facts to favor Trump and propagate a false narrative, particularly regarding a conversation about protests in Los Angeles. The suit demands a retraction and apology from Watters and Fox News to be voluntarily dismissed. Fox News has responded, calling the lawsuit frivolous and vowing to defend itself.

Read More