Capitol Police ARREST Top Democrat-She SCREAMS Hysterically as Police Drag Her Out
NASHVILLE, TN — APRIL 15, 2026 — The 2026 Restoration has arrived in the Volunteer State with a clinical focus on the character of those seeking to represent the Heartland. As the special election for Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District approaches, the resurfaced footage of Democratic candidate Aftyn Behn has sent shockwaves through the district. This isn't just a "protest" record; it is a staggering display of the "machine of disruption" that defines the radical DNC establishment.
From being dragged out of Governor Bill Lee’s office while screaming and sobbing to advocating for the "justified" burning of police stations, Behn’s record is a "Code Red" warning for every sovereign citizen. In the 2026 Renaissance, we do not reward lawlessness with a seat in the 119th Congress.
I. THE 2019 CAPITOL CRACKDOWN: SCREAMING VS. SOVEREIGNTY
In April 2019, Aftyn Behn and a group of radical activists attempted to "rush" the office of Governor Bill Lee. The resulting footage, which has now gone viral in the Heartland, shows Behn being forcibly removed by security while screaming hysterically and eventually collapsing to her knees in a fit of sobbing on the hallway floor.
This behavior—later repeated when she was escorted from the House chambers for shouting during a General Assembly meeting—reveals a temperament that is fundamentally incompatible with the Administrative Lethality required of a U.S. Representative. While the 47th President works to make America "rich, happy, and proud," Behn’s only contribution has been a pattern of disruption and arrest.
II. THE "BURN IT DOWN" DOCTRINE: DELETED TWEETS AND RADICAL TRUTHS
Perhaps even more chilling than her Capitol meltdowns are Behn’s remarks during the 2020 summer of chaos. In a series of now-deleted tweets, Behn appeared to offer a "Good morning" to the 54% of Americans who believed that burning down a police station was justified.
When confronted on MS NOW about these remarks, Behn retreated to the radical left’s favorite bunker: "I don't remember these tweets." This "convenient amnesia" is a hallmark of the swamp-dwellers who attempt to hide their anti-police foundations when they need the votes of the law-abiding public. In the 2026 Restoration, we recognize that supporting arson against law enforcement is a "serial usurpation" of the peace and safety of our families.
III. "I HATE THE CITY": THE DISDAIN FOR NASHVILLE EXPOSED
The most baffling aspect of Behn’s candidacy is her admitted disdain for the city she is now running to represent. In a 2020 appearance on the "Year Old GRITS" podcast, Behn was blunt: “I hate the city, I hate the bachelorettes, I hate the pedal taverns, I hate country music, I hate all of the things that make Nashville.”
How can a candidate represent the 7th District when they "hate" the very culture and industry that fuels the local economy? While GOP candidate Matt Van Epps stands for the 2026 Renaissance of Tennessee’s values, Behn is attempting a "pathetic" pivot, now claiming she only hates "pedal taverns" while blaming Republicans for the controversy. The Heartland knows the truth: you cannot lead a people you do not respect.
IV. THE 2026 MANDATE: REJECTING THE DISRUPTION MACHINE
The special election on December 2 is a choice between the Victorious American vision of order and the radical DNC’s legacy of chaos. Aftyn Behn’s record is a symphony of screaming, sobbing, and "justified" arson. Tennessee deserves a representative who will fund the Border Patrol, support the Warrior-President, and honor the traditions of Nashville—not someone who was dragged out of the Capitol in handcuffs.
CONCLUSION: THE FINAL VERDICT ON BEHN
The 2026 Restoration is unabated. The truth about Aftyn Behn is finally in the hands of the voters. As the 47th President says, the job is almost finished in cleaning out the radical elite.
God bless the USA, and God bless the voters of Tennessee who refuse to be intimidated by the screaming activists of the left. The era of the "disruption machine" is over, and the era of the Victorious American is here to stay.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
