MAGA Cheers! Trump Makes THE Decision We've All Been Waiting For

Oh, no. The Justice Department has thousands fewer lawyers now than it did when President Donald Trump began his second term. And of course, The New York Times – in its latest Trump-Deranged hit piece – says that should worry the heck out of you.
Supposedly the exodus is leaving the DOJ unprepared and understaffed – as if most Americans think fewer lawyers is a bad thing.
The Times piece doesn’t tell you that many of these loser left-wing legal eagles debased themselves during the Joe Biden/Merrick Garland weaponization of the DOJ. The fact that they’re gone now is a good thing.
Well….bye.
Here’s what should worry you, the Times supposes:
President Trump’s upheaval of the federal government has led to an exodus of more than 10,000 lawyers since the beginning of 2025, a striking loss of legal talent that has left some agencies pushing to find attorneys to carry out his agenda.
Roughly one in five lawyers who worked in the government at the end of 2024 had left by March of this year, according to a New York Times analysis of federal employment data.
Did you catch that? The lawyers are resigning because, Heaven’s sake, they don’t agree with Trump’s “agenda.” Why is their leaving a bad thing, then?
Well, Trump doesn’t think it is. In fact, he’s all for it, as he noted in a Truth Social post in response to the Times’ hit piece:
The New York Times wrote a story today entitled, “Trump Administration Sees Striking Exodus of Legal Talent,” as though that’s a bad thing, when actually, it’s very good. The people that are leaving are Radical Left Deep State Lunatics, who are destroying our Country, and Weaponizing Government. Many of them didn’t leave, but were fired! The Failing New York Times writes this, but makes it sound like it’s a terrible thing when actually, it’s just the opposite.
We want people that will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, not people that are trying to destroy our Country, that were put in by Obama and Biden and, in many cases, they shouldn’t have been representing the U.S.A. in the first place. Let them go on to “bigger, better, and brighter” things in the future — I fully support that, and wish them all well!
Now look. We do need lawyers, naturally. They are allegedly people, too. But we don’t need a bunch of deep-state, Trump-deranged leftists undermining the duly elected president’s agenda. We saw enough of that nonsense during Trump’s first term (why aren’t more people in prison over that, by the way?).
For the record, the Times tells us where these disaffected leftist ex-federal attorneys are going – to places where they can fight Trump:
Instead, many of those looking for such work are flocking to the offices of Democratic state attorneys general and nonprofits that are challenging administration policies in the courts, boosting Mr. Trump’s opponents with seasoned lawyers.
So, the geniuses who wrote the Times piece just proved the subjects of the story – the leftist lawyers – don’t have any business being in a Trump administration.
Again, no real disrespect to lawyers reading this. We have to have you. I get it. But if you’re a left-wing legal hack working in Trump’s DOJ just waiting to sabotage him, get your stuff and get the hell out.
You’re not wanted.
House Passes Bipartisan Housing Bill Targeting Corporate Homebuyers

In the storied chambers of the United States Congress, where great debates over the rule of law and public safety have unfolded since the earliest days of the republic, few moments capture the enduring tensions of our democracy more vividly than lopsided votes that expose deep partisan divides. This week, the House of Representatives delivered a resounding rebuke to the scourge of organized retail crime with the passage of the CORCA Act, a measure designed to restore order to American storefronts and supply chains long plagued by lawlessness. Yet the near-unanimous 396-13 tally has sparked widespread calls for a recount amid outrage over what many view as an suspiciously lopsided result—one that raises profound questions about the sincerity of opposition and the willingness of some lawmakers to confront criminal elements undermining our communities.

The legislation arrives at a critical juncture for the nation, as President Donald Trump’s administration advances the 2026 Restoration with a focus on reclaiming stability and sovereignty. From the fertile fields of California’s Central Valley to the bustling ports of Florida, coordinated theft rings—often tied to transnational networks—have inflicted staggering damage. Losses reached $121.6 billion in 2023 alone, according to the National Retail Federation, following a 93 percent surge in incidents between 2019 and 2023. These are not isolated acts of petty theft but sophisticated operations financing broader criminal enterprises, from money laundering to supply chain disruptions that erode the prosperity of hardworking families. Representative David Valadao, a steadfast voice for law-abiding citizens, rightly highlighted the toll on small businesses and middle-class Americans who simply seek to provide for their loved ones without fear of smash-and-grab chaos.

The CORCA Act equips federal and local authorities with essential tools, expanding authorities against money laundering pipelines and invoking foreign commerce provisions to prosecute groups exploiting international loopholes. It further establishes an Organized Retail and Supply Chain Crime Coordination Center within Homeland Security Investigations, serving as a vital nerve center for intelligence sharing and dismantling resale networks that sustain the shadow economy. Cargo theft, which rose 27 percent in 2024, underscores the urgency: our supply chains, the lifeblood of American commerce, must be secured against those who reroute prosperity for illicit gain. For senior citizens and retirees on fixed incomes—those who recall the safer streets and stronger communities of the Reagan era—this legislation represents a return to commonsense governance, prioritizing fiscal responsibility by curbing the economic hemorrhage caused by unchecked crime rather than tolerating wasteful leniency.

Yet the outrage surrounding the 396-13 vote demands scrutiny. Many patriotic Americans, including seasoned observers of Washington’s ways, have taken to public discourse demanding a recount, viewing the minimal opposition as either a belated awakening or, more cynically, an attempt to mask deeper resistance from quarters that have long downplayed the crisis. This near-unanimity, while welcome in substance, stands in stark contrast to the partisan obstructions that have hindered broader efforts, such as funding for the Department of Homeland Security amid its partial shutdown since February. Speaker Mike Johnson’s push for a modified funding measure to secure borders and bolster enforcement aligns with the electorate’s mandate, yet the reluctance of some to fully support these intertwined priorities reveals a troubling pattern: an unwillingness to confront the “machine of disruption” that has eroded public safety under progressive policies favoring leniency over accountability.

This episode unfolds against a backdrop of broader restoration, where the 119th Congress moves with purpose to address not only retail theft but the interconnected threats of open borders and institutional weakness that invite such disorder. History offers clear lessons—from the resolute leadership that tamed crime waves in past decades to the cautionary tales of administrations that allowed urban decay to flourish through misplaced priorities. For middle-class families across the heartland and seniors who remember when American communities thrived under the rule of law, the implications are personal: safer neighborhoods, protected livelihoods, and a renewed sense of national pride unmarred by daily reminders of governmental failure.
The financial and societal costs of inaction have been too steep for too long. Coordinated rings exploiting vulnerabilities in our system do not merely steal goods; they undermine the personal responsibility and community trust that form the bedrock of our republic. President Trump’s impending signature on this measure during Police Week affirms a commitment to results over rhetoric, auditing outcomes with the same rigor applied to restoring electoral integrity and border security.
In the end, the calls for a recount following this 396-13 vote, though born of understandable skepticism, ultimately highlight a moment of rare clarity in a divided capital. Our constitutional republic was fashioned not for perfect consensus but for deliberate processes that protect the innocent and deter the lawless. As global and domestic challenges mount, Americans of wisdom and experience would do well to demand steadfast enforcement of such laws, unyielding vigilance against recidivist leniency, and a humble recommitment to the principles of ordered liberty. Only through this measured path can we safeguard the inheritance of stability, security, and prosperity for our children and grandchildren, ensuring that the era of unpunished crime truly meets its end.
"THEY'RE CAUGHT': California Elections Fraud Exposed — This Is MINDBLOWING"

Los Angeles, California - June 12, 2026
Los Angeles Petition Circulator Agrees to Plead Guilty to Paying Individuals to Register to Vote
A longtime Los Angeles County petition circulator has agreed to plead guilty to a federal charge of paying another person to register to vote. Brenda Lee Brown Armstrong, 64, of Marina del Rey, also known as “Anika,” faces a potential sentence of up to five years in federal prison if the plea is accepted by the court.
Armstrong is scheduled to appear in federal court in Santa Ana on Monday. Court documents describe her as having worked for nearly two decades collecting signatures for initiatives, referendums, and recalls to qualify measures for California ballots. She was compensated by coordinators based on the number of valid signatures obtained from registered voters.
Federal prosecutors allege that Armstrong targeted areas with large numbers of individuals willing to sign in exchange for payment, including Skid Row in downtown Los Angeles. According to the plea agreement, she regularly paid between $2 and $3 to induce people to sign petitions. When some individuals lacked a permanent address, she reportedly instructed them at times to use one of her former Los Angeles addresses on voter registration forms. Those forms registered the individuals for both California and federal elections.
Federal Officials Comment on the Case
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli described the case during a news conference.
“This is not an allegation, this is not a theory, this is an example of admitted voter fraud,” Essayli said.
He stated that federal authorities intend to pursue election-related crimes aggressively. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon emphasized that false voter registrations can undermine public confidence in elections and that the Justice Department remains committed to ensuring elections are conducted fairly and without illegal interference.
Connection to Video Investigation and Broader Efforts
The case received attention after video footage recorded by conservative journalist James O’Keefe appeared to show cash being handed to a homeless individual. O’Keefe stated on social media that his investigation contributed to Armstrong being charged earlier this year.
The guilty plea occurs alongside a separate Justice Department lawsuit against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber. Federal officials are seeking access to the state’s unredacted voter file, including names, addresses, driver’s license numbers, and portions of Social Security numbers. The department argues the information is needed under provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Help America Vote Act, and the National Voter Registration Act.
A federal judge in Santa Ana dismissed the lawsuit in January, determining that release of the information would violate federal privacy protections. State officials argued the request was intended to assist with immigration enforcement rather than election oversight. The Justice Department has appealed the decision, with arguments scheduled before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena.
Armstrong’s plea represents one of the more prominent federal voter fraud prosecutions tied to petition circulation in California in recent years. Federal prosecutors have not indicated whether additional individuals connected to the matter may face charges as the investigation continues.