Better in their words…

Trump unloads a rhetorical missile at media; cartel war legality explained; devilish villainess nabbed by U.S.–Mexico task force; FBI busts NBA fraud ring; donor pays troops; Trump beats Newsom again.

Source: BLINDED BY THE LIGHT ☙ Friday, October 24, 2025 ☙ C&C NEWS

WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY

🔥🔥🔥

It is a well-known fact that I rank corporate media’s journalistic ethics somewhere down below South American cartel bosses, Chucky the Doll, and pond scum (but just above public health experts and timeshare salesmen). An ideal example appeared in yesterday’s New York Times, scribbled below the headline “Trump Says He Will Not Seek Authorization for Cartel Strikes.” Did the editors decorate the story with, oh, I don’t know, a cartel strike? Nope. This was the cover shot:

The President held a dramatic White House press conference yesterday on law enforcement. One particularly saucy Trumpism that dropped during the proceedings seemed bound to make the news, and I fully expected to see it draped in outrage and splashed across the tops of the big platforms’ websites. But shockingly, it was AWOL. After a diligent search, I finally found it hidden beneath that mind-numbing and uninformative headline.

You tell me. Here was the exchange (0:27):

REPORTER: Mr. President, if you are declaring war against these cartels, and Congress is likely to approve of that process, why not just ask for a declaration of war?

PRESIDENT: I don’t think we’re going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we are going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country. OK? We are going to kill them. You know? They are going to be, like, dead. Next question.

As soon as I heard it, I also thought I could hear the liberal outrage machine spinning up to full strength. The headlines practically write themselves: Deranged President Says ‘We Are Going to Kill People.’ Or, Trump Crowns Himself With Power of Life and Death. Or, We Hate President Trump and You Should, Too.

But instead, the liberal outrage machine spun back down again. They aren’t taking the bait. Instead, the Times recognized an 80/20 issue it was on the wrong side of (again), and just excreted a flabbergasted jeremiad against “unconstitutional” drug-runner destruction. You’d think a self-respecting newspaper would have taken a crack at answering the reporter’s question, to contradict Trump, but no.

The Times has no self-respect. I bet when it was little and played hide-and-go-seek, the other kids wouldn’t even go looking for it.

So let us answer the question ourselves, once and for all: does President Trump need a Congressional Declaration of War before he can unalive the cartels?

🔥 The Constitution’s first Article gives Congress the awesome power to declare war. But Article II gives the president full control of the U.S. military. He doesn’t just control the ships, he also controls the missiles, the sailors, and the buttons that launch them. The tension between those two powers —the power to declare war versus the power to control the military— steers us to the present moment.

As any American knows who’s paid the slightest attention to current events between cueing in the coffeeshop drive-thru and trying to avoid paying attention to current events, the US military has been an extremely busy branch of the government. So busy, in fact, that Trump successfully ran for office on a promise to make it less busy.

Despite the near constant involvement of US forces in kinetic conflicts somewhere in the world, beginning with the so-called Barbary Pirates War (named after a Jamaican barbershop where the pirates, in-between raiding merchant ships and selling Americans into African slavery, had their John Bolton-style mustaches trimmed). Presidential military “supervision” has accelerated to an astonishing pace.

But Congress has only formally declared war five times: the War of 1812, the Mexican War (1848), the Spanish-American War (1898), World War I (1914), and World War II (1941). (The War Against Dishwashers That Actually Work was debated, but never formally declared.)

How then can we explain all the other shooting and bombing that’s happened outside those five major conflicts where Congress stirred itself out of its whiskey-induced legislative coma and provided a formal declaration? Think about Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Kuwait, Yemen, etc., etc., and et cetera, none of which were “declared” wars.

As the Times surely knows —but most reporters probably don’t; I blame public schools— the uncontroversial mainstream view holds that the president may fire off an armed conflict without a Congressional declaration of war under three broad conditions: for ‘limited’ wars, for defensive wars, and whenever Congress provides any fig leaf of “authorization for use of military force” short of a formal declaration.

That second category —defensive wars— is the one that applies here. Over the years, it has been interpreted as the power to “repel sudden attacks” and “respond to imminent threats” against the United States, its forces, and its citizens, and its foreign-based interests (like Middle Eastern military bases or Caribbean cruise ships).

Without explicitly calling it a “defensive war,” President Trump still has consistently and clearly made a case for his hostilities against the cartels being a defensive war.

Yesterday, President Trump teased that the naval strikes were just the opening act. “The land is going to be next,” he promised. He directed War Secretary Hegseth to brief Congress —not ask them for permission— and said he expects Congress to agree anyway. “What are they going to do? Say, ‘Gee, we don’t want to stop drugs pouring in?’” President Trump said. “They’re killing 300,000 people a year.”

All of the usual suspects —the Times, Congress, Nancy Pelosi, libertarians, Democrats, Antifa cosplayers, gender studies majors, and so on— are all playing a silly game of pretending like these kinds of issues have never happened before, that this is the unique first time, and that President Trump is an outrageous mean-tweeter with a Navy.

Despite Trump’s practically daring them to do it —he literally said “no, we aren’t going to ask for permission, we’re just going to kill them”— the Times quoted exactly zero legal experts willing to say what he’s doing is actually illegal. (The story called the operation “legally questionable” but did not bother explaining how.) The Times didn’t quote its pet legal experts because it didn’t like what they said.

Trump has properly framed the cartel conflict as a defensive war. It’s hard to argue with— well-funded criminal foreign actors are illegally crossing our borders with stuff that kills Americans. Yesterday, and not accidentally, Hegseth said, “Every boat we strike is 25,000 Americans whose lives were saved because of the drugs that were headed in our direction.”

In other words, Trump is defending the country. Trump doesn’t need a declaration of war or even a Congressional authorization to conduct a defensive war. It’s that simple.

🔥 But Trump’s “we’ll just kill them” comment was the least newsworthy part of the press conference. During the public event, Trump’s team —Pam Bondi, Tulsi Gabbard, Kristi Noem, and Kash Patel— delivered reports about their wildly successful efforts to crack down on crime, especially cartel-related crimes. The day’s most astonishing crime-fighting anecdote came from Tulsi Gabbard, who described a story reported last month in the New York Post under the headline, “Female cartel member ‘La Diabla’ busted for running horrific baby-trafficking, organ-harvesting rings.”

CLIP: Tulsi Gabbard describes maniacal Mexican baby-snatching ring shut down by US efforts (1:17).

Tulsi described a new “Fusion Cell” at the ODNI that works with governments like Mexico to find and arrest evil cartel serial killers like “La Diabla” (the devil), who in assembly-line fashion lured pregnant Mexican women, murdered them, harvested their organs, took the babies via c-section, and sold the infants on the international baby market (located right down the street from Mexico City Mega Walmart, next to Spirit Halloween.)

For some reason, the Times was not interested in La Diabla’s arrest, despite all the salacious details of pure evil. You know why.

🏀 It was almost impossible yesterday to locate a clear media report on what must be one of the year’s biggest stories. Buried halfway down the page of its sports section (“The Athletic”), the New York Times ran a misleading story headlined, “NBA gambling investigation live updates: Latest statements, player reactions on arrests in betting, poker schemes.” A ‘gambling investigation?’ Really? The FBI arrested thirty-one well-connected and mobbed-up people yesterday.

CLIP: FBI Director Patel announces arrests of top NBA players and coaches and mafia crooks in an ongoing criminal investigation (0:47).

“Operation Nothing But Net” might be the biggest criminal conspiracy in U.S. sports history. Thirty-one people were arrested across 11 states, for a long list of charges including wire fraud, money laundering, extortion, and illegal gambling. It’s a big deal. The FBI reported recording 3,000+ calls with its confidential informants. The cash was cleverly laundered through cryptocurrencies, and Patel said tens of millions in total fraud were involved.

The only three arrestees mentioned in the Times’ story were Portland Trail Blazers coach Chauncey Billups, 49, former Cleveland Cavaliers assistant coach Damon Jones, and Miami Heat guard Terry Rozier, 31, all of whom were arrested yesterday. Why they needed the extra money remains a mystery. Blazers head coach Billups (below right) makes $4.75 million a year in salary and has a net worth north of $35 million. Rozier (below left) gets $26.6 million per season and has earned over $160 million total since joining the NBA.

“The fraud is mind-boggling,” Director Patel said. The bad decisions are mind-boggling, too. Or maybe not. They probably thought they were immune from prosecution.

Not only did Billups and Rozier throw games using contrivances like faking injuries, but they also lured marks into rigged Mafia-arranged poker games, getting a cut of the take. Here’s the link to the FBI’s press release, which provides tons more detail than any of the diffident corporate media stories about the scandal.

This story puts in stark relief the difference between the Biden Justice Department and Trump’s, and also highlights how corporate media does whatever it can to protect its elites and favored groups.

🏀 When it came to people accused of trampling the Capitol on January 6th, the media described them as “insurrectionists,” “rioters,” “domestic terrorists,” and “poopy heads.” But it delicately describes the multi-millionaire sports figures and Mafia dons as only “alleged,” “presumed innocent,” and “accused of.”

If you ever needed evidence that the big media platforms are sympathetic to criminals, well, here you go.

Whereas Biden’s Justice Department focused on Capitol tourists, Catholics, and pro-life protesters, Trump’s DOJ is rooting out murderous baby-snatching demons and elite, predatory sports cheaters who are hollowing our beloved national pastimes from the inside. At this point, what we need in this country less than a tenth booster shot is any overpaid NBA performers helping fund La Cosa Nostra.

The investigations are ongoing. But one day in, the NBA already faces an existential crisis. One team executive told NBC, “It’s a nightmare for the league.” Professional Wrestling fans know what they’re getting. But credulous NBA fans assume the games are fair and not manipulated.

Curiously, President Trump has a long connection to the sports industry, but it hasn’t protected them. Maybe it’s just the opposite. Sports commentator Stephen A. Smith may have said it best:

CLIP: “Trump is coming, and you better get ready” (1:22).

In the clip, Smith explained it like this: “We’ve seen accusations before. But you don’t see the Director of the FBI having a press conference. It’s not a coincidence. It’s a statement; it’s as serious as it gets. Look, I’ve been saying: he’s coming. He’s coming! Because in his eyes, folks tried to throw him in jail. He said, they tried to put me behind bars. I’m gettin’ everybody. He’s not playin’. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Everybody better brace themselves. Because he’s coming.”

TAW.

🔥🔥🔥

In more uncovered news, I had to stretch all the way to the Singaporean Straits Times for this story yesterday, headlined, “Trump says private donor gave $130m to cover military pay during shutdown.”

CLIP: President Trump announces mystery patriot who covered military salaries (0:36).

You’d think that, with the nonstop media coverage of the Democrat shutdown, this would be bigger news. But once again, the media got snow blindness (and it’s only October).

At yesterday’s press event, President Trump announced that a “private donor” who wishes to remain nameless donated the money to cover military pay during the Schumer Shutdown. “He called us the other day and said, ‘I’d like to contribute any shortfall you have because of the Democrat shutdown, because I love the military and I love the country,’” Trump explained.

Hopefully, whoever it is will eventually be reimbursed. But the federal government is probably not allowed to formally borrow money during a shutdown. In fact, the legality of using private money to pay military salaries is, shall we say, in a grey area. But it’s welcome, and I doubt anybody will sue over it because of the optics. Think about it.

Who is this mystery patriot? We don’t know, but I bet his name rhymes with Nylon Tusk.

⚖️⚖️⚖️

Yesterday, Newsweek ran a terrific TAW story headlined, “Donald Trump scores major legal win over Gavin Newsom.” On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit declined to hear a full-panel appeal of an earlier 3-judge decision allowing President Trump to retain control of National Guard deployed in California to respond to mostly peaceful cop car burnings. This probably brings to an end the case Governor Newsom prematurely celebrated last month:

Whoopsies! Although the far-left federal judge originally sided with California’s oleaginous governor, last month the 3-judge appellate panel on the Ninth Circuit reversed (2-1) and lifted the injunction. At the time, Politico reported that the decision effectively “blocked an effort by California Gov. Gavin Newsom to reclaim control of the National Guard troops.”

So last month, while a chastened Newsom sulked, one of the Ninth Circuit appellate judges (!) anonymously asked for en banc review, meaning that judge asked all 29 judges to review the 3-judge decision. But yesterday, in a terse, one-sentence order, the Court declined to hear the appeal— even though it had been requested by one of its own members.

Ten of the judges joined a scathing, 38-page dissent. Since a majority of the 29 judges would be required to greenlight en banc review, they lost.

Governor Newsom’s office has not yet said whether it would appeal to the Supreme Court. I doubt it; why take a chance of making law that will bind the whole country? In fact, Gavin “Chatty-Kathy” Newsom hasn’t even mentionedWednesday’s setback on his Twitter feed.

Newsweek noted that, although the injunction failed, the case continues. Eventually, the original federal judge will rule on the merits. He’ll probably side with California again. The case will then return to the Ninth Circuit— long after anybody still cares.

TAW again!

Have a fantastic Friday! Get yourself back here ‘en banc’ tomorrow morning, for your latest installment of essential news and commentary.

Give a gift subscription

Share

 

Don’t race off! We cannot do it alone. Consider joining up with C&C to help move the nation’s needle and change minds. I could sure use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope, if you can:☕ Learn How to Get Involved 🦠

How to Donate to Coffee & Covid