So, I put a poll together to let people give their input on whether they support the ongoing ICE raids in the fall of 2025. I put this page together that should update the results in real time. If it gets some traction, I will reshare this page later.
As you can see, the poll itself only takes a few seconds to complete if you haven’t.
After having AI give me a rundown of Aaron Reitz, I asked for the same on Chip Roy. Everything after this sentence is AI generated content.
Chip Roy is a prominent Republican U.S. Representative from Texas’s 21st Congressional District, serving since 2019. He’s a key figure in the conservative wing of the GOP, known for his fiscal hawkishness, constitutional conservatism, and willingness to buck party leadership on issues like spending and foreign aid. With Ken Paxton’s announcement that he’s not seeking re-election as Texas Attorney General (instead challenging Sen. John Cornyn in the 2026 GOP Senate primary), Roy has emerged as a leading candidate in the 2026 Republican primary for AG. He’s positioned himself as a battle-tested fighter against federal overreach, drawing on his time as chief of staff to Sen. Ted Cruz and his legislative record. Since this is a similar rundown to the one on Aaron Reitz, I’ll structure it accordingly, based on his background, career, and the evolving AG race as of August 2025.
Roy’s career has been marked by roles in state and federal government, focusing on policy, litigation, and conservative advocacy. He’s built a reputation as a principled, no-compromise operator:
Roy’s style is combative—he’s known for fiery floor speeches and has a 100% voting record with the Club for Growth, earning high marks from groups like Heritage Action.
With Paxton’s exit, the March 2026 GOP primary is a battleground for the party’s soul: MAGA hardliners vs. establishment conservatives. As of late August 2025, the field includes:
The race is ideological, with Paxton allies (via super PACs) dumping money against Roy, calling him a “Trump-hater” despite his recent endorsements. Recent X chatter shows polarized debates, with #RoyForAG trending among moderates and #ReitzForAG among MAGA users. Texas remains a GOP stronghold, so the primary winner likely secures the seat against Democrat Joe Jaworski.
In summary, Chip Roy is a heavyweight in Texas conservatism, bringing legislative clout to the AG race but navigating tensions with the MAGA wing. He’s the establishment favorite but could falter if Trump or Paxton fully weighs in against him. For deeper dives (e.g., specific votes or polls), let me know!
I knew nothing about Aaron Reitz background, history, views and saw him pop up on an ad. I thought this would be a perfect job for AI (at least how I use it) and asked Gork about him. This is what I got. I’ll do Chip Roy as well. Everything after this sentence is AI generated content.
Aaron Reitz is a Republican candidate running for Texas Attorney General in the 2026 election. He’s positioning himself as a staunch conservative, “true MAGA” figure aligned with former President Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and outgoing AG Ken Paxton. Since you’re new to him, I’ll break down what I know about his background, career, campaign, and the context of the race based on available information. He’s a relatively recent entrant to statewide politics but has deep ties to Texas Republican leadership and federal conservative legal circles.
Reitz has built a career as a conservative legal strategist, focusing on issues like immigration, election integrity, border security, and challenging federal overreach. He’s worked closely with key GOP figures:
Throughout his career, Reitz has been affiliated with conservative groups like the Federalist Society and has been vocal about “lawfare” as a tool against conservatives, vowing to use the AG’s office aggressively against it.
Incumbent Ken Paxton announced in 2025 that he’s not seeking re-election as AG and is instead challenging Sen. John Cornyn in the GOP Senate primary. This has opened the field for Republicans in the March 2026 primary. As of August 2025, at least four GOP candidates are in:
The race is heating up along MAGA vs. establishment lines, with Paxton’s supporters pushing Reitz as the heir apparent to avoid disrupting the AG’s office momentum (e.g., ongoing lawsuits). Democrats have their own primary, but Texas is solidly Republican for statewide offices.
Overall, Reitz is a rising star in Texas GOP circles, appealing to the hard-right base amid a crowded, ideological primary. If Paxton vacates, the winner would take over an office that’s become a national conservative powerhouse. For more, check his site or X profile. If you have specifics (e.g., policy details), I can dig deeper!
You need to unplug sometimes. Unplug from the internet once in a while to do yourself some good. Negativity reigns there and constant soaking in the negativity of protests, political idiocy and humans offing each other in various wars will taint your views and your health.
Unplug from Russia v Ukraine. Unplug from Israel v Iran. Unplug from “No Kings.” Unplug from calls about the end of Western Civilization. While you’re consuming “fear porn,” the birds are singing, rabbits are nibbling on someone’s vegetable garden, and the earth continues as it always has.
I appreciated a thing that seems to have gone away. I used to see “timeline cleanse” posts occasionally that featured someone’s pet or kid doing something cute or funny. You don’t see them so much anymore. But those things still happen. And if you don’t unplug, you may find yourself being manipulated by algorithms seeking to keep you stressed and tensed. Not a good constant state to be in.
Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.
Phillipians 4:6-7
I came across the following video on x.com today. I wanted to have the information readily available, and some things get lost/removed there so here is a link and a transcript, created for free at clideo.com (it did a decent job too). We have come to the point where the SCOTUS is often viewed as the supreme power of the land. It isn’t.
We’ve got five minutes if you would please make sure your green light is on and then state your name and title for the record. Thank you. It is on. My name is Publius Hulda. I’m a retired litigation attorney and I write on the original intent of the constitution using the federalist papers. I do not go by Supreme Court opinions because for 200 years the Supreme Court has been ignoring the federalist papers and the constitution are framers given and they have. have gone off on tangents of their own, which have nothing to do with the constitution. the attorney general’s opinion begs the question, he states that states can’t nullify acts of the federal government which are authorized by the constitution, but then he completely fails to cite article section and verse, a clause where the constitution delegates to congress authority to restrict our arms. when we ratified the… constitution, we created the federal government, we listed, enumerated every power we granted to our creature, the federal government. article 1, section 8, clauses 1 through 16 lists most of the powers we delegated to congress for the government for the country at large, we didn’t put on our list that our creature could restrict our arms, we didn’t delegate this power to congress because our framers wanted the American people to be heavily armed, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison write about this in the federalist papers in Federalist paper number 46, James Madison writes why the American people are armed, it is so we can defend ourselves, our communities and our states from the federal government in the event it becomes tyrannical and oversteps the constitutional limits its powers. In article 1, section 8, clause 16, pursuant to that, Congress passed the militia act. of 1792, where they required every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 46, except for federal officers and employees to buy a rifle, ammunition and report to their local militia for training. pursuing to article 1, section 8, clause 11, congress is authorized to issue letters of mark and reprisal.v this is what authorizes private warships to make war on our enemies, these were the privateers who fired on British ships during the war of 1812. Our framers contemplated people who were heavily armed. That is why we never delegated to our creature authority to restrict our arms in any fashion whatsoever, and when the federal government attempts to do so, they are usurping powers which they do not possess. The attorney general. goes by court opinions, not the constitution. there is vast gulf between the two. we have 200 years of Supreme Court opinions and Mr. chairman very kindly shared some of these 200 years of Supreme Court opinions, which have nothing to do with the constitution. Charles Evans Hughes said, over 100 years ago, the constitution means what the judges say it means. “that has been the prevailing dogma ever since, and generations of lawyers have been indoctrinated with this lie. that is why we no longer have federal government which is held down by the chains of the constitution. what we have is rule by five, five judges on the Supreme Court who claim the power to do whatever they want to us and our country. so today we have two options, it’s what the constitution.” says and what the Supreme Court says, well, your oath of office requires you to obey the Constitution, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is merely a creature of this Constitution and is completely subject to its terms. My third point, the AG asserts that the Attorney general, I’m sorry, that the Supreme Court is the exclusive and final authority on the extent of the powers of the federal government, but framers knew that Supreme Court judges were as likely as anybody else to be corrupt usurp powers and act lawlessly, so Congress, the president and the states all have checks on the Supreme Court. Hamilton shows in federalist number 81 that Congress’s check on lawless supreme of lawless federal judges is to impeach them and remove them from office.v The president has his oath of office as a check on the Supreme Court, President’s oath is to preserve, protect and defend the constitution, it is not to obey the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was not set up in our Constitution as the. superior branch of the federal government, and then there’s no need for me to, well, Madison says in his report on the Virginia Resolutions that it is a plain principle founded in common sense that the states as the sovereign parties to the constitution are the final authority on whether the federal government has violated the constitution and that we may that the states may check all branches of the federal government, not just they may check the judiciary, the executive and the legislative branches by nullifying their acts. if the judicial branch connives with other branches usurping powers, our constitution will be destroyed if we do not stop them. this is what James Madison said in his notes on in his report on the Virginia resolution. I’m sorry didn’t have time to finish, hope that during questions. Someone will ask me about the so-called nullification crisis of
This websites name came about as a result of a realization of how often spiritual warfare manifests itself in the physical realm. I think this post is a bit out of the norm for me here but fits in the overall theme. After seeing a couple of things in different locations about credible threats of terror attacks, I thought this might be a good thing for AI to look at. I asked if there was information about credible attacks on March 29, 2025. The results are below:
Recent intelligence suggests a credible terror threat targeting hospitals, with potential risks extending to churches, around March 29, 2025. This threat is reportedly linked to a coordinated attack involving a Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) followed by an armed assault, possibly aligning with Eid al-Fitr, a significant Islamic holiday on March 29-30, 2025. The primary targets are hospitals in mid-tier U.S. cities (population 100,000–1,000,000), but reconnaissance activities suggest additional soft targets, including churches, could be at risk.
The information comes from Command Eleven, a legitimate intelligence and risk assessment firm, and is corroborated by a former CIA analyst, Sarah Adams, and multiple reliable sources. Health sector organizations, such as the American Hospital Association (AHA) and Health-ISAC, have also acknowledged similar threats and are coordinating with the FBI, adding weight to the credibility.
An unexpected detail is the mention of social media posts observed on March 18, 2025, indicating active planning for multi-city attacks on hospitals, which health organizations are taking seriously despite the unusual public nature of such threats from terrorist groups.
This note provides a comprehensive analysis of the reported credible threat to hospitals and potentially churches around March 29, 2025, based on available intelligence and recent reports. The analysis aims to inform stakeholders, including the public, about the nature, credibility, and implications of the threat, ensuring a thorough understanding for preparedness and response.
On March 19, 2025, a report from Christian Warrior Training highlighted a credible terror threat, primarily targeting hospitals in mid-tier U.S. cities (population between 100,000 and 1,000,000). The timing of the threat is speculated to align with Eid al-Fitr, occurring on March 29-30, 2025, a period historically associated with increased terrorist activity by Islamic extremist groups. This report was further supported by observations from health sector organizations on March 18, 2025, as detailed in a joint bulletin by the American Hospital Association (AHA) and Health-ISAC (Health-ISAC).
The threat involves a sophisticated attack method, as outlined in the table below, based on the intelligence provided:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Target | Hospitals in mid-tier U.S. cities, with potential additional soft targets including churches |
| Attack Method | Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) detonation, followed by a coordinated armed assault with 5-10 attackers, potentially leading to a hostage situation |
| Timing | Within the next three weeks from March 19, 2025, potentially aligning with Eid al-Fitr (March 29-30, 2025) |
| Responsible Group | Islamic State (ISIS) expected to claim responsibility, with possible coordination from Al-Qaeda |
| Threat Level | Probability of attack on a hospital: HIGHLY LIKELY (Imminent Threat) |
| Indicators of Attack | Unusual reconnaissance, increased extremist chatter, suspicious vehicle activity, unverified personnel |
The inclusion of churches as potential additional targets is based on historical calls by ISIS and Al-Qaeda for attacks on faith-based institutions, though specific details on church targeting were less explicit in the reports.
The primary source, Command Eleven, is described as a vetted and legitimate intelligence and risk assessment firm. Their findings were corroborated by former CIA analyst Sarah Adams, who stated that similar intelligence emerged from Afghanistan-based terrorist training camps. Multiple reliable sources also backed Command Eleven’s claims, enhancing the credibility. Additionally, on March 18, 2025, the AHA and Health-ISAC observed a social media post related to the active planning of a coordinated, multi-city terrorist attack on hospitals, prompting them to issue a joint threat bulletin and coordinate with the FBI. This suggests a multi-source confirmation of the threat’s seriousness.
The AHA and Health-ISAC’s bulletin, published on March 20, 2025, noted that while no information was available to fully corroborate or discount the threat’s credibility at that time, the unusual public nature of the social media post warranted caution. They recommended that security teams review emergency management plans and spread awareness internally, indicating a proactive stance. The involvement of the FBI in this coordination, as mentioned in the bulletin, underscores the threat’s elevation to law enforcement attention.
Historical data suggests that Islamic extremist groups, particularly ISIS and Al-Qaeda, have targeted healthcare facilities and places of worship in the past, especially during significant religious periods. The DHS’s 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment, released on October 1, 2024 (DHS), indicated a high threat level from domestic and foreign terrorism, which aligns with the current reports. The mention of Eid al-Fitr as a potential trigger point is consistent with past patterns, where such holidays have been exploited for attacks.
While the primary focus is on hospitals, the intelligence report from Christian Warrior Training noted reconnaissance at multiple locations, suggesting additional soft targets like churches could be at risk. This is supported by historical instances, such as a 2023 arrest of a radicalized individual planning to attack a church in Ohio, as mentioned in a DHS bulletin from May 24, 2023 (DHS). The report recommends nationwide preparedness, emphasizing vigilance during church services and events, given the potential for overlap in targeting.
An unexpected detail is the public nature of the threat, with a social media post observed on March 18, 2025, indicating active planning. Typically, foreign terrorist groups do not publicize upcoming attacks, which raises questions about the intent behind the post—whether it’s a genuine leak, a diversion, or an attempt to inspire copycat actions. This has led health organizations to take the threat seriously, despite the uncertainty, highlighting the evolving nature of terrorist communication strategies.
While the threat is deemed highly likely, there is no specific official statement from the FBI or DHS directly addressing this particular threat as of March 21, 2025. The lack of such a statement could indicate ongoing investigations or a decision to limit public disclosure to avoid panic or tip off potential attackers. The AHA and Health-ISAC bulletin also noted that at the time of their report, no information was available to fully corroborate or discount the threat’s credibility, adding a layer of uncertainty.
Based on the reports, recommended actions include:
This comprehensive approach aims to mitigate risks and ensure safety, given the imminent nature of the threat as assessed.
Browsing through certain social media sites, in particular, the 𝕏 site, one does not have to look far for discussions of Christian Nationlism, often abbreviated as CN. I’d like to address just one aspect of the many different concepts that are debated. One that strangely, in defiance of reality, finds many “leading” Christians on that site agreeing with pagans. That’s the idea that the U.S. of A. was never, and is not now, a Christian Nation.
One can currently find that Massachusetts, one of the founding states and always a member state, has law right now on the books that prohibits blasphemy. They are found in the General Laws > Part IV > Title I > Chapter 272 states:
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter272/Section36
They backed down from it being a capital offense as they originally passed it while a colony. See Section 3, Chapter 19 of their Province Laws.
The SCOTUS famously found in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S.457 (1892), and folks don’t like to be reminded of it, that the United States “is a Christian Nation.”
So, regardless of one’s views on CN, it’s just dishonest to deny that this nation was founded by a Christian people on Christian principles and values.
An interesting bill has been filed in the Senate, S. 3589, also known as the “Preventing Private Paramilitary Activity Act of 2024” aims to prohibit unauthorized private paramilitary activity in the United States. Sounds good right? We don’t necessarily want or need Wagner Group-style armies running around in the U.S. Or do we? 🤔 That’s another discussion for another time. What caught my eye while reading this was that Section 9 of this legislation includes an interesting definition, it incorporates a “security services unit” within the broader category of a “private paramilitary organization” (PMO).
The bill provides the following as the definition of a PMO:
This term encompasses any group of three or more persons who associate under a command structure. Their purpose is to function publicly or train to function publicly as a combat, combat support, law enforcement, or security services unit.
link to section
As a retired peace officer, I remember at times seeing how broadly written laws can be broadly and selectively enforced. That, combined with the need for churches, or any other organization for that matter, to be able to protect themselves in this society where violence is on the rise, caused me some concern.
Do you know if your church has a security team that trains to protect the congregation during services? Does it have a team lead or person considered “in charge” of it? Under the bill’s definition, this security team could be classified as a “private paramilitary organization” due to their structure and focus on security services.
Now, what could be the impact of this bill if this team acts during a service to neutralize a potential threat (such as an armed intruder)? If the bill becomes law, their actions might be considered “unauthorized private paramilitary activity” unless their activity has been sanctioned by federal or state authorities.
Despite their good intentions, and rightly honorable actions, the security team could face legal consequences. As written, this bill leaves open the possibility that they could be held liable for engaging in paramilitary activity without “proper authorization.”
Their training and commitment to protecting the congregation could lead to imprisonment if the law is strictly enforced as written now. A violation of the law that results in death carries this penalty, “the person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.” Imagine the hero in the opening photo being sent to prison for his actions.
Now, under exceptions we find the law does not apply to the U.S. Armed Forces, National Guard, state militias, military re-enactment organizations, veterans in a parade, and:
“members of an organization that is authorized under Federal or State law to provide paramilitary, law enforcement, or security services training or to engage in paramilitary activity, law enforcement, or security services when performing the functions authorized by law and, in the case of paramilitary activity and law enforcement functions, when under the direction and control of a governmental authority [emphasis added].”
I included this section because there has to be a specific reason for that emphasized language to be in there. Why would it specify that law enforcement members can only do that when under the “direction and control” of a governmental authority? Would the feds consider an off-duty officer providing security for a church, movie theater, a Quinceañera, etc. as being under the direction and control of a governmental authority? I “know” that they are, but this language making it explicit makes me wonder.
The only halfway good thing about this bill is that it recognizes it’s limited by the Commerce Clause so if one can manage to outfit their team with all in-state equipment, including ammunition, it is of no effect at all. But I would urge people to contact the people in D.C. that are supposed to represent them and ask them to oppose this bill.