Obama Judge Blocks Parts Of Trump’s Order Limiting Mail-In Voting
'Unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.'
When the government takes everything without proving anything
Imagine you founded a company with a stop-smoking product that actually works — no nicotine, better than anything on the market. You are the largest investor. You take no salary. You build it into something real, serving 756,000 customers. You are doing exactly what America is supposed to reward.
Then one night, without warning, without a trial, without any finding of wrongdoing, the federal government comes. The government freezes every account you own or are even associated with — personal and business accounts, life insurance, and retirement savings. A court-appointed receiver sells your office furniture. They tell you that you no longer have Fourth Amendment rights. They come for the wedding ring on your wife's finger.
This attack sounds like some hypothetical scenario. It is my story.
I am writing this so that every American understands just what weaponization by the government really means.
The Federal Trade Commission came for me in 2018 using Section 13(b) of the FTC Act — a provision Congress created for injunctions only, not for seizing assets or freezing accounts. The receiver the agency installed consumed nearly $4 million of my money in fees before anyone proved the FTC did not have legal rights to my assets.
When I went to court and asked for access to my own frozen money just to pay lawyers and keep my home, the government's response was: You can go live under the freeway for all we care.
While this was happening, inspired by President Trump's Made in America initiative, I built VPL Medical — the world's first made-in-USA three-ply surgical face mask manufacturing operation, based in California, where I was born and raised.
This was before COVID. When the pandemic hit, VPL Medical was ready. The Department of Health and Human Services awarded us a $14,500,000 contract to deliver 20,000,000 American-made masks to the Strategic National Stockpile. The factory was going to employ 400 Americans. The country didn't want masks from China, and we were ready to deliver.
Then the FTC came for VPL Medical, too. The factory went dark for three months while Americans died and hospitals begged for PPE. The FTC's offer to reopen: Pay the receiver $25,000 per week to run my own company under a law that didn't authorize the demand. I refused. The receiver's first act was to cancel the HHS contract. Twenty million American-made masks and 400 American jobs gone.
In April 2021, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in AMG Capital Management v. FTC that the commission had no authority to seek monetary relief. Nine justices. Zero dissents. My civil FTC case collapsed. The district court returned my company to me. Zero dollars — after four years of destruction, a factory closed during a pandemic, a $14.5 million federal contract canceled, and nearly $4 million consumed by a fraudulent receiver.
There is no mechanism to get that back. You win. And you are still destroyed.
My family and I moved to Ireland to take a break. We were through the nightmare and wanted to recover. Or so we thought.
RELATED: Trump’s anti-weaponization fund puts GOP cowards on trial
When I flew home to see my dying father, I was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport. The Biden DOJ had indicted me for the same conduct the FTC had litigated for four years and won nothing from — conduct the prior Trump administration's DOJ had already reviewed and declined to charge.
The Trump administration's own 2018 “No Piling On” directive explicitly prohibits this practice. The alleged consumer harm: approximately $154, across 756,000 customers who all received their product or a refund. My criminal defense costs: in the millions and climbing.
What is happening in my case now has no precedent in American federal prosecution. The supervising AUSA withdrew in April 2025. No replacement has appeared in 14 months. There is no confirmed U.S. attorney supervising the case. The DOJ unit employing the trial attorney was abolished in September 2025. Thirty-one demands for that authorization have gone unanswered. The prosecution continues anyway.
Six fully briefed motions to dismiss — covering fraud on the court, due process, double jeopardy, evidence suppression, and the “No Piling On” violation — have all been denied by District Court Judge Jesus Bernal, an Obama appointee.
Every player in this case, with the exception of myself, is a Biden or Obama appointee. This is what Biden-Obama weaponization looks like — a rogue agency, an unauthorized prosecution, and politically appointed judges, all targeting an American entrepreneur who built American manufacturing and supported President Trump.
I have filed a restitution claim with the DOJ Anti-Weaponization Fund. I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for what the rule of law promises: that the government must prove its case before it destroys you. Right now, for me, that promise has not been kept. I am writing this so that every American understands just what weaponization by the government really means.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolicy and made available via RealClearWire.
Trump announces return to JFK-era policy that every president but Obama supported
Not everyone is a winner, and President Trump announced on Tuesday that he wants to put competition back at the forefront for American youth.
To prove this, Trump is reviving a nearly 70-year-old policy that was phased out by President Barack Obama in his second term.
'We want to make sure our kids have the best opportunity to succeed in life.'
The commander in chief brought a number of high-profile athletes, Cabinet members, and children into the Oval Office to sign a memorandum to bring competition back to kids all across the United States.
As part of an executive order signed last July that reinstated the Presidential Fitness Test, Trump announced at the White House that he would bring back the National Physical Fitness Award as well as the Presidential Fitness Award.
According to Harvard Health, President Dwight D. Eisenhower initiated the Presidential Physical Fitness Test in 1956. It included a one-mile run, pull-ups or push-ups, sit-ups, a shuttle run, and a sit-and-reach exercise for flexibility.
The test endured in different forms all the way up until 2013, when President Obama replaced it with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program.
Gone were the awards, once listed on a government website under the President's Challenge. The president's award recognized students who scored at or above the 85th percentile on all five activities, while the national award went to those who scored above the 50th percentile in all five activities.
RELATED: Make America Fit Again: Presidential Fitness Test returns after 13 years
- YouTube
President-elect John F. Kennedy is credited with popularizing the fitness craze in the 1960s after writing an article titled "The Soft American" for Sports Illustrated.
In his writings, Kennedy cited research he had come across that spanned 15 years, comparing the physical fitness of American children versus the fitness of children in Austria, Italy, and Switzerland. Kennedy wrote that for six tests evaluating muscular strength and flexibility, over 57% of American children failed one or more, while less than 9% of the Europeans did.
Kennedy later proposed the President's Council on Physical Fitness, which would later establish the awards program under President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. referenced his uncle's article at the White House on Tuesday, calling the physical fitness program "an enduring right of passage for us that everybody in my generation remembers."
"It was a benchmark for measuring national physical fitness," the secretary continued, adding that he hopes Americans "help each other get in shape so that we can prepare for our great future that this administration is providing for this country."
RELATED: The left can’t handle Hegseth’s combat stance
- YouTube
Also joining the president in the Oval Office were former professional athletes, including NHL player T.J. Oshie, MLB pitcher Noah Syndergaard, and golfer Gary Player, as well as current pro golfer Bryson DeChambeau.
DeChambeau's remarks were celebrated when he thanked the administration for prioritizing the physical health of American youth.
"We want to make sure our kids have the best opportunity to succeed in life. ... Their physical fitness is a huge priority in helping them become better human beings," he said.
Also in attendance were War Secretary Pete Hegseth, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, and Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
In His Own Words: Trump Has Been Saying Iran Can’t Have Nukes For 20 Years
Critics call the Iran strikes a betrayal, but Trump's own books show he has said for 25 years that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.Sara Gonzales REACTS to Federalist exposé on GEC targeting Blaze Media — ‘Yes, the deep state actually is THAT threatened’
A Federalist article published yesterday revealed that the government-funded Global Engagement Center assured the State Department its censorship “test bed” platform would not target U.S. audiences, yet it proceeded to fund a trial specifically aimed at Blaze Media.
“Let me break it down simply,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says.
“Back in 2011, Obama signed an executive order to establish the State Department’s Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications ... to support ‘agencies in government-wide public communications activities targeted against violent extremism and terrorist organizations,’” she recounts.
This was the “seed,” she explains, that would eventually sprout and bloom into a domestic censorship apparatus.
In 2016, Obama then signed an executive order, renaming the existing Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications the Global Engagement Center and tasking it with coordinating U.S. government-wide counterterrorism communications activities directed at foreign audiences abroad to counter terrorist messaging.
“Pay attention to these dates. 2016, [Obama] is out the door,” Sara says.
In the waning days of President Trump’s first term (December 14, 2020, to January 7, 2021), however, a GEC-funded test-bed trial diverted from its stated mission to target foreign disinformation when it set its sights on Blaze Media.
Its other target was Sputnik News, a Russian state-owned news agency and radio service.
“Why would we be as big of a target as a Russian state news agency?” Sara asks. “Is the deep state that threatened by what we talk about?”
“The answer is yes — the deep state actually is that threatened by what we talk about,” she answers definitively.
When Secretary of State Marco Rubio shut down the GEC and its successor office, the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference, in 2025, the New York Times and other left-wing outlets lamented it.
Sara mocks the coverage the story received: “He closed down the State Department office on foreign disinformation. Why would we want to have disinformation? That’s bad!”
“No, it was just being used to suppress and censor actual American media,” she explains. “Sorry, I’m saying American media like it was plural — like it was like this big venture. ... No, it was just us.”
Why Blaze Media specifically?
Sara believes it’s tied to Blaze Media’s COVID coverage.
“We were one of the only (actually the only) alternative media outlet that was telling the truth during COVID, myself included,” she says. “We were getting demonetized left and right because we were actually telling the truth.”
To hear more, watch the episode above.
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Democrats' gerrymandering campaign in Virginia hits a snag: Obama
Democrats have spoken out of both sides of their mouths on the matter of redistricting.
Proposed changes to congressional maps that would boost Democrats' chances in elections are, on the one hand, purportedly a means to "help level the playing field," a way to "restore fairness," and — in the words of Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger — a "response to what we're seeing in other states that have taken extreme measures to undermine democratic norms."
'Gerrymandering is when politicians manipulate the maps in order to predetermine the outcome.'
When faced with proposed changes to congressional maps that threaten their power, Democrats have alternatively likened redistricting efforts to the Holocaust, called them "a threat to democracy," and characterized them as "authoritarian."
This hypocrisy has proven to be an issue for proponents of Virginia's proposed constitutional amendment, which is on the ballot in the April 21 special election.
The National Democratic Redistricting Committee — a supporter of voting "yes" in the gerrymandering referendum that would all but ensure that 10 out of the state's 11 congressional seats go to Democrats — complained on Thursday about opponents of the proposed amendment turning to former President Barack Obama for support.
"A MAGA-aligned dark money group is trying to fool Virginia voters with a dishonest mailer that features an unauthorized photo of President Barack Obama and lies about his position on the Virginia referendum," the NDRC said.
"The 'No' campaign and its allied MAGA-funded dark money groups are so terrified of the voters that they are resorting to desperate, deceptive tactics like this one to spread misinformation and lies," said John Bisognano, president of the NDRC. "There is no confusion. President Obama endorses voting YES to stop Trump and his MAGA allies from rigging our elections and to protect the rights and voting power of the American people ahead of the midterms."
One of the mailers features an image of Obama along with the quote, "For too long, gerrymandering has contributed to stalled progress and warped our representative government," reported the Virginia Mercury.
While characterized by the NDRC and the NAACP Virginia State Conference as so-called misinformation, the Obama quote is indeed genuine — and its context is damning.
RELATED: Red-state inaction is the soft underbelly of border politics
Obama wrote in a July 8, 2020, post on X, "For too long, gerrymandering has contributed to stalled progress and warped our representative government. Redistricting begins next year — let’s all do our part to protect and restore our democracy."
Obama then urged Americans to join him "in the fight for fair maps" — specifically to support a possible constitutional amendment that would curb gerrymandering.
In the video accompanying the former president's 2020 post, Obama states, "Gerrymandering is a sneaky way for politicians to consolidate as much power as they can."
Another activist featured in the video adds, "Gerrymandering is when politicians manipulate the maps in order to predetermine the outcome so that it benefits one side over the other."
'Barack Obama, Abigail Spanberger, and others have already spoken against this kind of gerrymandering.'
Eric Holder, former President Obama's scandal-plagued attorney general, notes in the video that "you see the greatest amount of voter suppression when you see the greatest amount of gerrymandering."
Desperate to secure a majority in the U.S. House in the midterm elections, Obama and Democrats have jettisoned their supposedly principled stance from yesteryear and are now speaking out of the other side of their mouths.
Obama, specifically, is supporting the "yes" campaign.
In addition to featuring in a video championing Democrat gerrymandering, he stated last month, "Several Republican-controlled states have redrawn their congressional maps to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterm elections. Now Virginia has a chance to help level the playing field."
The mailer that highlighted Obama's hypocrisy and urged voters to "Protect Minority Representation" was sent to Virginia voters last week by the Justice for Democracy PAC, reported the Virginia Independent News.
A similar graphic was reportedly texted to Virginia voters by the Democracy and Justice PAC — which, like Justice for Democracy, is chaired by former Virginia Del. A.C. Cordoza (R) — along with the following message, "President Barack Obama says 'For too long gerrymandering has contributed to our stalled progress and warped our representative government.' That's why it’s important next month to vote NO against Virginia’s redistricting effort."
As proponents of the gerrymandering initiative melted down over the sight of Obama in the opposition mailers, Cordoza said in a statement to CNN, "No one can refute the accuracy of the quotes we’re presenting. Barack Obama, Abigail Spanberger, and others have already spoken against this kind of gerrymandering — I’m simply reminding voters where they stood."
A Tazewell County judge ruled on Jan. 27 that the proposed constitutional amendment was unlawful. The Virginia Supreme Court then ruled last month that Virginians can still vote for it in the statewide April referendum, though the commonwealth high court may yet uphold the lower court's injunction.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
WATCH: Bill Maher tricks Adam Schiff into trashing Obama's justification for war
In the wake of the U.S. strikes on Iran, host Bill Maher welcomed Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) to Friday's episode of "Real Time." During the panel discussion, the topic turned to the strikes. That's when Maher seemed to set a trap for the California senator.
Reading from a Department of Justice memorandum opinion on presidential authorization to use military force, Maher began, "The president had the constitutional authority to direct the use of military force [...] because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest."
Maher then revealed the source of the quote.
Maher then asked Schiff whether the reasoning was sufficient.
"That's too vague for you?" Maher asked.
"Totally vague," Schiff responded, seemingly still thinking this was a quote from the Trump administration
Maher then revealed the source of the quote.
"OK, because that’s from Obama about Libya," Maher said, catching Schiff off guard after using a trick question.
RELATED: Shock NBC poll reveals American voters' true feelings about ICE and Democrats
The statement referred to the legal justification used by the Obama administration when the U.S. joined NATO military operations in Libya in 2011. However, Schiff didn't know Maher was quoting Obama but assumed the words came from Trump after the recent attacks on Iran.
When Schiff realized the words weren't Trump's, he justified Obama's words and shifted by discussing another debate during the Obama presidency over potential U.S. military action in Syria.
"Well, Obama made the argument initially that he could go into Syria without authorization. I and many others pushed back on that argument. Ultimately, he did not go forward with going after Assad, even though Assad was gassing his own people, because he thought he might lose the vote in Congress," Schiff said.
RELATED: Trump says war against Iran is nearly over — and gives regime warning 'not to try anything cute'
The senator argued that Congress must reassert its constitutional authority over decisions to go to war during Trump's administration but never criticized the statement Obama made.
"We are unquestionably at war now. The founders made an extraordinary decision at the time, which was not to give that power to the president but to give it to the Congress because they were worried, as Hamilton said, that a president would grow too fond of making war," Schiff said.
Schiff doubled down, warning that presidents could increasingly bypass Congress when authorizing military action.
"After Venezuela, after the earlier Iran conflict, after bombing Nigeria and Iraq and Syria, he's grown too fond of this. And Congress ... needs to step up, assert its role, or it is going to be gone for good. And then, any time a president, for any reason, anywhere in the world, for any length of time, will feel free to make war. And that would be hugely dangerous for the country," Schiff said
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
2A win: Appeals court in DC strikes down high-capacity magazine restrictions
Second Amendment advocates are celebrating after a D.C. appeals court struck down a local ban on high-capacity magazines.
On Thursday, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals handed down a 2-1 decision in Tyree Benson v. United States and the District of Columbia, ruling that a local law banning gun magazines that can contain more than 10 rounds is unconstitutional.
'We agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment.'
Appellant Tyree Benson was arrested in October 2022 on multiple charges related to possession of a Glock 45 9mm caliber handgun with a high-capacity magazine that could hold 30 rounds of ammunition.
The opinion argued that the ubiquity of high-capacity magazines makes enforcing or justifying an outright ban extremely difficult.
Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today. Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment.
RELATED: Want a machine gun? These states might soon make buying one easier
The opinion of the court was written by Trump appointee Associate Judge Joshua Deahl, who was joined by Obama appointee Catharine Friend Easterly.
In her dissent, Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby argued in part that the majority's argument failed to address the unusually high capacity in this case, whereas many gun owners have guns with 11-, 15-, or 17-round magazines. Additionally, she defended the law by applying the historical legal standard of banning "dangerous and unusual" weapons, though that standard is controversial.
The District of Columbia, which upholds the ban and is another party in the suit, could appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court or request that a larger panel from the local appeals court reconsider it, the New York Times reported.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com