Hold onto your hats, folks -- Prakazrel "Pras" Michel, a founding member of the Fugees, just got slapped with a 14-year federal prison sentence for funneling foreign cash into a presidential campaign, Fox News reported.
Michel, convicted in April 2023 on multiple federal counts, was found guilty by a Washington, D.C., jury of illegally channeling millions from overseas into Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection effort, a scheme prosecutors say involved over $100 million and secret influence peddling.
Let’s rewind to the beginning: Michel, born in Brooklyn to Haitian parents, skyrocketed to fame with the Fugees alongside Lauryn Hill and Wyclef Jean, selling millions of albums and snagging two Grammys.
But fame didn’t keep him grounded—prosecutors allege Michel took over $120 million from Malaysian billionaire Low Taek Jho, using straw donors to gain access to Obama campaign events.
They didn’t stop there; Michel is accused of meddling in a Justice Department probe into Low, tampering with witnesses, and even committing perjury to keep the scheme under wraps.
Low, a fugitive reportedly hiding in China and linked to financing “The Wolf of Wall Street,” denies wrongdoing, while Michel’s trial drew star power with testimony from Leonardo DiCaprio and former Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
DiCaprio, who met Michel backstage at a Fugees concert in the 1990s, testified about Low, saying, “I understood him to be a huge businessman with many different connections in Abu Dhabi and Malaysia.”
Interesting, isn’t it, how Hollywood glitz intersects with political grime—yet DiCaprio’s careful vetting of Low’s funding raises questions about how deep the due diligence really went.
Prosecutors weren’t buying any excuses, declaring Michel “betrayed his country for money” and “lied unapologetically and unrelentingly to carry out his schemes,” painting a picture of greed over patriotism.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly handed down a 168-month sentence, despite Michel declining to speak in court before the gavel fell.
Michel’s defense attorney, Peter Zeidenberg, called the verdict “unsupported by the evidence” and the sentence “completely disproportional to the facts alleged,” especially when compared to lighter punishments for others in similar scandals.
Zeidenberg pointed out disparities, arguing there’s “no justification for Mr. Michel being singled out like this except for the penalty for opting for trial,” and vowed to appeal both the conviction and sentence.
From a conservative lens, this case reeks of selective harshness—why does Michel get 14 years while others, like Elliott Broidy who was pardoned, walk away unscathed?
Prosecutors pushed for a life sentence, claiming it matched the breadth of Michel’s crimes, but isn’t there a whiff of overreach when a non-violent musician faces such a draconian penalty?
While justice must be served for betraying national trust, the sentencing guidelines—criticized by Michel’s team as easily manipulated—seem to disproportionately punish those who dare to fight their case in court, a principle conservatives should champion against bureaucratic overreach.
Brace yourselves, folks—President Donald Trump just dropped a policy bombshell that’s shaking up Minnesota like a Midwest tornado.
On a dramatic Friday evening, Trump took to Truth Social to announce the abrupt end of deportation protections for Somali nationals in Minnesota through the termination of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program, Fox News reported.
This TPS program, for those not in the policy weeds, has long allowed Somali individuals to reside and work in the U.S. due to dangerous conditions back in Somalia. Minnesota, home to a significant Somali community, now faces a seismic shift as these protections vanish “effective immediately.” It’s a bold move, and the ripple effects are already being felt.
Trump didn’t mince words when he made his stance clear on the social platform, pointing fingers at what he sees as rampant issues in the state. “Minnesota, under Governor [Tim] Walz, is a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity,” he declared, as reported on Truth Social. Well, that’s quite the accusation—calling out a governor for allegedly turning a blind eye to financial shenanigans.
But the president didn’t stop there with his digital megaphone. He also claimed, “Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing,” per his Truth Social post. If true, that’s a gut punch to law-abiding Minnesotans who just want safe streets and accountable governance.
Let’s unpack this a bit, because those are hefty charges. Trump’s decision to scrap TPS seems rooted in a belief that Minnesota has become a hotspot for crime and corruption under current leadership. It’s a classic tough-on-crime approach, though one wonders if the brush is too broad for such a complex issue.
Now, to be fair, Minnesota hasn’t exactly been a poster child for fiscal integrity lately. The state has grappled with major fraud scandals, like the Feeding Our Future scheme, where hundreds of millions in COVID-19 relief funds were reportedly embezzled. That’s not pocket change—it’s a staggering betrayal of public trust.
Adding fuel to the fire, a recent report from the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, alleges that some of this stolen money found its way to the Somali terror group Al-Shabaab. Researchers Ryan Thorpe and Christopher F. Rufo claim to have uncovered a tangled web of deceit involving programs like Medicaid Housing Stabilization Services. If their findings hold water, this isn’t just fraud—it’s a national security concern.
Thorpe and Rufo further assert that federal counterterrorism sources confirmed millions in pilfered funds were funneled back to Somalia, directly benefiting Al-Shabaab. That’s a chilling thought for any American who values safety over unchecked policy loopholes. It’s no surprise Trump seized on this as justification for his abrupt TPS decision.
Still, let’s take a breath and consider the human side of this policy shift. Many Somali nationals in Minnesota have built lives here under TPS, fleeing genuine peril in their homeland. Upending their status overnight raises questions about fairness and due process, even if the fraud allegations are proven.
On the flip side, if taxpayer dollars are indeed vanishing into criminal or terrorist hands, that’s a problem no administration can ignore. Trump’s supporters will likely see this as a decisive stand against a broken system. Critics, though, might argue it’s a sledgehammer approach when a scalpel could suffice.
The fraud claims, especially those tied to Al-Shabaab, are serious enough to warrant deep scrutiny, not just soundbites. If the Manhattan Institute’s investigation is accurate, Minnesota’s oversight failures have consequences far beyond state lines. It’s a wake-up call for tighter controls, no matter who’s in charge.
So, where does this leave Minnesota’s Somali community and the state as a whole? The sudden end of TPS means uncertainty for many who’ve called this place home, often contributing through work and culture. It’s a tough pill to swallow, even if the policy intent is to curb crime.
For Trump’s base, this is likely a red-meat win—tackling fraud and security with no apologies. Yet, one can’t help but wonder if there’s a way to address the bad actors without casting a net over an entire group. Precision, not pageantry, might be the smarter long-term play.
At the end of the day, Minnesota’s challenges—fraud, crime, and now this TPS termination—are a microcosm of broader national debates on immigration and accountability. Trump’s latest move is a lightning rod, sure to spark heated discussion from all sides. Let’s hope the conversation stays grounded in facts, not just feelings, as the state navigates this uncharted territory.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito just threw a lifeline to Texas Republicans with a last-minute block on a federal court’s decision to toss out the state’s new congressional map.
On November 21, 2025, Alito issued an administrative stay, ensuring the disputed boundaries remain in play while the Supreme Court mulls over the case, giving GOP candidates a fighting chance as challenges mount, The Daily Caller reported.
Earlier this year, Texas Republicans, nudged by former President Donald Trump, redrew the state’s congressional map to bolster their odds of maintaining control in upcoming elections.
This new layout, with potential for up to five GOP pickups, didn’t sit well with everyone, especially advocacy groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens.
Just days ago, on November 18, a federal panel in the Western District of Texas, by a tight 2-1 vote, declared the map likely a racial gerrymander, striking it down and igniting a firestorm.
Governor Greg Abbott wasn’t about to let that stand, filing an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday evening, pushing for clarity before the candidate filing deadline on December 8.
Enter Justice Alito, who personally signed the stay on November 21, halting the lower court’s ruling and allowing candidates to keep filing under the contested map.
The Supreme Court’s order was crystal clear: The district court’s decision “is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court.”
Well, that’s a polite way of saying, “Hold your horses, we’re not done yet,” while giving Texas Republicans breathing room against a progressive push to redraw the lines.
Alito’s order didn’t just hit pause—it set a tight clock, requiring challengers like the League of United Latin American Citizens to submit responses by Monday at 5 p.m. EST.
Abbott’s appeal highlighted the stakes, warning that “the confusion sown by the district court’s eleventh-hour injunction poses a very real risk of preventing candidates from being placed on the ballot and may well call into question the integrity of the upcoming election,” as reported by The Hill.
Now, isn’t that a kicker? While some cry foul over gerrymandering, others see a judicial overreach threatening to upend a critical election process at the last second.
Governor Abbott has urged the justices to make a final call by December 1, hoping to lock in certainty before the filing period closes.
The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in after Monday’s responses, potentially shaping not just Texas’ political landscape but also the broader debate over electoral fairness.
Let’s be real—while critics of the map decry it as unfair, the timing of the lower court’s ruling feels like a deliberate wrench in the gears, and Alito’s stay might just keep the system from grinding to a halt.
Democratic Rep. Al Green of Texas is urging the Senate to rename the office building that bears the late Sen. Richard Russell’s (D-GA) moniker, The Hill reported. Green noted that Russell's segregationist bent was problematic and thus necessitates the change.
Green said that the existing name "sends a powerful signal about the kind of leadership and principles our country holds in high esteem," the Texas Democrat wrote in a letter sent to every Senator. "These symbols should inspire a vision of liberty and justice for all, not the glorification of a person who fought to deny basic rights to millions of Americans and to entrench white supremacy in our democracy,” he added.
Russell served in the upper chamber from 1933 until 1971 when he died. Shortly after his death, the Senate renamed the "Old Senate Office Building" to honor Russell in a vote that went 99-1 in favor of doing so.
Like many Democrats of his time, Russell was vehemently opposed to the Civil Rights Movement and later called the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the "separate but equal" precedent in public school policy a "flagrant abuse of judicial power and a violation of states' rights." Shockingly, Russell joined other Southern senators in the "Southern Manifesto," which sought to reverse the court's decision to desegregate public schools.
Russell would eventually change his tune in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act passed urging people to "comply with the law of the land." Still, the fact that he held such reprehensible views is compelling Green to make sure his name is removed from the building.
This is not the first time Green has initiated this action in the Senate. He tried similar initiatives in July 2020, February 2022, and in June of this year. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has also attempted a name change and introduced a 2018 resolution to rename the building after GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who died that year.
Green is not asking for it to be named after McCain or anyone else, but rather that the building return to its original designation until a "worthy successor" is found. "This clarion call is not an attempt to erase history, but an effort to ensure that our prominent public spaces reflect our best ideals, not our darkest actions," Green said.
"Continuing to honor racist Senator Russell in the very halls where he obstructed civil rights legislation is an affront to all who believe we cannot glorify racism. It is long past time for the Senate to remove this racist symbol of national shame," he added.
While Green is trying to change the name of a building, his other antics have made more headlines during his time in Congress. He was censured after interrupting President Donald Trump's address to the joint session of Congress earlier this year.
Green is prone to theatrics, but he made waves during Trump's speech by interrupting the president in his first address to lawmakers. Even 10 Democrats joined in to censure Green as many denounced his actions, Fox News reported.
"Al Green's childish outburst exposed the chaos and dysfunction within the Democrat party since President Trump's overwhelming win in November and his success in office thus far. It is not surprising that 198 Democrats refused to support Green's censure, given their history of radical, inflammatory rhetoric fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome," said House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) at the time.
Of course, Green was thrown out of the joint session, and Democrats later sang "We Shall Overcome" when the censure was being introduced. Green's antics have continued as he attempted to impeach Trump several times and is at it once again.
"There will be articles of impeachment filed before the Christmas break, this I will pledge to you," Green said on Thursday, according to The Hill. The Texas Democrat has tried this before, but he keeps getting accolades from his fellow leftists each time he does it which is likely what spurs him to continue the effort.
The issue of whether to keep historical names and monuments continues and is an important conversation to have. While Green may have a point since Russell was a more contemporary lawmaker who held views antithetical to American values today, it still seems like another stunt from a Washington, D.C. swamp dweller who will do anything for attention.
Country music icon Dolly Parton was forced to skip her big night for the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions Hall of Fame due to poor health, Fox News reported. The 79-year-old was set to be inducted into the Hall of Fame, where she was to be honored for her Pigeon Forge, Tennessee, Dollywood vacation destination.
The theme park opened in 1961 but was taken over as a joint venture between Parton and her business partners, Jack and Peter Herschend, in 1986. It has been a mainstay in family recreation for decades, and Parton was to be recognized for her role in creating it.
On Wednesday, Parton shared a video message to apologize to fans and the IAAPA for her absence. She has missed others last month due to her declining health, but she assured the public that she's doing well, captioning the video "I ain't dead yet" in her post to Instagram.
View this post on Instagram
"Well, hey there, it's Dolly, and I sure wish I could be with you in person today, but you probably heard that I've been dealing with a few health challenges this fall. And my doctors told me to take it easy for just a little while," Parton said in her signature drawl.
"And I'm truly sorry I can't be there, but I sure wanted to take the chance to say thank you for this incredible honor," she added. The "Jolene" singer went on to thank her business partners, the Herschend brothers, for their part in her success.
"I trust them, and they trust me, and they always listen when I come in with one of my big ideas and dreams. And somehow the amazing team at Dollywood finds a way to make those dreams come true," Parton said.
Parton similarly posted a video last month after canceling some appearances due to declining health. "Well, today's October the 8th, and obviously I'm here doing some commercials for the Grand Ole Opry, which is why I'm dressed kind of like a country western girl," Parton told fans in a separate Instagram post.
"But before I got started, I wanted to say, I know lately everybody thinks that I am sicker than I am. Do I look sick to you? I'm working hard here," she added.
Parton has not shared the exact nature of her health struggles, but it's clear that she's doing all she can to reassure fans. Perhaps that's partly because the popular theme park bearing her name turns 40 this year, and the celebrations have already begun.
"On a crisp March morning in 2025, as sunlight turns the Great Smoky Mountains gold, it’s easy to understand why TripAdvisor named Dollywood America’s #1 theme park for the third time in four years. What started as a small mountain attraction in 1961 has grown into a nationally beloved destination, yet it remains rooted in the authenticity and warmth Dolly Parton envisioned when she partnered with the Herschend family in 1986," the theme park's website said.
"Dollywood’s story is one of transformation, community, innovation, and heart. As the park celebrates its 40th anniversary, its legacy has never been stronger."
The popular theme park is just one piece of what makes Parton so beloved. She is an actress, singer, larger-than-life celebrity, and a member of the Country Music Hall of Fame for iconic hits such as "I Will Always Love You," which became a chart topper for Whitney Houston, and "Coat of Many Colors" about her experience growing up poor in Appalachia.
Parton is fighting hard through her health battles with her usual candor, wit, and sunny outlook. She is a national treasure, and her fans are surely pulling for her during this difficult time.
An Obama-appointed judge has ruled that President Donald Trump can't revoke Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Syrian nationals currently inside the United States.
United States District Judge Katherine Polk Failla ruled in favor of seven Syrian nationals that sued to prevent the end of TPS that was set for Friday, even though they and the other 6,000 who are here have no status at all in the country.
The decision to end TPS for Syrians came from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in September.
“This is what restoring sanity to America’s immigration system looks like,” DHS’s Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement at the time.
"Conditions in Syria no longer prevent their nationals from returning home," she added. "Syria has been a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades, and it is contrary to our national interest to allow Syrians to remain in our country. TPS is meant to be temporary."
For Democrats, TPS has turned into de facto amnesty without any end in sight, and Trump wants to reverse this trend, and he will surely appeal this decision up to the Supreme Court if he has to.
Syria is not the first country to have TPS ended for its citizens. Since Trump took office, he has ended TPS for nationals from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
He has been challenged on the ending of TPS for Haitian nationals as well as those from Cameroon, with Burma and Ethiopia pending before the end of the year.
Let's face it, people from most countries in the world have it worse than people have it here in the U.S., even non-citizens.
Of course, if you make the immigration laws lax and let people know about it, you will get millions and millions of people flooding here from other countries.
But if we want the U.S. to stay at the top of the heap in its opportunities and lifestyle, then we can't have those numbers of migrants flocking here.
Trump knows this and he's actually doing something about it, no matter how much flack he gets for it.
He has restricted legal immigration a lot more than usual, but that could be because we have had at least 6 million illegal immigrants during the four years of the Biden administration.
Once ICE has a chance to do its job and get illegal immigrants back where they belong, maybe more legal immigration will be allowed.
President Donald Trump’s latest Truth Social tirade has ignited a firestorm, with Democrat leaders sounding the alarm over what they see as dangerous rhetoric targeting lawmakers.
At the heart of this controversy is a series of posts from Trump reacting to a viral video of six Democrat lawmakers urging military personnel to reject unlawful orders, prompting accusations of sedition from the president, fierce pushback from the left, and a broader debate over the potential for political violence, as Fox News reports.
The drama began with a video featuring Sens. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, alongside Reps. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Jason Crow of Colorado, and Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, calling on service members and intelligence officials to defy orders they deem illegal.
Trump didn’t hold back, blasting the video on Truth Social as “really bad, and Dangerous to our Country,” and escalating with calls of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Let’s unpack that -- while frustration with perceived defiance of authority is understandable, suggesting capital punishment for elected officials is a rhetorical bazooka in a debate that needs a scalpel. The repost of a user’s comment, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD,” only fans the flames of an already tense situation.
Amid rising concerns over the legality of Trump’s military actions, including strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and National Guard deployments to Democrat-leaning cities, this video struck a raw nerve on both sides of the aisle.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the Senate floor, accusing Trump of directly calling “for the execution of elected officials,” warning that such language “makes political violence more likely."
Schumer’s imagery of Trump “lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline” paints a vivid picture, though one might argue it’s a tad dramatic -- still, with recent political violence like assassination attempts on Trump and others, the concern isn’t baseless.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries echoed the outrage, labeling Trump’s words “disgusting and dangerous death threats against Members of Congress” in a joint statement, while coordinating with Capitol Police to protect the targeted lawmakers and their families.
Republicans, meanwhile, aren’t letting the Democrats off the hook, with Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina slamming the video as “Despicable” and demanding specifics on what unlawful orders these lawmakers are referencing.
Graham’s frustration is palpable when he asks, “What is an unlawful order, what the f--- is it?”—a fair question, as vague calls to defy authority can muddy the waters of military discipline, though his acknowledgment of Trump’s reaction as “over the top” shows even allies see the rhetoric as excessive.
The White House, through press secretary Karoline Leavitt, denied any intent to execute lawmakers, insisting Trump was reacting to calls to “defy the president’s lawful orders,” and warning that breaking the chain of command risks chaos and loss of life.
The six lawmakers defended their stance in a joint statement, arguing that Trump deems it “punishable by death” to simply restate legal obligations, reaffirming their support for service members adhering to constitutional duties.
This clash comes against a backdrop of heightened political unrest, including two attempts on Trump’s life, the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, and a surge in threats against Congress -- hardly the time for anyone to be tossing around execution talk, no matter how metaphorical.
While Trump’s defenders might argue he’s just venting frustration over perceived disloyalty, and Democrats may be amplifying the outrage for political points, the stakes here are real -- words matter, and in a nation already on edge, both sides need to dial down the heat before someone gets burned.
In a striking push against what many view as oppressive federal overreach, House Republicans have advanced two energy bills to revitalize American energy independence.
On Thursday night, the House approved the REFINER Act and the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act, targeting stronger U.S. refineries and faster liquefied natural gas (LNG) project approvals while reversing restrictive policies from the prior administration, as the Daily Caller reports.
First, consider the REFINER Act, led by Rep. Bob Latta of Ohio, which passed with a solid 230-176 vote. This bill mandates a National Petroleum Council report to Congress and the Energy Secretary on whether U.S. policies are obstructing the refinery industry. It’s a no-nonsense effort to spotlight red tape that may be inflating gas prices.
Then there’s the Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act, brought by Rep. August Pfluger of Texas, which cleared the House 217-208. This measure transfers LNG project approval authority from the politically swayed Department of Energy (DOE) to the more impartial Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). After a 2024 DOE order stalled LNG approvals under the Biden administration, this aims to dodge future bureaucratic bottlenecks.
House Republicans are clear about their mission with these bills. They claim this legislation breaks away from what they call stifling energy rules of the past, paving the way for American energy leadership and relief at the pump. While the vision is bold, the Senate’s response remains a wildcard.
Pfluger didn’t mince words about his LNG bill’s impact. “Today’s House passage of my Unlocking Our Domestic LNG Potential Act is another major victory in achieving American energy dominance,” he told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“My legislation reforms the broken, politically weaponized approval process so we can streamline permitting for exporting LNG once and for all,” Pfluger added. If this shift to FERC holds, it could spark infrastructure investment and bolster allies’ energy security -- though partisan interference isn’t entirely off the table.
Economically, proponents of both bills argue they’ll fine-tune refinery efficiency and free the LNG industry from abrupt policy shifts. That’s a potential boost for jobs and stability, even if detractors question the risks of loosening oversight.
House Majority Whip Rep. Tom Emmer also took a sharp swipe at previous policies. “House Republicans and President Trump are undoing the damage done by climate alarmists and activist bureaucrats,” he told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
“For four years, the Biden administration crippled America’s energy production with burdensome regulations that drove up costs and increased our dependency on foreign adversaries,” Emmer continued. His point about soaring costs and foreign reliance resonates with many feeling the pinch, even if the tone might ruffle feathers.
Structurally, the difference between agencies matters here. The DOE, under a presidential appointee, often sways with political tides, while FERC’s bipartisan setup focuses on technical energy regulation. Shifting LNG approvals to FERC could insulate projects from ideological flip-flops, though it’s not foolproof.
Brett Guthrie, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, backed the bills in a Thursday statement. He framed them as vital for energy security and easing costs for working families. It’s a relatable argument, even with the Senate hurdle looming large.
Both the REFINER Act and the LNG bill now advance to the Senate, where their future is uncertain. Will senators embrace these as practical solutions or dismiss them as partisan maneuvers? That’s the critical uncertainty for energy supporters.
For the moment, House Republicans are positioning these bills as a turning point in energy policy, favoring American strength over what they see as excessive environmental mandates. It’s a deliberate move to shift the conversation, backed by solid House votes.
Yet, the ultimate outcome hinges on Senate action. These bills carry big promises -- lower costs, energy dominance -- but delivering on them isn’t guaranteed. House GOP has fired the first shot; now it’s a waiting game.
In a powerful display of resolve, President Donald Trump welcomed 17 freed Israeli hostages and their families to the White House on Thursday, marking a significant moment in his administration’s efforts to broker peace in the Middle East, as Just the News reports.
This gathering, held one month after Trump played a key role in securing their release from Hamas, underscored his 20-point plan to end Israel’s prolonged conflict with the group, a deal that also saw Israel release over 1,900 Palestinian prisoners.
These hostages, the last living ones freed by Hamas after a grueling two-year war, represent a hard-fought victory for diplomacy over destruction.
Just a day before the White House event, the former hostages met with high-ranking U.S. officials, including special envoy Steve Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
These discussions likely set the stage for the emotional and symbolic meeting with Trump, where personal stories of survival took center stage over bureaucratic handshakes.
Among those present was Matan Angrest, captured while defending the Nahal Oz outpost, whose ordeal Trump highlighted as a testament to enduring strength.
Trump didn’t mince words, telling Angrest and the group, “You’re not a hostage anymore. Today you’re heroes,” adding, “We love you all, and our country loves you all. You’re amazing people."
Let’s unpack that -- calling them heroes isn’t just rhetoric; it’s a rejection of the victimhood narrative so often peddled by progressive circles, instead honoring individual grit and national pride.
Angrest’s story, in particular, moved Trump, who noted the severe beatings the young defender endured, yet marveled at his recovery with a nod to his robust spirit.
Twins Gali and Ziv Berman, also among the freed, presented Trump with a mezuzah from their home in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, a community devastated by horrific events on Oct. 7, 2023.
Their accompanying letter explained, “This mezuzah was lovingly removed from the door of Gali's room in our home... a community that endured unspeakable horrors,” and thanked Trump for his role in their survival.
That’s not just a gift; it’s a profound gesture, a reminder that faith and resilience outlast even the darkest of times—something the left’s endless focus on grievance often overlooks.
Trump’s broader remarks to the group emphasized inspiration beyond any single community, framing their courage as a universal call to perseverance.
The administration’s facilitation of this release deal, tied to a comprehensive plan to halt the conflict, shows a commitment to results over empty promises -- a refreshing change from years of diplomatic gridlock.
As this White House meeting proves, Trump’s approach prioritizes real outcomes for real people, not just headlines, offering a model of leadership that cuts through the noise of woke posturing with tangible hope.
Brace yourselves, patriots -- the U.S. Supreme Court is stepping into a fiery showdown over President Donald Trump’s daring push to reshape birthright citizenship, as the Associated Press reports.
The justices convened behind closed doors on Friday to debate Trump’s executive order, which aims to strip citizenship from children born in the U.S. to parents here without authorization or on temporary visas, a policy halted by lower courts nationwide.
Let’s set the stage: Trump issued this order on day one of his second term, kicking off a hardline immigration agenda with a bang.
This citizenship rule is just one piece of a larger enforcement puzzle, alongside intensified operations in urban centers and the unprecedented peacetime use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act.
The Supreme Court has already intervened with emergency rulings, blocking rapid deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members without hearings while approving broad immigration stops in Los Angeles despite lower court objections over profiling.
They’re also considering the administration’s urgent plea to send National Guard troops for enforcement in Chicago, a move currently frozen by a lower court’s indefinite block.
At the heart of this storm is Trump’s challenge to over a century of precedent tied to the 14th Amendment, which has long ensured citizenship for nearly everyone born on American soil.
The administration contends that children of noncitizens aren’t under U.S. jurisdiction, thus ineligible for citizenship -- a theory that’s sparked fierce legal pushback.
Lower courts, from the 9th Circuit in San Francisco to a federal judge in New Hampshire, have unanimously rejected the policy as likely unconstitutional, pointing to the 14th Amendment’s post-Civil War purpose of securing citizenship for all born here.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer is pressing the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that lower court decisions “undermine our border security” by wrongly granting citizenship to many.
On the flip side, Cody Wofsy of the American Civil Liberties Union, leading the New Hampshire class-action fight, scoffs that the administration’s case has “arguments so flimsy” they barely stand up to scrutiny.
While the Supreme Court curbed nationwide injunctions earlier this year, it left wiggle room for blocks in class-action or state-led cases, allowing these lower court rulings to hold -- for the moment.
If the justices agree to hear Trump’s appeal, a decision we might get as soon as Monday, arguments could hit the docket in spring with a final ruling by early summer.
Until then, this policy sits in legal purgatory, a flashpoint in the ongoing battle over immigration and national identity, as the administration fights two key cases to advance its stance.
For now, the nation watches as the Court weighs whether to tackle this monumental issue, one that could redefine what it means to be American while balancing border control with constitutional bedrock.