In the aftermath of a Democrat statement encouraging military troops to disobey orders from President Donald Trump, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) admitted to ABC "This Week" host Martha Raddatz that she wasn't aware of any instance when President Donald Trump issued an illegal order to the military.
“Let’s talk right now. Do you believe President Trump has issued any illegal orders?” Raddatz asked.
“To my knowledge, I am not aware of things that are illegal — but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes, and everything related to Venezuela,” Slotkin answered.
Slotkin justified the Democrat statement about disobeying Trump, which she participated in, by saying that they did it because of the “sheer number” of troops and young officers asking them what they “should do.”
“Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren’t just coming from abroad, but from right here at home,” the lawmakers say in the video, which was released on Tuesday.
“Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders,” Kelly says in the video.
“You can refuse illegal orders,” Slotkin says in the video.
President Donald Trump's response on Truth Social initially said the statement was "sedition," which is "punishable by death," but Trump later revised his statement after saying he did not want to "execute" the lawmakers.
“THE TRAITORS THAT TOLD THE MILITARY TO DISOBEY MY ORDERS SHOULD BE IN JAIL RIGHT NOW, NOT ROAMING THE FAKE NEWS NETWORKS TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT WHAT THEY SAID WAS OKAY,” Trump wrote in a post on Saturday. “IT WASN’T, AND NEVER WILL BE! IT WAS SEDITION AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL, AND SEDITION IS A MAJOR CRIME. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SAID!”
It is important to note that, technically, the Democrats did not tell military members to disobey Trump.
That being said, they certainly seemed to imply from their comments that Trump was a "threat to the Constitution" and was issuing or would likely issue illegal orders to the military at some point, which is unfair and wrong of them to do.
Their words obviously created a controversy, based on Slotkin's appearance on "This Week."
Even if they were sincere about wanting to respond to the inquiries they said they were getting, they ended up inflaming the situation rather than calming it down, which is never a good thing (but probably exactly what they wanted to do, if truth be told).
President Donald Trump has terminated Temporary Protected Status for Somali migrants in Minnesota after news broke of a billion-dollar fraud scandal.
It turns out that the massive Somali community in Minnesota was engaged in a giant money laundering scheme that defrauded government programs of billions of dollars.
Of course, it doesn't stop there, as counter-terrorism officials discovered that some of the money had been sent back to Somalia to the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump wrote, "Minnesota, under Governor Waltz, is a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity. I am, as President of the United States, hereby terminating, effective immediately, the Temporary Protected Status (TPS Program) for Somalis in Minnesota. Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing."
Concerns about Minnesota's massive Somali community that is effectively taking over areas of Minnesota and forming enclaves have been rising for some time. Now those concerns have been validated with the discovery of fraud and terrorist funding.
A report from the City Journal explained that, "Billions in taxpayer dollars have been stolen during the administration of Governor Tim Walz alone. Democratic state officials, overseeing one of the most generous welfare regimes in the country, are asleep at the switch. And the media, duty-bound by progressive pieties, refuse to connect the dots."
Remember, this is the same Tim Walz that Democrats thought would make a good Vice President of the United States last year. Minnesota is entirely run by Democrats, so the blame for this horrific scandal falls firmly on their shoulders.
The Journal continued, "Federal counterterrorism sources confirm that millions of dollars in stolen funds have been sent back to Somalia, where they ultimately landed in the hands of the terror group Al-Shabaab. As one confidential source put it: “The largest funder of Al-Shabaab is the Minnesota taxpayer."
For those who aren't aware, Al-Shabaab is responsible for the death of thousands of Somali's over the past two decades. It speaks volumes that Somalians coming to the U.S., seemingly to escape terrorism, are sending money back to this organization.
Ending TPS status for these migrants is the only sensible course of action for the White House. Any Somali immigrant sending money back home to fund terrorism there has no place in the United States.
The extent of these fraud schemes also remains to be fully unearthed, and some suspect it could go all the way to the top with Democrat officials being involved.
The City Journal's report noted that under the state's Democrat leadership, Somali scammers took advantage of the state's Medicaid Housing Stabilization Services program, which launched in 2021 with expenses expected to ring in at $2.6 million. The program paid out $21 million in its first year. In the following years, the program ballooned to $42 million, then $74 million, and then $104 million.
U.S. attorney Joe Thompson said during a press conference that, "What we see are schemes stacked upon schemes, draining resources meant for those in need. It feels never ending. I have spent my career as a fraud prosecutor, and the depth of the fraud in Minnesota takes my breath away.”
This kind of fraud and corruption doesn't happen without the participation of government officials in Tim Walz's administration. Every single one of those officials must be held accountable and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Former first lady Michelle Obama ignited a firestorm by making bigoted statements about Americans, and even prominent leftists aren't happy with her flippant comments.
Obama was conducting a book tour at the Brooklyn Academy of Music last week when she claimed that America isn't ready for a female president and cited that as her reason for not running for president in 2028.
Speaking to actress Tracee Ellis Ross, Obama said, "As we saw in the past election, sadly, we ain’t ready. That’s why I’m like, don’t even look at me about running, because you all are lying. You’re not ready for a woman. You are not. So don’t waste my time."
However, it only got worse as Obama became downright condescending when she said, "We got a lot of growing up to do and there’s still, sadly, a lot of men who do not feel like they can be led by a woman, and we saw it."
This remark predictably made many Americans angry, and even leftists like 'Real Time' host Bill Maher and ex-DNC chair Donna Brazile blasted Obama for her divisive and inaccurate comments.
The Obama couple has made a massive career out of pushing grievance politics and dividing Americans, but many people are sick of it. So much for hope and change.
On Friday's showing of “Real Time," Maher tore into Obama saying, "She was in the news this week, Michelle Obama. She has a book out. A coffee table book. Her statement, I was rather shocked by it. To me, this is logical fallacy 101. Just because we weren’t ready or didn’t like the candidates, Hillary and Kamala, doesn’t mean we are not ready for a woman."
He continued by saying, "I think it’s a bad attitude. We said we weren’t ready for a black president and someone, I can’t remember who maybe she remembers, said maybe it just has to be the right one."
Brazile chimed in by pointing out that Hillary Clinton actually won the popular vote in 2016 despite losing in the electoral college. Obama's assertion that Americans aren't ready for a woman president is absurd considering two women very nearly became president.
The real issue is that those two candidates, Clinton and former Vice President Kamala Harris, were some of the worst candidates in American history.
Furthermore, both of those candidates attempted to leverage their status as women to guilt Americans into voting for them. The reality is that the right woman candidate would win an election, but not just any woman.
The harsh reality is that Michelle Obama is likely not running for president in 2028 due to the fact that she simply isn't that great of a candidate. The stock of the Obama name has cratered in recent years as the luster has worn off with increased scrutiny of her husband's record.
Michelle Obama has come up as a possible candidate for the Democrat Party because of their lack of good candidates. Democrats were forced to run a geriatric Joe Biden twice in a row, and the results were far from ideal.
The less said about former Vice President Kamala Harris, the better. At this stage, a presidential run could do more damage to Obama's image for little reward. Of course, that's assuming the Obamas don't continue to make inflammatory statements that anger large swaths of Americans.
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.
An American citizen who served jail time in Saudi Arabia and was banned from leaving the country after his release in 2023 will now be released after a meeting between Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and President Donald Trump at the White House.
Police in Saudi Arabia arrested 75-year-old Saad Almadi during a family visit in 2021 after he suggested on X that a street in the country's capital be renamed after Jamal Khashoggi, a journalist who died at a Saudi Arabian consulate in 2018.
He was accused of terrorism for that criticism of the Saudi royal family, sentenced to 13 years in jail, but was only jailed until 2023. He was not allowed to leave the country after being released, however.
Almadi's family was grateful for his release and credited Trump with arranging it.
"This day would not have been possible without President Donald Trump and the tireless efforts of his administration,” the Almadi family said in a statement after his release was announced. “We are deeply grateful to Dr. Sebastian Gorka and the team at the National Security Council, as well as everyone at the State Department.”
Why did the Saudi royal family consider Almadi's post to be critical of it?
Because there have been long-standing accusations that the crown prince ordered the operation that took Khashoggi out, even though Salman denies that he did so.
And how does criticizing the royal family of Saudi Arabia get turned into terrorism?
Well, you're on your own with that one.
In addition to Almadi's release, Trump also seemed to get another $400,000 in U.S. investments out of Salman.
It was a very productive meeting, by all accounts.
Trump has often bragged about his positive relationship with Saudi Arabia, but it hasn't always been evident in how the country has treated the U.S.
Now, Salman seems to be pleased with Trump's policies and appreciative that Trump is letting the whole Khashoggi thing slide. Not sure if that's a good idea or not, but I guess it's water under the $1 billion bridge now.
The Supreme Court has declined to hear oral arguments on a case in which a Florida athletic organization would not let a Christian school say a prayer over the loudspeaker before a championship game.
The court's decision in the case of Cambridge Christian School, Inc. v. Florida High School Athletic Association appeared Monday on a list of orders.
It was not signed and no explanation was given for the order.
The appeals court ruling in the case said that the use of the loudspeaker made the prayer "government speech."
Prior to the championship game in 2015 at Citrus Bowl stadium, it was common practice for Cambridge Christian School to say a prayer over the loudspeaker before games.
Cambridge was playing University Christian School in that game, and both teams requested the prayer.
Roger Dearing of FHSAA told the schools that the Citrus Bowl was "a public facility, predominantly paid for with public tax dollars, [making] the facility 'off limits' under federal guidelines and precedent court cases."
"In Florida Statutes, the FHSAA (host and coordinator of the event) is legally a 'State Actor,' we cannot legally permit or grant permission for such an activity," Dearing said at the time.
An appeals court in 2019 reversed a lower court decision upholding the ban, but further appeals reinstated the ban.
The argument given was that FHSAA was essentially regulating its own speech, which doesn't fall under the purview of the First Amendment.
It makes sense given that the two Christian schools were members of FHSAA and would be under its rules and leadership.
If SCOTUS saw the issue similarly, it wouldn't have a reason to take the case.
Though it seems counterintuitive for two teams who both agree they want to have a prayer to be told they can't, it seems that it can happen in a lawful way that makes sense at some level.
The intersection of secular and religious society has become a little too separate for me, but maybe it's for the best in the end.
A divided appeals court ruled last year that migrants must be allowed to apply for asylum in the U.S. even if they are stopped at the border before they actually enter the U.S.
President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse this ruling and allow immigration officials to turn away asylum seekers before they get to the border and before they actually apply for asylum.
The case hinges on the court's interpretation of The Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows an “alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” to apply for asylum.
Trump wants the high court to flip the current interpretation of the law, that migrants are considered "physically present" even if they are on the Mexico side of the border.
“In ordinary English, a person ‘arrives in’ a country only when he comes within its borders,” Solicitor General John Sauer said in a filing. “An alien thus does not ‘arrive in’ the United States while he is still in Mexico.”
Immigration rights group Al Otro Lado obviously disagreed, according to Breitbart.
“Our immigration laws require the government to inspect and process people seeking asylum at ports of entry and allow them to pursue their legal claims in the United States,” it said in a statement.
“The government’s turnback policy was an illegal scheme to circumvent these requirements by physically blocking asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry and preventing them from crossing the border to seek protection,” Al Otro Lado said.
The group also argued that the turnback policy put families and individuals in jeopardy by forcing them to stay in unsafe conditions in Mexico while they wait for their asylum hearings.
Migrants have been assaulted, kidnapped, and murdered, they said.
Most would rather just give up than wait for potentially months or years in such conditions, but isn't that the point?
The vast majority of asylum seekers will be rejected, so letting an unlimited number of migrants into the country to await their hearings doesn't make sense.
That's how we ended up with millions of illegal immigrants in the country under former President Joe Biden, and Trump has pretty much turned all of that around just by adopting a stern attitude and letting migrants know his administration was going to make it hard on them.
Trump definitely has the right idea, and the court will hopefully see it his way.
President Donald Trump called on Sunday for House Republicans to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, a reversal from his earlier opposition to doing so.
"We have nothing to hide, and it's time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party," Trump wrote after his return from a weekend in Florida.
With the addition of a new Democrat to the House, that chamber is able to pass a pending measure compelling the DOJ to release all files related to Epstein with or without the support of Trump.
Furthermore, selectively leaked emails have put Trump in a bad light in regards to alleged involvement with Epstein, and he now seems eager to use the emails to correct the record and fight the allegations that he had anything to do with Epstein's sex trafficking and other illicit activities with underage girls.
Republicans like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said on some Sunday political shows that they expect up to 100 Republicans to break from Trump and order the release of the files.
"I'm hoping to get a veto-proof majority on this legislation when it comes up for a vote," Massie said, adding that he expects a "deluge" of GOP lawmakers to vote yes on it.
A discharge petition from Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) for the release of the files has been on the docket since July, but Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) sent the chamber on recess early to avoid a vote at the time.
When they came back into session, that discharge petition was still hanging over their heads.
Furthermore, Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) was finally sworn in, giving Massie and his GOP cohorts the 218th vote needed to make the petition successful.
Her swearing in was delayed during the federal government shutdown, and some have said it was to avoid this vote while Trump still opposed it.
"I'm not tired of winning yet, but we are winning," Massie said.
Johnson seemed to acknowledge Massie's win on the issue.
"We'll just get this done and move it on. There's nothing to hide," he said, adding that the Oversight Committee has released "more information than the discharge petition, their little gambit."
"They're doing this to go after President Trump on this theory that he has something to do with it. He does not," Johnson said.
Newly released records from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate have exposed a text conversation between a Democrat delegate and the late billionaire and child trafficker.
Democratic Virgin Islands Delegate Stacey Plaskett was testifying in front of Congress in 2019 when she exchanged text messages with Epstein, seemingly consulting with him on how to answer questions.
These messages were released in a large batch of documents from the House Oversight Committee this November as the House continues to dig into Epstein's empire of child trafficking and political influence.
Plaskett was one of the members of a Congressional panel questioning former Trump attorney Michael Cohen in February 2019 and it appears that she was coordinating with Epstein on how to nail Cohen down and cause trouble for President Donald Trump.
One text from Epstein read, "Hes [Cohen] opened the door to questions re who are the other henchmen at trump org." These texts suggest Epstein was working with Democrats to undermine Trump, completely undermining an emerging narrative that Trump and Epstein were friends in any capacity.
For years, Democrats accused Trump of colluding with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election. That conspiracy was based on falsified opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, but Trump had to fight against those charges for years.
At the same time that Democrats were pushing the Russian collusion hoax, it seems that certain Democrats were in active communication with Epstein on how to undermine Trump.
Furthermore, by 2019, Epstein's human trafficking allegations were firmly in play, leaving little excuse for anyone to be dealing with him. Democrats accused Trump of being friends with Epstein ignoring the fact that Trump kicked Epstein out of Mar-A-Lago in 2004.
To add further intrigue to this situation, Plaskett herself received significant political donations from Epstein and initially refused to return those donations after Epstein's arrest until public pressure built up.
Plaskett has also been named in a 2023 lawsuit filed by six Epstein accusers alleging Virgin Islands authorities benefited from or enabled Epstein's child trafficking network. While the case was dismissed, it's become apparent that Plaskett was firmly in Epstein's orbit and benefited from his monstrous crimes.
The information released by the House Oversight Committee is long overdue, as Americans deserve answers about Epstein's crimes and those who were aware and/or participated in those crimes.
Even while these discoveries are important, they shine a light on the incompetence of Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has been downright dismissive of demands from voters to release more information on Epstein and his sordid criminal network.
Trump promised transparency if elected, and so far, the people that Trump has brought into his administration have failed miserably in fulfilling that promise. It's unlikely that Plaskett was the only Democrat politician with deep ties to Epstein; there are likely others still serving in Congress who must face accountability.
New York Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani called on his supporters to boycott the popular coffee shop chain Starbucks in support of the workers' union.
Starbucks Workers United, the union representing the coffee shop's employees, has declared an open-ended strike in what is being dubbed the "Red Cup Rebellion."
The union alleges that Starbucks is engaged in unfair labor practices and is refusing to negotiate with the union in good faith.
Mamdani took to X on Thursday saying, "Starbucks workers across the country are on an Unfair Labor Practices strike, fighting for a fair contract. While workers are on strike, I won’t be buying any Starbucks, and I’m asking you to join us. Together, we can send a powerful message: No contract, no coffee."
It's hard to imagine leftist consumers being able to skip buying their daily overpriced frappuccino, but if anyone can mobilize leftists, it's the self-described socialist set to be New York City's next mayor.
In a post on social media, the union wrote, "As of today, Starbucks workers across the country are officially ON STRIKE and we're prepared for this to become the biggest and longest ULP strike in Starbucks history. Say #NoContractNoCoffee with us: DON'T BUY STARBUCKS for the duration of our open-ended ULP strike! $SBUX."
This boycott coincided with Starbucks's Red Cup Day, an important day for Starbucks loyalists who can pick up a holiday-themed red cup that is reusable.
It's a powerful move to flip what is typically a great marketing scheme by Starbucks on its head and use it as a rallying point for the boycott as the union works to get a better deal from the company.
However, the effectiveness of this boycott is certainly in question. If you ask Starbucks representatives, this year's Red Cup Day was a massive success despite the union's boycott.
Jaci Anderson, Starbucks Director of Global Communications, spoke to Fox News and explained, "In terms of our annual Reusable Red Cup Day – we actually had a great day – 99% of our coffeehouses remained open and welcoming customers and we exceeded our sales expectations across company-operated coffeehouses in North America, making it the best Red Cup Day ever."
She continued by saying, "We’re disappointed that Workers United, who represents less than 4% of our partners, has called for a strike instead of returning to the bargaining table. Less than 1% of our coffeehouses are experiencing any level of disruption and the vast majority of our 240,000 partners came to work ready to serve customers and celebrate Reuseable Red Cup Day. "
So far, it would appear that even Mamdani can't seem to get the average leftist to stand with workers' unions against their favorite corporation that sells overpriced coffee.
Turns out leftist voters care more about their overpriced coffee, which is a hallmark of American consumerism, than standing with workers. It's entirely possible that with Mamdani's campaign over, many of his supporters no longer care about ongoing political issues.
As for Starbucks, they insist that they are ready to hold talks with the union, even though Starbucks Workers United doesn't have enough members to disrupt Starbucks' operations on a national level. For conservatives, this entire situation is an entertaining episode of left-on-left violence, considering Starbucks's massive contributions to the Democrat Party.