Iran’s chilling assassination plot against former President Donald Trump reveals the dangerous reach of its terror network, according to a former U.S. official. John Bolton, who served as National Security Adviser under Trump, exposed the regime’s retaliatory scheme on Sky News’ The World, linking it to the 2020 killing of a top Iranian commander. This unprecedented threat against American leaders demands a strong response to protect national sovereignty.
As reported by The Sun, Bolton warned that Iran’s terror network spans Europe and the United States, targeting former U.S. officials. The assassination list, he claims, is retaliation for the U.S. strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, a key Iranian military figure. Soleimani led the Quds Force, which orchestrated Iran’s operations abroad.
Soleimani, designated a terrorist by the U.S., was a powerful commander whose death in 2020 provoked Iran’s vow of vengeance. Bolton emphasized that Trump tops Iran’s hit list, with himself and other former cabinet officials also targeted. These threats stem from actions taken in their official duties, not personal disputes.
Iran’s terror network, Bolton revealed, is alarmingly sophisticated, operating across the Middle East and Europe. The regime allegedly employs Eastern European criminal gangs to carry out its plots. This global reach underscores the need for vigilance against foreign threats on American soil.
In 2022, the U.S. Justice Department issued an arrest warrant for Shahram Poursafi, an Iranian national accused of plotting to assassinate Bolton. This incident highlights Iran’s willingness to act on its threats. Bolton stressed that such actions against senior U.S. officials could be considered an act of war.
“I think Iran’s terror network is quite extensive,” Bolton said, pointing to its operations in Western nations. He warned that the regime’s actions are not mere rhetoric but a clear danger. The targeting of American leaders is a direct challenge to U.S. strength.
Bolton, a vocal critic of Trump, confirmed that the former president is Iran’s primary target. “President Trump is at the top of their list,” he stated, emphasizing the gravity of the threat. Other former cabinet officials also face similar dangers, marking an unprecedented escalation.
“Other former cabinet officials are targets of Iran,” Bolton noted, calling the situation unparalleled. He argued that these threats are not about dissent but retribution for official U.S. policies. This distinction underscores the regime’s hostility toward America’s leadership.
Bolton himself has been a target, requiring a security detail for protection. However, Trump withdrew Bolton’s Secret Service protection on his inauguration day. This decision, Bolton argued, sends a dangerous signal to America’s adversaries.
“On what one might have thought was a pretty busy inauguration day, President Trump had the time to cancel my Secret Service protection,” Bolton remarked. He has since arranged his security measures. The move raises questions about prioritizing personal grudges over national security.
Bolton warned that withdrawing protection weakens America’s stance against hostile regimes. “It sends a very bad signal to adversaries of the United States around the world,” he said. Such actions could embolden Iran and other enemies.
The former adviser also cautioned that targeting former officials could affect decision-making within Trump’s administration. “It’s going to have an effect decision making in Trump’s administration,” Bolton predicted. Fear of retribution may deter bold policy choices.
Bolton, a foreign policy hawk, described working in Trump’s White House as chaotic, likening it to “living inside a pinball machine.” Despite their differences, he remains united with Trump in facing Iran’s threats. His warnings highlight the need for unity against external dangers.
Iran’s alleged plots are a stark reminder of the costs of confronting global terror. Bolton stressed that these threats are “really dangerous behaviour” aimed at undermining U.S. resolve. The regime’s actions demand a robust defense of American interests.
As Iran’s terror network continues to threaten American leaders, the nation must stand firm. The targeting of Trump and others is a direct assault on the values of faith, family, and sovereignty. Protecting those who serve the country is essential to restoring America’s strength.
Senator John Fetterman’s erratic behavior in a recent meeting has raised red flags about his mental health. The Pennsylvania Democrat, known for his casual style and populist rhetoric, has drawn scrutiny after a troubling outburst in his Washington office. This incident, coupled with concerns from his former chief of staff, paints a worrying picture of a senator struggling to balance personal challenges and public duties.
According to AP News, Fetterman, who survived a stroke in 2022, reportedly lost control during a meeting with teachers' union representatives. The episode occurred just before a New York Magazine article detailed concerns about his mental health from former staff. His actions have sparked debate about his fitness to serve, especially as he drifts from the Democratic Party’s progressive orthodoxy.
In the meeting, Fetterman shouted repeatedly, questioning why “everybody is mad” at him and slamming his hands on his desk. His behavior left union representatives rattled and reduced a staff member to tears. The staffer abruptly ended the meeting, ushering the shaken teachers into the hallway.
Two sources, speaking anonymously to The Associated Press, described the chaotic scene. Fetterman’s outburst included long, repetitive rants and expressions of paranoia, such as asking why “everyone hates” him. This behavior echoes concerns raised by his former chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, in a 2024 letter.
Jentleson’s letter to neuropsychiatrist Dr. David Williamson outlined Fetterman’s troubling trajectory. It claimed the senator had abandoned his recovery plan, stopped seeing doctors, and might not be taking prescribed medications. Jentleson also noted Fetterman’s reckless driving and tendency to isolate himself from colleagues.
Fetterman’s health struggles are well-documented. In 2022, he suffered a stroke during his Senate campaign, followed by a 2023 hospitalization for depression at Walter Reed. He also battles cardiomyopathy and an auditory processing disorder, which requires him to use real-time transcription devices.
Despite these challenges, Fetterman won his Senate seat in 2022, campaigning in hoodies and gym shorts. His unpolished style resonated with Pennsylvania’s working-class voters, but his tenure has been marked by controversy. He has clashed with fellow Democrats, particularly over his support for Israel and willingness to work with President Donald Trump.
Fetterman’s political evolution has confounded many. Once a Bernie Sanders supporter in 2016, he later backed Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. His recent cooperation with Trump, including meetings and voting for some of Trump’s nominees, has alienated Pennsylvania Democrats.
Some Democrats, like Pennsylvania Democratic Party chairman Sharif Street, express concern for Fetterman’s well-being. “People are concerned about his health,” Street said. “They want to make sure he’s OK.”
Conservatives, however, have rallied behind Fetterman, praising his willingness to break from party lines. Comedian Bill Maher even suggested Fetterman run for president in 2028. This support underscores Fetterman’s appeal to those frustrated with elitist political norms.
Fetterman dismissed concerns about his health as overblown. “It’s a hit piece,” he told a reporter, calling the New York Magazine story a “one-source” attack. He insisted there’s “no news” and that his critics are exaggerating.
In a statement, Fetterman described the teachers' union meeting as a “spirited conversation” about frustration with Trump’s education cuts. “I will always support our teachers,” he said. He vowed to fight efforts to turn Pennsylvania’s public schools into voucher programs.
Yet, incidents like a 2025 video showing Fetterman arguing with a pilot over a seatbelt on a Pittsburgh flight fuel doubts. Jentleson’s letter warned that Fetterman had “dismantled” an early-warning system meant to monitor his health. This included pushing out those tasked with supporting his recovery.
Fetterman’s openness about his mental health struggles has earned him sympathy. “I was in a very dark place,” he told podcast host Joe Rogan in November 2024. His candor resonates with Americans who value authenticity over polished political facades.
Still, Fetterman’s behavior raises legitimate questions about his ability to serve. Pennsylvania voters, who elected him for his working-class grit, deserve a senator who can handle the job. As Fetterman navigates his challenges, his actions will determine whether he can regain trust or spiral further into controversy.
Chief Justice John Roberts, at 70, stands firm against pressures to retire, signaling his commitment to the Supreme Court’s vital role in upholding America’s constitutional framework. Speaking in Buffalo, N.Y., he dismissed concerns about his age and health with a sharp wit, reaffirming his dedication to judicial independence. His resolve counters progressive calls for reshaping the court to align with radical ideologies.
According to Just The News, during a Wednesday event in Buffalo, Roberts addressed a gathering celebrating the 125th anniversary of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. He spoke candidly about his tenure as Chief Justice, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as a coequal branch of government. The event provided a platform for Roberts to tackle growing scrutiny over the Supreme Court’s composition.
Roberts, who has served since 2005, stated he feels “pretty healthy” and has no immediate plans to step down. He acknowledged the physical demands of his role but insisted that age has rarely hindered the court’s operations. His confidence reflects a broader commitment to maintaining stability in an institution under siege by partisan attacks.
The Chief Justice underscored the judiciary’s authority to interpret the Constitution and curb excesses from Congress or the executive branch. He described this function as essential to preserving national sovereignty and preventing overreach by globalist-leaning elites. Roberts’ remarks resonate with Americans wary of centralized power eroding individual freedoms.
Roberts humorously recounted a conversation with two longtime friends tasked with monitoring his health. He asked them to alert him if his condition ever warranted retirement, only for them to jokingly reply in unison that the time had already come. Brushing off their quip, Roberts reaffirmed his intention to remain on the bench.
“I’m going out feet first,” Roberts declared, signaling his determination to serve as long as he remains effective. He clarified that he would step down if his health declined to the point of burdening the court.
Roberts acknowledged that a “handful of times” in the court’s history, justices have lingered beyond their capacity to serve. In such cases, colleagues intervened to resolve the issue amicably, ensuring the court’s integrity. He expressed confidence that similar situations would not pose a problem under his leadership.
The Chief Justice’s comments come amid heightened political tensions surrounding the judiciary. President Trump recently called for the impeachment of U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg after Boasberg blocked migrant deportation flights. Such clashes highlight the judiciary’s critical role in checking executive actions, a function Roberts fiercely defends.
Roberts emphasized that judicial independence is non-negotiable for the court to fulfill its constitutional mandate. He argued that the judiciary must remain insulated from political pressures to safeguard the rule of law. This principle is especially crucial as progressive activists push for court-packing schemes to advance their agenda.
The judiciary, Roberts noted, holds the power to strike down unconstitutional acts by Congress or the president. This authority ensures that no branch of government can trample on the rights of working-class Americans or small businesses. Roberts’ defense of this role aligns with traditional values of limited government and individual liberty.
Roberts’ resolve to stay on the court signals a rejection of calls from the left to reshape the judiciary in their image. His commitment to serving until health demands otherwise reflects a deep sense of duty to the nation. This stance reassures conservatives who view the Supreme Court as a bulwark against radical change.
The Chief Justice’s health monitoring arrangement with friends underscores his awareness of the physical toll of his role. By entrusting close confidants to provide honest feedback, Roberts ensures he will not overstay his capacity to serve effectively. This approach demonstrates both humility and foresight.
Roberts’ remarks in Buffalo were a direct rebuttal to those who argue age should dictate judicial tenure. He pointed out that historical instances of justices overstaying were rare and resolved internally. This perspective counters narratives from elites seeking to impose arbitrary term limits on justices.
The judiciary’s independence, as Roberts articulated, is a cornerstone of America’s constitutional republic. It protects the nation from the whims of transient political trends and celebrity-driven cultural shifts. His defense of this principle resonates with Americans who prioritize faith, family, and national strength.
Chief Justice Roberts’ unwavering commitment to the Supreme Court sends a clear message: he will not bow to pressures from woke ideologues or globalist agendas. His focus on health, duty, and judicial independence reflects the values of hardworking Americans who seek a strong, sovereign nation. As political battles intensify, Roberts remains a steadfast guardian of the Constitution.
A federal judge in Massachusetts has slammed the brakes on the Trump administration’s move to deport illegal Asian migrants to Libya. The decision, handed down on Wednesday, reflects a growing tension between enforcing immigration laws and the left’s push to shield undocumented individuals. It’s a setback for those who believe in securing America’s borders and prioritizing citizens first.
As reported by Just The News, the ruling came after lawyers filed an emergency motion to stop deportations scheduled for that week. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order, halting plans to send migrants from Laos, the Philippines, Vietnam, and other Asian nations to Libya or other third-world countries.
The Trump administration has remained tight-lipped about the deportation plans. Reports suggest the migrants were to be loaded onto a U.S. military aircraft bound for Libya.
The court document, filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, revealed troubling details about the deportation process. It stated that migrants faced removal without reasonable fear screenings or a 15-day period to contest negative determinations. This omission fuels arguments from the right that the system is rigged to delay justice for law-abiding citizens.
Lawyers argued the deportations violated basic procedural fairness. They claimed the administration’s rush to expel migrants ignored established immigration protocols. To many conservatives, this sounds like another excuse to clog the system and keep illegal migrants in the country indefinitely.
The temporary restraining order has sparked heated debate among Americans tired of open-border policies. Supporters of the Trump administration argue that deporting illegal migrants is essential to restoring national sovereignty. They see the judge’s ruling as judicial overreach, undermining efforts to protect American jobs and communities.
Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio hinted at the administration’s broader deportation strategy. He stated that the U.S. was seeking countries willing to accept illegal migrants.
“We are working with other countries to say, ‘We want to send you some of the most despicable human beings to your countries,’” Rubio said. His blunt language captures the frustration of many who believe the U.S. has been too soft on illegal immigration. It’s a call to action that aligns with traditional values of law and order.
“Will you do that as a favor to us?” Rubio added, emphasizing the need to send migrants far enough to prevent reentry. His words highlight a practical concern: illegal migrants often return after deportation, straining border resources. For small business owners and working families, this cycle is a drain on the economy and public safety.
Libya, however, has pushed back against the U.S. plan. The country denied any discussions with the Trump administration about accepting deported migrants. This rejection complicates efforts to find countries willing to take in illegal migrants, a strategy many conservatives support as a deterrent.
Libya’s government stated it opposes the U.S. sending migrants without its consent. This stance underscores the challenges of international cooperation on immigration enforcement. For Americans skeptical of globalist agendas, Libya’s refusal is a reminder that other nations prioritize their own interests, just as the U.S. should.
The judge’s ruling has left the deportation plan in limbo, frustrating those who see illegal immigration as a threat to national security. Many argue that the U.S. must act decisively to deter future illegal crossings. The temporary restraining order feels like a win for progressive activists who champion open borders over American sovereignty.
For now, the migrants remain in the U.S., their fate uncertain. The court’s intervention has given them a reprieve, but it’s a bitter pill for those who believe in enforcing immigration laws. Working-class Americans, already stretched thin, question why their tax dollars fund delays in deporting those who entered illegally.
The Trump administration’s silence on the matter has only fueled speculation about its next move. Will it double down on deportations or bow to judicial pressure? Conservatives hope for a strong response that puts American citizens first, rejecting the woke ideology that equates border enforcement with cruelty.
This case is a flashpoint in the broader battle over America’s identity and future. It pits those who value faith, family, and national pride against a progressive elite pushing for globalism and unchecked migration. As the legal fight continues, the heart of the nation hangs in the balance, with working Americans watching closely.
President Donald Trump’s bold vision to rebrand the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America gained traction Thursday as House Republicans passed a historic bill. This move, rooted in national pride, aims to assert America’s sovereignty over a vital waterway.
According to Fox13, the House, led by Republicans, approved the bill with a tight 211-206 vote, directing federal agencies to update maps and documents with the new name.
This action followed Trump’s executive order, signed on his first day in office, to rename the Gulf of Mexico. The legislation reflects a broader push to restore American strength and cultural dominance.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., a staunch Trump ally, sponsored the bill, emphasizing its role in fostering national pride.
House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain of Michigan championed the bill, arguing that American taxpayers, who fund the Gulf’s protection, deserve a name that reflects their contribution. “It’s only right that it’s named appropriately,” McClain said.
The Gulf of Mexico, named for over 400 years, borders both the United States and Mexico. Trump’s executive order applies solely within U.S. jurisdiction, meaning Mexico and international bodies are not obligated to adopt the new name.
This limitation highlights the bill’s symbolic yet defiant stance against globalist overreach.
GOP leadership promoted the legislation at a news conference earlier in the week, framing it as a strategic move. Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., noted America’s economic and cultural influence over the Gulf, saying the bill “recognizes the strategic influence America has over this geography.” Her words reflect a rejection of elitist narratives that downplay American exceptionalism.
Democrats, predictably, dismissed the bill as frivolous, clinging to their obsession with progressive talking points. New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the House’s top Democrat, called it a “silly, small-minded and sycophantic piece of legislation.” Such criticism reveals the left’s disconnect from the heartland’s values.
Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Pa., mocked the bill as “inane and embarrassing,” decrying the use of taxpayer resources. “It’s very existence… is worth considering,” she said, implying Republicans are wasting time. Her remarks ignore the cultural significance of reclaiming America’s identity.
Rep. George Latimer, D-N.Y., argued that Congress should focus on lowering grocery bills instead of renaming bodies of water. “No one is clamoring for a newly named body of water,” he said. This claim dismisses the pride many Americans feel in seeing their nation’s name elevated.
The bill’s future in the Senate remains uncertain, as it faces potential resistance from Democrats and moderate Republicans. Its passage would require significant political capital, given the polarized climate. Still, supporters see it as a stand for American pride against globalist erosion.
The renaming effort, while symbolic, carries weight for those who prioritize faith, family, and nation. It reflects a broader movement to reject woke ideology and restore America’s cultural and economic strength.
Greene called it “one of the most important things we can do this Congress.”
The Gulf of America remains a vision for now, but its momentum signals a resurgent patriotism. House Republicans have taken a bold step, even if the name change is not yet recognized abroad. This fight is about more than a name—it’s about reclaiming America’s soul.
President Donald Trump is poised to reshape geopolitical nomenclature with a bold move in the Middle East. During his upcoming four-day trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, departing Monday, he is expected to announce that the U.S. will rename the Persian Gulf as the Arabian Gulf or Gulf of Arabia. This decision, reported by The Associated Press on Tuesday, signals a clear alignment with certain Arab nations.
As reported by Daily Mail, the announcement will rebrand a body of water historically known as the Persian Gulf since the 16th century. This strategic renaming caters to the preferences of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, which Trump will visit. It reflects a growing trend among some Middle Eastern countries to call it the Arabian Gulf to assert influence over Iran.
Iran, once known as Persia, has fiercely opposed such name changes in the past. In 2012, it threatened legal action against Google for omitting the Persian Gulf’s name on some maps. The renaming could strain already tense U.S.-Iran relations, especially as nuclear talks have resumed.
Trump teased a significant announcement during an Oval Office Q&A with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Tuesday. “We’re going to have a very, very big announcement to make,” he said, though it remains unclear if he referred to the gulf renaming. The White House has not confirmed the exact timing of the declaration.
The U.S. military has already adopted the term Arabian Gulf in its statements and photographs. This shift predates Trump’s expected announcement, suggesting a coordinated effort to align with Arab allies. The move underscores a broader strategy to strengthen ties with key Middle Eastern partners.
Trump’s Middle East trip follows his inauguration day proclamation on January 20, when he renamed the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” The Associated Press refused to adopt this new name in its style guide, prompting Trump to exclude AP reporters from the press pool. This exclusion has sparked ongoing litigation between the White House and the news organization.
The Persian Gulf, situated between Iran and the Arab nations Trump will visit, is a critical geopolitical hotspot. Renaming it could escalate tensions with Iran, which views the Persian Gulf name as a point of national pride. The decision comes as nuclear talks with Iran, restarted after Trump scrapped the Obama-era deal, are set to continue in Oman this weekend.
Trump expressed a complex stance on Iran during a Sunday Meet the Press interview. “I want Iran to be really successful, really great, really fantastic,” he said. However, he emphasized his primary concern: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
“The only thing they can’t have is a nuclear weapon,” Trump continued. He argued that such a weapon could destabilize the world, stating, “I just don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon because the world will be destroyed.” These remarks highlight the delicate balance of his administration’s Iran policy.
The renaming aligns with the preferences of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, which have pushed for the Arabian Gulf moniker. These nations, key U.S. allies, are central to Trump’s Middle East strategy. The move could bolster economic and security partnerships during his visit.
Experts consulted by DailyMail.com speculated that Trump’s teased announcement might involve Saudi investment in the U.S. However, the reported renaming of the Persian Gulf suggests a symbolic gesture to cement alliances. Such a decision prioritizes regional influence over historical precedent.
Trump’s renaming efforts echo his earlier Gulf of America proclamation, which stirred controversy. The Associated Press’s refusal to adopt that name led to retaliatory measures, including barring AP journalists from Air Force One access. This pattern suggests a willingness to challenge media conventions to assert his agenda.
The Persian Gulf renaming could complicate U.S. efforts to stabilize relations with Iran. With nuclear talks resuming in Oman, the announcement risks inflaming diplomatic tensions. Iran’s historical sensitivity to the gulf’s name makes this a high-stakes move.
Trump’s Middle East trip is a critical opportunity to strengthen ties with Arab allies while addressing regional challenges. The renaming decision, if confirmed, will likely dominate discussions during his visits. It underscores his administration’s focus on reshaping global perceptions to favor American and allied interests.
As Trump departs Monday, the world watches how this bold gesture will ripple across the Middle East. His administration’s alignment with Arab nations signals a clear geopolitical strategy. Yet, the potential fallout with Iran looms large, testing the limits of his diplomatic balancing act.
Joe Biden’s faltering voice betrayed frailty in his first post-presidency interview, aired Wednesday on BBC Radio 4’s Today program. The 82-year-old former president, speaking from Wilmington, Delaware, struggled to justify his delayed exit from the 2024 presidential race. His mumbled responses and long pauses raised fresh doubts about his mental sharpness.
According to Daily Mail, Biden announced the end of his reelection bid on July 21, 2024, after a disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump on June 27. In the interview, pre-recorded Monday, he claimed his administration’s successes made it hard to step away sooner.
Harris, left with just 106 days to build her presidential bid, lost to Trump in November 2024. Biden insisted, “I don’t think it would have mattered,” when asked if an earlier exit would have changed the outcome. His defiance ignored widespread Democratic frustration and polling that suggested he faced a crushing defeat.
Biden’s presidency, often clouded by concerns over his cognitive decline, faced renewed scrutiny in the interview. He whispered, coughed, and paused awkwardly, reinforcing doubts about his fitness for leadership. Trump’s communications director, Steven Cheung, called the performance a “disgrace” and evidence of Biden’s mental deterioration.
Cheung further lambasted Biden, stating, “He has clearly lost all mental faculties.” The former president’s choice of a foreign outlet like BBC for his first post-presidency broadcast interview sparked criticism among conservatives. Many saw it as a snub to American media and a sign of elitist detachment.
Biden framed the interview as a reflection on the 80th anniversary of World War II’s end in Europe. He expressed alarm over declining U.S. relations with European allies under Trump’s leadership. His comments revealed a lingering obsession with globalist alliances, which many Americans view as secondary to domestic priorities.
Biden took aim at Trump’s provocative statements about annexing Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. He also ridiculed Trump’s idea to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, exclaiming, “What president ever talks like that?” Such rhetoric, Biden argued, undermines American values of freedom and opportunity.
Yet Trump’s supporters see these ideas as bold assertions of national sovereignty, not reckless overreach. Biden’s criticism, delivered in a frail whisper, lacked the conviction to sway working-class voters who back Trump’s America-first agenda. His remarks felt like a tired defense of a fading globalist order.
Biden voiced “grave concern” over the potential collapse of post-World War II alliances. He warned that abandoning these partnerships could weaken America’s global standing. However, many Americans, weary of endless foreign entanglements, question the value of such alliances in today’s economy-driven world.
On Russia’s war in Ukraine, Biden called it “foolish” to believe Vladimir Putin would halt aggression if given territorial concessions. His stance reflects a commitment to prolonged foreign conflicts, which clashes with the priorities of Americans struggling with rising costs at home. Trump’s push for pragmatic deal-making resonates more with working families.
Biden admitted he intended to serve only one term when elected in 2020, aiming to pass the torch to a new generation. Yet he clung to power, citing the rapid success of his agenda. This self-congratulation rang hollow to critics who saw his presidency as a period of economic strain and cultural division.
Democrats widely blamed Biden’s late withdrawal for Harris’s defeat, believing an earlier exit could have given her a stronger chance. Biden countered, “We left at a time when we had a good candidate. She was fully funded.” His refusal to accept responsibility frustrated party loyalists and independents alike.
Biden claimed he could have defeated Trump in a 2024 rematch. This assertion defied polling and public sentiment, which pointed to a landslide loss. His detachment from reality underscored concerns about his judgment during his final months in office.
Biden’s interview performance, marked by incoherent moments, fueled accusations of elder abuse from Trump’s camp. Cheung remarked, “Sadly, this feels like abuse,” suggesting Biden’s handlers exploited his diminished capacity. The spectacle left many Americans questioning the dignity of his post-presidency.
Ultimately, Biden’s interview revealed a man out of touch with the nation’s pulse, clinging to a legacy few celebrate. His defense of a late exit and criticism of Trump’s vision failed to resonate with a country eager for strength and sovereignty. As Trump charts a new course, Biden’s whispers fade into irrelevance.
The FBI’s investigation into the 2017 congressional baseball shooting was a shameful failure, swept under the rug to hide the gunman’s clear anti-Republican motives. A scathing House report released Tuesday exposes how the agency mishandled evidence and misled the public about an attack that left six people wounded.
As reported by NY Post, in June 2017, James Hodgkinson opened fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia, injuring six, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. The FBI’s initial probe concluded Hodgkinson sought “suicide by cop,” a claim now debunked by congressional investigators. This misstep ignored evidence pointing to a targeted political attack.
The House Judiciary Committee, alongside the Intelligence Committee and its Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee, uncovered the FBI’s blunders. Their report, based on 3,000 case file documents, reveals a pattern of negligence and obfuscation. It paints a picture of an agency more concerned with narrative than truth.
A handwritten note found on Hodgkinson listed several Republican lawmakers as targets, yet the FBI downplayed this bombshell. At the time, agents noted a sheet of paper with six congressional names but failed to elaborate. This omission buried the gunman’s clear political motivations.
The FBI’s early briefing labeled the attack a desperate act, not a calculated strike against Republicans. Congressional investigators found the agency hid evidence contradicting this “suicide by cop” theory. Such suppression erodes faith in institutions meant to protect the public.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, didn’t mince words about the FBI’s failures. “The guy had a hit list in his pocket,” Jordan said. His frustration reflects the outrage of hardworking Americans tired of elitist cover-ups.
The report outlines three glaring FBI errors that tainted the investigation. Agents neglected to interview key victims and witnesses, leaving critical perspectives unheard. This oversight alone calls into question the agency’s commitment to justice.
The FBI also failed to construct a comprehensive timeline of the 2017 shooting. Without this foundation, the investigation lacked clarity and coherence. Such sloppiness is unacceptable for an agency entrusted with national security.
Compounding these errors, the FBI improperly classified parts of the case files. This misstep hindered transparency and accountability. It’s a stark reminder of how bureaucratic overreach can obscure the truth.
In 2021, the FBI abruptly reclassified the attack as domestic violent extremism. This shift came without new evidence to justify the change. The House report questions the agency’s motives, suggesting a pattern of agenda-driven conclusions.
Jordan pointed to a deeper issue with the FBI’s leadership. “Comey, McCabe, Wray, they all knew it was domestic terrorism, but that didn’t fit their narrative,” he said. His words resonate with Americans skeptical of entrenched power structures.
The FBI’s mishandling of the 2017 shooting investigation isn’t an isolated incident. Jordan highlighted other unresolved cases, stating, “This is the same FBI that can’t tell us who planted the pipe bomb.” His critique underscores a broader distrust in federal institutions.
The suppressed handwritten note, listing Republican targets, should have been a focal point of the investigation. Instead, the FBI buried it, prioritizing a flawed narrative over facts. This betrayal stings for those who value honesty over political gamesmanship.
The report’s findings demand accountability from an agency that’s lost its way. Failing to interview victims or build a timeline isn’t just incompetence—it’s a disservice to the American people. Faith and family-driven communities deserve better.
The 2017 congressional baseball shooting was a wake-up call, and the FBI hit snooze. This House report lays bare an investigation marred by bias and error, leaving justice unserved. It’s time for reform to restore integrity to our nation’s law enforcement.
Shocking documents reveal the Biden administration’s chilling plan to sic federal law enforcement on law-abiding Americans. In June 2021, a memo surfaced exposing directives that authorized targeting citizens for non-criminal behavior. This revelation, reported by Just the News Editor in Chief John Solomon, has sparked outrage among defenders of liberty.
As reported by Fox News, the Biden administration’s June 2021 memo instructed federal law enforcement to pursue Americans based on vague suspicions. Specifically, it flagged individuals for engaging in what the administration deemed concerning but non-criminal actions. This move has raised alarms about government overreach trampling constitutional protections.
Declassified documents lay bare the groups singled out by this disturbing policy. Active-duty servicemen, gun owners, and those accused of spreading disinformation found themselves in the crosshairs. These are everyday Americans, not criminals, targeted for their beliefs or lawful activities.
The memo’s release, as reported by John Solomon, pulls back the curtain on a deeply troubling agenda. It shows a willingness to weaponize federal power against citizens who pose no threat. This approach undermines the very freedoms that define America.
Gun owners, a group fiercely protective of their Second Amendment rights, were explicitly named in the documents. The administration’s focus on them suggests a broader hostility toward constitutional liberties. It’s a slap in the face to law-abiding citizens who cherish their rights.
Active-duty servicemen, who risk their lives for the nation, were also targeted. Labeling their non-criminal behavior as concerning is an insult to their service. This policy risks alienating the very heroes who defend America’s values.
The inclusion of individuals accused of spreading disinformation is particularly alarming. The term is vague, leaving room for abuse by those in power. It opens the door to silencing voices that challenge the administration’s narrative.
Federal law enforcement’s role is to protect, not persecute, the American people. Yet this directive turned them into tools for targeting innocent citizens. It’s a betrayal of the trust placed in these agencies by the public.
The Biden administration’s actions reflect a troubling disregard for individual rights. By focusing on non-criminal behavior, they’ve blurred the line between law enforcement and political policing. This sets a dangerous precedent for future abuses.
John Solomon’s reporting has brought this critical issue to light, exposing the administration’s overreach. The declassified documents provide undeniable evidence of the policy’s scope. They confirm fears that federal power is being misused against ordinary Americans.
For conservatives, this news is a wake-up call about the stakes of unchecked government power. The targeting of servicemen and gun owners hits at the heart of traditional American values. It’s a direct assault on the working-class patriots who keep this country strong.
The vagueness of “concerning non-criminal behavior” is a deliberate loophole. It allowed the administration to cast a wide net over anyone they dislike. This kind of ambiguity has no place in a nation built on the rule of law.
Americans deserve answers about why this memo was issued and who approved it. The Biden administration must be held accountable for targeting its own citizens. Transparency is the only way to restore trust in our institutions.
The implications of this policy extend far beyond the groups named in the documents. If left unchecked, it could embolden further encroachments on personal freedoms. Every American, regardless of political leanings, should be concerned.
This disturbing directive is a stark reminder of why vigilance is essential. The Biden administration’s actions threaten the bedrock principles of faith, family, and freedom. Patriots across the nation must stand united against this assault on liberty.
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive victory for traditional values by allowing President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the U.S. military. On May 6, 2025, the court paused a federal judge’s order that had blocked the Department of Defense policy, reinstating a measure rooted in military readiness and common sense. This ruling reaffirms the administration’s commitment to prioritizing national security over progressive ideology.
As reported by SCOTUS blog, the decision enables the Trump administration to enforce a policy barring those with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria, the psychological distress from a mismatch between one’s assigned sex and gender identity, was deemed incompatible with the rigorous demands of military life. This marks a return to standards that value unit cohesion and operational effectiveness.
In 2021, President Joe Biden issued an executive order permitting transgender troops to serve openly, a move many saw as pandering to woke activists. On January 20, 2025, President Trump revoked that order, directing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to reinstate the ban. The Department of Defense followed through on February 26, 2025, disqualifying individuals with gender dysphoria or those who had undergone related medical interventions.
Seven transgender service members, one aspiring recruit, and a nonprofit representing them challenged the policy in federal court. The lead plaintiff, Commander Emily Shilling, a naval aviator, claimed the Navy had invested roughly $20 million in her training. Their lawsuit argued the ban disrupted the status quo and threatened to end distinguished careers.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Washington state ruled against the ban, calling it a “de facto blanket ban on transgender service.” He argued it violated the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. Settle’s nationwide injunction temporarily halted the policy, siding with progressive ideals over military pragmatism.
The Trump administration sought to overturn Settle’s ruling, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit refused to freeze the injunction during the appeal. Undeterred, the administration appealed to the Supreme Court on April 24, 2025. The government argued the military should not be forced to maintain a policy detrimental to readiness.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order on May 6, 2025, granted the administration’s request, allowing the ban to take effect. This paused Settle’s injunction while the case proceeds in the 9th Circuit and potentially returns to the Supreme Court. The ruling reflects a judiciary unwilling to bow to radical agendas that undermine national interests.
The Department of Defense justified the policy, stating that gender dysphoria’s medical and mental health demands conflict with military standards. The administration echoed this, telling the Supreme Court the military needed freedom to prioritize readiness. These arguments resonate with Americans who value a strong, focused fighting force.
The court’s three Democratic appointees—Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented, indicating they would have denied the request. They offered no explanation, a silence that underscores their alignment with progressive orthodoxy. The majority, however, chose practicality over ideology.
The challengers claimed the ban would discharge thousands of transgender service members, disrupting units. Yet, the military’s primary duty is to protect the nation, not to accommodate individual identities. The policy ensures that only those meeting the highest standards serve, safeguarding America’s security.
Commander Shilling’s case highlights the tension between personal aspirations and collective needs. While her service is notable, the military cannot bend its standards to fit individual circumstances. The $20 million investment in her training underscores the need for policies that prevent such conflicts from arising.
The Supreme Court’s decision aligns with the values of hardworking Americans who reject woke experiments in critical institutions. It restores a policy grounded in the reality of military demands, not the whims of cultural elites. Faith in a strong, unified military is central to national pride.
As the case moves through the 9th Circuit, the ban remains in effect, a win for sovereignty and common sense. The Supreme Court’s refusal to explain its ruling mirrors its approach in emergency appeals, focusing on action over rhetoric. This clarity strengthens public trust in the judiciary.
The ruling counters globalist trends that weaken national institutions under the guise of inclusivity. It prioritizes the working-class men and women who depend on a robust military for safety. Small businesses, too, benefit from a stable, secure nation free from ideological overreach.
President Trump’s leadership in restoring this ban reflects a broader fight to reclaim American strength. The Supreme Court’s support signals a judiciary ready to uphold traditional values. For families across the nation, this is a step toward a future where faith, duty, and country prevail.
