Seashells spelling “86 47” on a beach sparked a firestorm when President Donald Trump accused former FBI Director James Comey of posting a coded assassination threat.
The Instagram photo, quickly deleted by Comey, ignited outrage among Republicans who see it as a dangerous provocation from a disgraced figure, as the Daily Mail reported, and Trump, never one to mince words, called it a clear message even a “child” could grasp.
Trump alleged that Comey’s post, showing shells arranged as “86 47,” was a deliberate call to “take out” the 47th president. The controversy erupted after Comey shared the image, later claiming he stumbled upon the shells during a beach walk and didn’t grasp their violent implications. His excuse, flimsier than a paper kite in a hurricane, has drawn fierce skepticism.
Comey, fired by Trump in 2017, has a history of stirring the pot, from leaking memos to mishandling the Clinton email probe. The “86” slang, meaning to “get rid of,” paired with Trump’s presidential number, fueled interpretations of a sinister intent. Republicans, smelling blood, demanded swift accountability for what they see as a reckless act.
In a Fox News interview with Bret Baier, Trump didn’t hold back, declaring, “He knew exactly what that meant.” He dismissed Comey’s claim of ignorance, arguing the former FBI chief was “competent enough” to understand the post’s weight. The interview, taped before Trump’s Middle East tour ended, aired Friday at 6 p.m.
“That meant assassination,” Trump told Baier, his voice brimming with conviction. He accused Comey of posting with a purpose, noting the backlash proved the public’s loyalty to his leadership. Comey’s history as a “dirty cop,” in Trump’s view, only deepens the post’s malice. Comey’s defense? He claimed the shells were a random find, photographed without grasping their violent undertones. “I oppose violence of any kind,” he said, explaining why he deleted the post. Such naivety from a former FBI director strains credulity, like a fox swearing it didn’t raid the henhouse.
Republicans wasted no time slamming Comey’s actions. Donald Trump Jr. took to X, branding Comey “vile” and accusing him of openly calling for his father’s death. The post’s timing, after two assassination attempts on Trump during his 2024 campaign, only heightened the fury.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced a joint DHS and Secret Service probe into the post as a presidential threat. “Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of President Trump,” she stated on X. Actions have consequences, and Comey’s beachside “art” may land him in hot water.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard shredded Comey’s excuse, calling it “ridiculous and insane.” A former FBI director claiming ignorance of such a loaded symbol? Gabbard argued Comey’s authority makes his post a grave risk to Trump’s safety, demanding he face the music.
Comey’s claim of stumbling upon pre-arranged shells raised eyebrows. Commentators scoffed at the idea that he, a seasoned prosecutor, wouldn’t recognize the numbers’ implications. His swift deletion of the post only fueled suspicions that he knew exactly what he was doing.
Some Comey supporters argued “86” merely meant to “discard” or “veto,” suggesting a call for impeachment, not violence. Yet this defense crumbles when paired with “47,” a clear nod to Trump’s presidency. Republicans once used “86 46” against Biden, proving the phrase’s political sting.
Gabbard doubled down, insisting Comey’s actions endangered Trump’s life. “He should be held accountable and put behind bars,” she declared. Her words reflect a broader Republican sentiment: no one, not even a former FBI chief, is above the law.
Trump, leaving legal decisions to Attorney General Pam Bondi, called Comey’s post “terrible.” He noted Comey’s tainted past -- leaking memos, botching the Hillary Clinton probe -- makes leniency unlikely. Bondi’s team, Trump implied, will ensure justice isn’t blind to Comey’s antics.
Comey’s 2017 firing followed his controversial tenure, marked by the Clinton email saga that many Democrats blame for her 2016 loss. His post-firing email to FBI staff admitted a president can fire a director for “any reason.” Yet his latest stunt suggests he’s still itching for a fight with Trump.
The seashell saga underscores a hard truth: actions, especially from figures like Comey, ripple far beyond intent. With investigations underway, the former FBI director may soon learn that cryptic posts aren’t as innocent as a walk on the beach. Trump, unscathed, remains a lightning rod for loyalty and loathing alike.
Shocking revelations from a new book have exposed deep concerns that were held by members of then-President Joe Biden’s Cabinet about his ability to handle a crisis.
According to the expose's authors, in the final year of Biden's presidency, some Cabinet members privately questioned whether he, then 81, could effectively respond to urgent national security threats, especially in the dead of night, as Axios reports, and these doubts, detailed in a 2025 publication, paint a troubling picture of a White House shielding its leader from scrutiny.
Original Sin, authored by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’ Alex Thompson, reveals that several Cabinet secretaries lacked confidence in Biden’s crisis response capacity, with access to him heavily restricted in 2023 and 2024. The book, based on over 200 interviews primarily with Democratic Party insiders, was first discussed in depth by CNN this week, and its findings highlight what was a deliberate strategy to limit Biden’s interactions, raising questions about his leadership.
Concerns about Biden’s mental sharpness emerged as early as 2023. Cabinet secretaries noted that access to the president was curtailed starting in October of that year. One secretary described the Cabinet as being “kept at bay” during this period.
Biden’s inner circle played a significant role in limiting his exposure. Top aides shielded him in meetings, ensuring minimal direct contact with Cabinet members. One secretary remarked that for months, they “didn’t have access” to Biden, suggesting a calculated White House effort.
By 2024, interactions with Biden had dwindled further. A second Cabinet secretary noted that access “dropped off considerably” that year. Most communication funneled through aides who briefed Biden, sidelining direct Cabinet input. One rare meeting in 2023 or 2024 left a lasting impression. A Cabinet secretary observed Biden appearing “disoriented” and “out of it,” with his mouth agape. This troubling moment fueled doubts about his capacity to lead effectively.
Biden’s staff worked to keep him insulated from bad news. Their goal, according to insiders, was to maintain his morale. This approach, however, left Cabinet members frustrated and disconnected from the president.
One secretary criticized the staff’s handling, saying they “did him wrong” by not addressing his limitations. They questioned why no one confronted Biden about his struggles. This lack of candor, the secretary argued, undermined effective governance.
A second secretary raised concerns about Biden’s decision-making process. While the president was said to be “making the decisions,” aides heavily shaped the options presented. This led to doubts about whether Biden was truly in control.
A third Cabinet secretary offered a nuanced perspective. They dismissed claims of dementia but acknowledged Biden’s age-related limitations, noting he could only manage “four to six good hours a day.” When fatigued, his performance reportedly suffered.
The same secretary lamented the difficulty of advising Biden honestly. They believed he should have served only one term to preserve his legacy. This sentiment reflected broader concerns about his fitness for office.
Biden’s team pushed back against these claims. A spokesperson insisted there was no evidence Biden failed to perform his duties. They highlighted his effectiveness as president, dismissing the book’s revelations as baseless.
Jill Biden also defended her husband’s record. Appearing on ABC’s The View earlier this month, she and the former president countered reports of his decline. She emphasized what she said was her husband's tireless work ethic, describing him as constantly engaged with briefings and staff.
Mrs. Biden stressed that critics lacked firsthand knowledge of what occurred. She noted that book authors were not in the White House to witness Biden’s daily efforts. Her defense aimed to refute narratives of a disengaged president.
Despite these efforts, the book’s revelations raise serious questions about Biden’s leadership in his final year in office. The accounts of restricted access and diminished capacity paint a stark contrast to the public image his team sought to project. For many Americans, these disclosures underscore the need for strong, capable leadership in times of crisis.
Joe Biden’s stubborn refusal to face his obvious decline cost Democrats the White House, according to the authors of a new piece in The New Yorker.
Biden's faltering health, hidden by loyal aides, became undeniable at a June 15, 2024, fundraiser and a disastrous June 27, 2024, debate, forcing his exit from the 2024 presidential race on July 21, 2024, events that paved the way for Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office, according to journalists Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson.
Biden’s insistence that he could have beaten Trump defied all evidence. Polls at the time showed that he faced a crushing defeat, worse than Vice President Kamala Harris’s eventual loss as the Democratic Party nominee. The then-president's inner circle shielded him from these harsh realities, fostering a dangerous delusion. Public skepticism about Biden’s fitness grew long before elites acted.
Biden’s limitations were stark: a need for restricted work hours, moments of freezing, and trouble recalling names. He struggled to communicate clearly in issues that were unrelated to his lifelong stutter. Despite good days, his decline was unmistakable, Tapper and Thompson explain.
Efforts to hide Biden’s condition crumbled at a March 2024 fundraiser. Organized by Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, the event raised $26 million with Biden, Barack Obama, and Bill Clinton taking center stage. Yet, Biden’s frailty was already sowing serious doubts among supporters.
By June 15, 2024, those whispers became roars at a Los Angeles fundraiser. Raising over $30 million, the event saw Biden take tiny, halting steps on stage, require directional assistance, and fail to recognize actor George Clooney, a longtime supporter. Attendees described him as slow and incoherent.
Obama stepped in when the situation grew tense, finishing Biden’s sentences and guiding him offstage. Biden’s team blamed a grueling travel schedule, calling videos of his blank stares “cheap fakes.” But the damage was done; supporters left stunned and disillusioned.
Clooney, who hosted the event with Julia Roberts, was shaken. He noted Biden’s diminished state compared to their past meetings, such as a 2009 Darfur advocacy event. Others, including Congresswoman Annie Kuster, concluded that Biden couldn’t win re-election.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, at a June 15 wedding, voiced similar concerns. He hinted at a “Plan B” if the upcoming debate faltered. Biden’s sluggish speech and gait reminded Schumer of his mother’s battle with Parkinson's Disease.
The June 27, 2024, debate against Trump was a catastrophe. Biden struggled to articulate his thoughts, made incoherent remarks like “We finally beat Medicare,” and appeared startlingly frail. His performance shocked Democrats and the public alike.
Democrat senators, including West Virginia's Joe Manchin, planned to confront Biden after a July NATO summit. No meeting ultimately happened, but pressure mounted. Biden’s team clung to denial, insisting he was fit to lead, the authors note.
On July 8, 2024, Biden defended his continued candidacy in a letter. He cited 14 million primary votes and dismissed internal party challengers such as Dean Phillips. But his arguments rang hollow against public evidence of his decline.
Clooney, after consulting Obama, published a July 10, 2024, New York Times op-ed. “I love Joe Biden,” he wrote, but urged him to step aside, citing the aforementioned fundraiser and subsequent debate struggles. He warned that Democrats faced defeat with Biden atop the ticket.
Katzenberg, a Biden loyalist, disputed Clooney’s account, blaming jet lag for Biden’s fundraiser performance. Biden’s adviser Steve Ricchetti was furious, urging Clooney to delay the op-ed. Clooney stood firm, later reflecting on Democratic Party deception in a 2025 stage play.
Biden’s exit left Harris with a 107-day campaign window, called a “nightmare” by adviser David Plouffe. Democrats entered the fall with an untested nominee and eroded trust. Biden’s refusal to face reality, according to Tapper and Thompson, handed Trump the presidency in what was a bitter lesson in hubris.
Louis Prevost, the outspoken brother of newly elected Pope Leo XIV, has unapologetically defended a crude social media post targeting former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The 73-year-old, a self-described MAGA supporter, shared a 1996 video of Pelosi discussing tariffs, captioning it with a vile insult, calling her a “drunk c–t," and his bold remarks, aired on “Piers Morgan Uncensored” Monday, have sparked heated debate about his influence and his brother’s nascent papacy, as the New York Post reports.
Prevost’s interview covered his conservative beliefs, his brother’s rise to the papacy, and predictions about the Catholic Church’s future under Pope Leo XIV. Last week, Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost was elected as Pope Leo XIV, a milestone that thrust Louis, his eldest sibling, into the spotlight. The social media posts in question, shared before the papal election, have drawn scrutiny from media outlets.
In the interview, Prevost stood firm on his decision to share the offensive post. He admitted to believing the insult’s sentiment, stating he wouldn’t have shared it otherwise. However, he noted he’s since restrained himself on social media to avoid causing trouble for his brother.
Prevost expressed a desire to avoid creating unnecessary controversy for Pope Leo XIV. He acknowledged the pontiff will face enough challenges without added distractions from family. His restraint, he said, stems from respect for his brother’s new role.
The MAGA enthusiast described himself as far more conservative than the new pope. He predicted Pope Leo XIV would steer the church down a centrist path, avoiding extreme progressive shifts. Prevost dismissed claims that his brother is “woke,” suggesting a balanced leadership approach.
Prevost speculated on key issues facing the Catholic Church under his brother’s leadership. He firmly stated that Pope Leo XIV would not endorse gay marriage or ordain women as priests. These positions align with traditional church doctrine, signaling continuity rather than radical change.
Despite rejecting women priests, Prevost suggested Pope Leo XIV might appoint women to advisory roles. This move could mirror efforts to modernize the church’s structure without altering its core teachings. Such steps would likely aim to broaden the church’s appeal while maintaining its foundational values.
Prevost also addressed the church’s stance on homosexuality. He anticipated that Pope Leo XIV would follow Pope Francis’ example, welcoming gay individuals into the church community. This approach would emphasize inclusion without endorsing doctrinal changes like gay marriage. The interview touched on potential global interactions for the new pope. Prevost predicted a meeting between Pope Leo XIV and President Trump could be contentious but said he believed the two would avoid becoming adversaries.
Prevost’s comments highlight the delicate balance Pope Leo XIV may navigate in global diplomacy. A Trump meeting, if it occurs, would likely test the pope’s ability to engage with polarizing figures. Prevost’s insights suggest a pragmatic approach from the pontiff, prioritizing dialogue over conflict.
The social media firestorm began when media outlets reported on Prevost’s Facebook activity after his brother's election. His posts, including the Pelosi insult, were shared before his sibling's elevation to the role of pope. They reflect Prevost’s personal views, not the church’s official stance.
Prevost’s candidness has drawn both support and criticism. His unfiltered style resonates with those skeptical of elitist figures like Pelosi. Yet, it risks overshadowing his brother’s efforts to unify a global church facing modern challenges.
As the eldest of Pope Leo XIV’s siblings, Prevost holds a unique position. His vocal conservatism contrasts with the pope’s more moderate reputation. This dynamic could complicate the pontiff’s early days, as family statements attract global attention.
Prevost’s interview underscores a broader cultural divide. His MAGA allegiance and disdain for progressive icons like Pelosi echo sentiments among many working-class Americans. These views, however, may clash with the church’s universal mission under Pope Leo XIV.
Pope Leo XIV’s leadership will unfold against this backdrop of family controversy and ideological tension. Prevost’s remarks offer a glimpse into the pontiff’s potential path -- centrist, inclusive, yet firmly rooted in tradition. As the world watches, the new pope’s actions will define his legacy, regardless of his brother’s outspokenness.
In a bold move, President Donald Trump’s administration has sacked Shira Perlmutter, head of the U.S. Copyright Office, just days after terminating Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden.
These firings signal a decisive push to root out bureaucrats seen as obstacles to the America First agenda, and both dismissals were executed swiftly via White House emails, underscoring the administration’s no-nonsense approach, as Fox News reports.
The Trump administration fired Hayden, the Librarian of Congress, on Thursday, followed by Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights, on Saturday. This shake-up targets officials perceived as misaligned with Trump’s vision for a streamlined, patriot-focused government.
Hayden, the first woman and African American to serve as Librarian of Congress, received an email from the White House’s Presidential Personnel Office stating her position was terminated effective immediately. Perlmutter, appointed by Hayden in October 2020, was similarly notified via email that her role as head of the U.S. Copyright Office ended abruptly.
The U.S. Copyright Office, overseen by the Library of Congress, processes roughly 500,000 copyright applications annually, protecting millions of creative works. Perlmutter’s leadership was marked by a recent report on whether AI companies can use copyrighted materials to train their systems. This report, launched in 2023, drew input from thousands, including AI developers, actors, and country singers.
Perlmutter, who holds a law degree and has prior experience at the Patent and Trademark Office, also served at the Copyright Office in the late 1990s. Her tenure emphasized the “centrality of human creativity” in copyright protections, particularly when addressing AI’s role in creative expression.
In January, Perlmutter clarified that copyright law prioritizes human-driven creativity over machine-generated content. She argued that protecting material solely produced by machines would undermine the constitutional purpose of copyright. “Where that creativity is expressed through the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection,” Perlmutter stated in January. She further noted that extending protections to machine-determined content would weaken copyright’s core principles.
The White House’s email to Perlmutter was curt: “Your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately.” No further explanation was provided, and the White House declined to comment when contacted by Fox News Digital.
Hayden’s dismissal email, sent by the Presidential Personnel Office, was equally blunt. “Carla, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as the Librarian of Congress is terminated effective immediately,” it read. The email concluded with a terse “Thank you for your service.”
These firings are part of a broader effort to purge government officials viewed as hostile to Trump’s agenda. Hayden’s termination, in particular, aligns with the administration’s focus on dismantling entrenched elites who prioritize progressive ideals over American interests. Perlmutter’s ousting appears tied to her office’s cautious stance on AI, which some see as stifling innovation.
The Copyright Office’s AI report stirred debate, as it grappled with balancing creators’ rights against the rapid rise of AI technologies. Perlmutter’s insistence on human creativity as the cornerstone of copyright law clashed with tech-driven visions of progress, potentially putting her at odds with Trump’s pro-innovation stance.
Hayden’s historic appointment as Librarian of Congress was celebrated by progressive circles when it was announced, but her leadership was scrutinized by those who felt the Library of Congress veered too far into woke priorities. Her firing reflects a rejection of identity-driven appointments in favor of officials who align with traditional values.
Perlmutter’s legal background and long career in intellectual property made her a prominent figure, but her dismissal suggests a shift toward leaders who prioritize economic strength and national interests. The Copyright Office’s role in safeguarding American creativity remains critical, especially for small businesses and independent artists who rely on these protections.
The Trump administration’s actions send a clear message: government institutions must serve the American people, not globalist or elitist agendas. By removing Hayden and Perlmutter, the White House is paving the way for leaders who will champion faith, family, and economic sovereignty.
As the dust settles, the Library of Congress and Copyright Office face an uncertain future, but one thing is clear: Trump’s team is wasting no time in reshaping federal institutions to reflect the will of working-class Americans.
Newark’s Mayor Ras Baraka was handcuffed in a brazen clash with federal agents at an ICE detention center, Fox News reported.
On May 2, 2025, Baraka was arrested for trespassing at the Delaney Hall facility in Newark, New Jersey, while attempting to join three Democratic congressmen for an oversight visit, escalating tensions over the facility’s operations.
The incident, which sparked protests and political finger-pointing, highlighted New Jersey’s ongoing battle against private immigration detention centers.
Baraka, charged with trespassing, was released hours later on May 2. He insisted, “We didn’t do anything wrong,” but federal agents saw it differently. Trespassing on secure property isn’t a free pass, even for mayors.
U.S. Reps. Rob Menendez Jr., Bonnie Watson Coleman, and LaMonica McIver, all New Jersey Democrats, were present but not arrested, despite DHS claims they rushed the gates when an ICE bus entered.
Protesters swarmed the DHS Newark office that evening, chanting and banging on gates to demand Baraka’s release.
Gov. Phil Murphy, who signed a 2021 law banning private immigration detention centers, called the arrest “unjust.” His outrage seems selective when state laws butt heads with federal authority.
Newark’s April 1, 2025, lawsuit against GEO Group, Delaney Hall’s new owner, alleged unpermitted renovations and blocked safety inspections. DHS countered that the facility has valid permits and passed inspections.
Baraka, at a May 5 press conference, accused GEO Group of flouting laws, saying they “run roughshod over the Constitution.” Noble words, but laws apply to everyone, including mayors.
Delaney Hall houses serious offenders, including alleged killers, child rapists, and MS-13 members like Chinchilla Caballero, arrested April 29, 2025. Baraka’s push to “oversee” this facility raises questions about priorities.
DHS stated, “Members of Congress are not above the law,” noting a tour could’ve been arranged. Watson Coleman’s claim that “ICE is out of control” sounds hollow when you’re dodging proper channels.
Rep. McIver lamented, “The lack of transparency… is unacceptable.” Transparency’s great, but so is following security protocols.
New Jersey GOP Chairman Bob Hugin called it “political theater,” noting Baraka’s gubernatorial run. Sen. Cory Booker dubbed the arrest “disturbing,” but storming federal facilities isn’t exactly community-building.
Rep. Menendez Jr. claimed ICE “put their hands on” congressmen, but no arrests followed, suggesting a targeted response to Baraka’s actions. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s “federal overreach” gripe ignores who crossed the line first.
White House spokesman Kush Desai hit the nail on the head: Democrats are “prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens.” Time to ditch the grandstanding and respect the rule of law.
A Massachusetts man’s chilling plot to assassinate a key administration official was thwarted when he surrendered to Capitol Police.
Ryan English, charged with attempting to kill Trump Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, admitted to carrying deadly weapons to Capitol Hill, as Just the News reports, and his actions reveal the dangerous extremism threatening America’s stability.
On Jan. 27 of this year, English arrived at the Capitol with malicious intent. He allegedly brought knives and two Molotov cocktails, makeshift bombs crafted from Absolut Vodka bottles filled with hand sanitizer-soaked cloth. This disturbing plan targeted a vital member of President Trump’s Cabinet.
English turned himself in to Capitol Police on that same day. He confessed to planning an attack on Bessent, a move that could have destabilized the nation’s economic leadership. Officers discovered the weapons during their encounter with him.
During his January confession, English revealed he initially considered targeting House Speaker Mike Johnson or Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. He shifted his focus to Bessent after learning of the Treasury secretary’s confirmation while traveling to Washington. This calculated change underscores the unpredictability of such threats.
A note found on English exposed his warped motivations. It read, “This is terrible but I can't do nothing while nazis kill my sisters…I'm so sorry for lying and plotting and lying.” The note reflects a delusional mindset, likely fueled by radical leftist rhetoric.
English’s weapons included knives and incendiary devices, clear tools of violence. The Molotov cocktails, though rudimentary, posed a serious risk to Capitol Hill’s safety. Their discovery highlights the vigilance of law enforcement in protecting public officials.
On Thursday, English faced formal charges in U.S. District Court. He was accused of carrying dangerous weapons on Capitol grounds and possessing an incendiary device. These charges reflect the gravity of his intent to harm a high-ranking official.
The court appearance marked English’s first under the new assassination attempt charge. He will remain in custody, ensuring he poses no further immediate danger. This swift action sends a strong message against political violence.
English’s plot is a stark reminder of the toxic division plaguing America. His actions align with the radical ideologies that vilify conservative leaders and reject traditional values. Such extremism threatens the very fabric of our nation.
Bessent, a key figure in restoring the country's economic strength, was fortunately unharmed. English’s surrender prevented a potential tragedy that could have disrupted the administration’s efforts to prioritize working-class Americans. The incident underscores the need for robust security measures.
Capitol Police acted decisively, intercepting English before he could execute his plan. The agency's response demonstrates the critical role of law enforcement in safeguarding our government. Americans owe officers a debt of gratitude for their unwavering diligence.
The note found on English reveals a troubling mindset, one that falsely equates conservative policies with oppression. This narrative, often peddled by woke elites, fuels dangerous acts like English’s. It’s a call to reject divisive propaganda and restore unity.
English’s case is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of hostility toward Trump’s administration. Radical ideologies, amplified by globalist media, embolden individuals to take extreme measures. Americans must stand firm against such threats to our sovereignty.
As English remains in custody, the nation must reflect on the forces driving such acts. Rejecting woke extremism and embracing faith, family, and national pride is the path forward. Only then can America heal and thrive under strong leadership.
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.
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.
Michelle Obama is back in the public eye, recently making the rounds on popular podcasts hosted by Jay Shetty, Steven Bartlett, and Sophia Bush. Her appearances serve to promote her own podcast, IMO (In My Opinion), co-hosted with her brother Craig Robinson, where they discuss personal experiences and societal topics. To conservatives, her renewed visibility indicates ambitions beyond her former role as first lady, raising questions about her intentions as she transitions away from the White House spotlight.
According to Daily Mail, Obama's latest podcast tour portrays a woman openly wrestling with significant life changes, including becoming an empty nester and confronting persistent divorce rumors surrounding her marriage. Though she speaks candidly about her reliance on therapy during this transitional phase, conservatives are skeptical, viewing her public therapy discussions as part of a broader trend among elites disconnected from average American concerns.
Obama describes her two daughters as fully "launched" into their own adult lives, which led her to seek therapy. She admits therapy helps her manage feelings of guilt and to shed longstanding habits.
Therapy, according to Obama, helps her "tune up" emotionally for this new phase in life. She’s focusing particularly on improving her relationship with her mother and working through deeply entrenched family patterns. While advocates appreciate her openness, critics argue her narrative promotes a form of therapeutic self-focus that's out of touch with mainstream American values.
Over the past few months, Obama's marriage to former President Barack Obama has been a significant topic of public speculation. Divorce rumors intensified notably after Michelle skipped President Donald Trump’s inauguration and, more recently, President Jimmy Carter’s funeral. These conspicuous absences only fueled conservative skepticism about the health of the Obamas' 32-year marriage.
Further adding to the speculation, Barack Obama admitted last week that he was in a "deep deficit" with his wife, a statement that raised eyebrows. Nevertheless, the couple has appeared publicly, dining out together twice recently in Washington, D.C.—actions seemingly aimed at quieting persistent rumors of marital difficulties.
Earlier this month, Michelle Obama directly tackled these divorce rumors during her appearance on Sophia Bush’s podcast. She dismissed the gossip outright, suggesting any serious marital trouble would be immediately apparent to the public. Her brother, Craig Robinson, humorously chimed in, claiming he would host a podcast with Barack himself if real marital issues ever arose.
Obama has been candid about past marital struggles, including financial hardships faced by Barack Obama during their early relationship and her initial doubts about his presidential campaign ambitions.
Her willingness to openly discuss such topics appears aimed at humanizing their partnership and countering overly idealized perceptions. She repeatedly emphasizes their resilience and commitment, insisting neither would ever "quit" on the marriage. She even refers warmly to Barack as "my person," underscoring her belief that modern couples too readily abandon marriage during difficult periods.
Obama has also used recent podcast appearances to discuss societal pressures she faced, particularly confronting stereotypes such as the "angry black woman." She criticized media portrayals that depict her as emasculating Barack, suggesting these narratives distort her genuine intentions. Yet conservative critics argue Obama's commentary on societal expectations serves to deflect personal accountability, framing criticism as inherently unjustified or rooted in prejudice.
Additionally, Obama expressed frustration at assumptions about her personal decisions, suggesting society can't accept her choices without presuming marital discord. Her complaints underscore a broader critique about societal judgment directed at women, particularly black women, a narrative conservatives often perceive as divisive rather than unifying.
Obama’s comments on marriage reinforce her emphasis on communication and therapy as crucial tools for couples navigating relationship challenges. She encourages couples to periodically "renegotiate" their relationships. While her openness about relationship struggles may resonate with supporters, many conservatives interpret it as evidence of elite detachment rather than relatable vulnerability.
