Actions have consequences, even for members of Congress. Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver now faces a federal assault charge after a heated confrontation with law enforcement outside a New Jersey immigration detention center. The incident, caught on video, raises questions about accountability in a polarized political climate.
McIver, a freshman congresswoman, was just charged with assaulting or impeding federal officers during a protest at the Delaney Hall detention center, while Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, arrested alongside her, saw his trespassing charge dropped, as the Associated Press reports.
The clash unfolded as McIver and two other New Jersey congressional members attempted to inspect the facility. A Homeland Security video shows McIver shouting “surround the mayor” and making contact with an officer’s elbow. Whether intentional or not, the contact sparked a federal charge, announced by Interim U.S. Attorney Alina Habba.
Habba, appointed under the Trump administration, called for “unified leadership” to keep New Jersey safe. Her decision to prosecute McIver while dismissing Baraka’s charge has Democrats crying foul. They claim it’s a targeted move to silence critics of Trump’s immigration policies.
McIver, undeterred, declared, “This administration will never stop me from working for the people.” Her defiance plays well to her base, but it sidesteps the reality of a video showing her physical contact with an officer. Turns out, oversight duties don’t include elbowing law enforcement.
Paul Fishman, McIver’s attorney, argued that ICE agents escalated a peaceful situation into chaos. His claim that the prosecution shifts blame from ICE to McIver sounds like a classic deflection. Facts, not spin, will decide this in court, as Fishman himself noted.
The nearly two-minute Homeland Security clip shows McIver on the facility side of a chain-link fence, moments before Baraka’s arrest. Her call to “surround the mayor” suggests a coordinated effort to confront officers. The elbow contact, intentional or not, undermines her narrative of peaceful oversight.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was blunt in her take, saying, “Assaults on federal law enforcement will not be tolerated.” Her stance reflects a broader push to restore order amid protests at immigration facilities. McIver’s actions, however minor, crossed a line that Noem’s team won’t ignore.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche echoed Noem, vowing to protect those keeping America safe. His words signal the administration’s resolve to hold even elected officials accountable. It’s a refreshing change from the usual kid-glove treatment of congressional missteps.
House Democrat leaders, including Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, called the prosecution a “blatant attempt” to intimidate Congress. Their outrage conveniently ignores the video evidence. Claiming oversight duties as a shield for physical confrontations stretches credibility thin.
McIver, 38, rose from Newark’s public schools to city council president before winning a special election in September to replace Rep. Donald Payne Jr. Her rapid ascent now faces a legal hurdle that could tarnish her reputation. Voters may wonder if her judgment matches her ambition.
Baraka, whose charge was dropped, confidently predicted McIver’s vindication. His invitation from Habba to tour the detention center suggests a de-escalation with him, but not with McIver. The contrast highlights the administration’s focus on her specific actions.
Federal criminal cases against sitting Congress members are rare, especially for allegations beyond fraud or corruption. McIver’s charge stands out as a bold move by prosecutors. It signals that no one, not even a congresswoman, is above the law.
McIver’s team noted they hadn’t received charging documents as of Monday night, a curious delay. Yet the lack of paperwork doesn’t erase the video or the charge’s implications. Transparency, not excuses, will serve her best in court.
The broader context is a clash between Trump’s immigration overhaul and Democratic Party resistance. McIver’s charge may be a flashpoint, but it’s rooted in a real incident, not just political theater. Accountability, not victimhood, should guide the response.
Joe Biden’s late-stage prostate cancer diagnosis has rocked the political world, raising eyebrows about what his doctors knew and when. The former president, now grappling with a Gleason 9 cancer that’s spread to his bones, faces a grim reality that could arguably have been caught earlier with routine testing, as Mediaite reports. Transparency, it seems, is a scarce commodity in Washington.
Biden’s office announced the aggressive prostate cancer diagnosis on Sunday, following its apparent detection on Friday. The cancer, already in his bones, suggests a long-undetected progression. This isn’t just a health crisis -- it’s a question of accountability.
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel dropped a bombshell on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, saying the cancer likely festered for years, possibly a decade. “He’s had this for many years,” Emanuel declared, hinting it may have been present during Biden’s presidency. One wonders what else was swept under the rug.
The cancer’s Gleason score of 9 marks it as highly abnormal and aggressive, far from a slow-growing nuisance. Emanuel noted that a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, standard for early detection, is absent from Biden’s public medical records. Oversight or deliberate omission? You decide.
PSA tests aren’t always recommended for men over 70, but Biden, a public figure with frequent exams before that age, should’ve been a candidate. Former Presidents Obama and Bush both underwent the test, setting a precedent. Some leaders are more equal than others.
Emanuel emphasized that medical ethics demand doctors discuss PSA testing with patients, leaving the final call to the individual. If Biden opted out, that’s his prerogative -- but the public deserves to know. Secrecy breeds distrust, and this smells like a cover-up.
Joe Scarborough, host of Morning Joe, pressed Emanuel on the timeline, asking if Biden had the cancer during his presidency. “Oh yeah,” Emanuel replied, estimating it was likely present by 2021, when Biden took office. The silence from Biden’s medical team is deafening.
If a PSA test was conducted and showed elevated levels above the normal range of 4 -- it wasn’t reported. Emanuel suggested that such a result, if hidden, would echo past instances of medical opacity. Transparency shouldn’t be a partisan issue, yet here we are.
Annual PSA testing could’ve caught this cancer earlier, reducing the odds of it reaching such an advanced stage. The fact that it wasn’t routine for a man in Biden’s position raises red flags. Accountability, not excuses, is what’s needed.
Biden’s office claims he’s exploring “management” options, but with a Gleason 9 cancer, the prognosis is grim. The aggressive nature of the disease makes it unlikely that any PSA test, if taken, would’ve shown normal results. So, either no test was done, or the results were buried -- neither option inspires confidence.
Scarborough pointed out the rarity of such a late-stage diagnosis, asking how long it takes for cancer to spread to the bones. Emanuel’s response -- “maybe even a decade” --underscores the missed opportunities for early intervention. Hiding behind “patient choice” doesn’t cut it when you’re leading a nation.
The absence of PSA testing in Biden’s records, despite his high-profile roles, suggests a lapse in medical diligence or deliberate obfuscation. If tests were conducted and not disclosed, it’s a betrayal of public trust. Actions, as always, have consequences.
Emanuel expressed surprise that oncologists like himself weren’t clued in earlier, given the cancer’s advanced state. “It’s a little surprising,” he said, noting that Biden’s cancer didn’t develop overnight. The public deserves answers, not platitudes.
Biden’s diagnosis, likely present at the start of his presidency, casts a shadow over his leadership decisions. Running a country while battling an aggressive, undetected cancer isn’t just a personal tragedy -- it’s a national concern. Voters deserve clarity, not cover-ups.
The Biden cancer saga isn’t just about health -- it’s about trust, transparency, and the elite’s penchant for playing by their own rules. If PSA tests were skipped or results hidden, it’s another example of the progressive elite dodging accountability. The truth, like cancer, eventually spreads.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Justin Bieber just dropped a bombshell by publicly denying any victimhood in the sordid mess surrounding Sean “Diddy” Combs’ sex-trafficking trial. At 31, the pop star is slamming the brakes on wild internet rumors tying him to Combs’ alleged misdeeds.
Here’s the quick rundown: Bieber, who got his big break under Combs’ wing at just 15, is now clearing the air, the New York Post reported, amid the rap mogul’s legal firestorm in Manhattan federal court, while fan speculation and old videos fuel online gossip about their past relationship.
Way back when, a teenage Bieber was mentored by Combs, now 61, who helped launch his music career. That connection, thought to be innocent at the time, is now under a microscope as Combs faces serious charges. Funny how the past always comes back to bite, isn’t it?
On Thursday, Bieber finally spoke out, insisting he was never harmed by Combs in any way. Sources close to the singer backed him up to TMZ, confirming no abuse—sexual or otherwise—ever took place. Good for him for nipping this nonsense in the bud before the internet mob runs wild.
Meanwhile, Combs is in the hot seat, battling sex-trafficking allegations in a federal courtroom. Prosecutors from the Southern District of New York claim he orchestrated depraved “freak-offs”—elaborate sexual events fueled by a need for control. Sounds like a Hollywood horror script, but they’re saying it’s all too real.
Adding fuel to the fire, Combs’ ex-girlfriend, pop star Cassie Ventura, took the stand with chilling testimony. She alleges years of abuse, including being drugged and forced into these so-called “freak-offs.” If true, it’s a gut punch to anyone who thought fame buys immunity.
Combs’ legal team isn’t backing down, claiming on Thursday that these “freak-offs”—sometimes spanning days and involving baby oil—were just part of a consensual “swingers lifestyle” with Ventura. Talk about a bizarre defense; are we supposed to believe this is just spicy fun and games? Actions have consequences, and juries don’t often buy into excuses dressed up as “lifestyle choices.”
Now, let’s talk about the online circus that dragged Bieber into this mess. Resurfaced videos of a young Bieber with Combs are making rounds, including one where Combs quips to the camera, “Right now [Bieber’s] having 48 hours with his boy.” Creepy? Maybe, but let’s not convict on vibes alone.
In that same clip, Combs adds, “Where we’re hanging out... cannot really be disclosed.” Sure, sounds mysterious, but in an era where every word is dissected by keyboard warriors, this could just be showbiz bravado. Still, the optics aren’t great, pal.
Another video from last year shows Combs greeting Bieber with odd body language, which some online sleuths call a pat-down for wires. Then there’s a “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” interview where Combs smirks, “He knows better than to be talking about... things... on national television.” Suspicious? Or just a guy playing the cool mentor?
Bieber’s reps told TMZ, “Although Justin is not among Sean Combs’ victims, there are individuals who were genuinely harmed.”
They’ve got a point—why are we obsessing over Bieber when real victims need the spotlight? This tendency to turn every story into a soap opera distracts from actual justice.
The trial itself is the real story, not internet conspiracy theories about Bieber. Ventura’s claims of horrific abuse paint a dark picture of Combs’ world, and that’s where our attention should be. Let’s not let clickbait sidetrack us from the courtroom drama.
Combs’ fate hangs in the balance as prosecutors push a damning case, while his defense spins tales of mutual consent. If the allegations hold, it’s a stark reminder that power doesn’t excuse perversion. Turns out, even moguls can’t outrun accountability.
So, while Bieber dodges this bullet and sets the record straight, let’s keep our eyes on the prize—justice for those who’ve actually suffered. The cultural obsession with celebrity gossip often buries the truth under hashtags and hot takes.
Maybe it’s time we all grow up a bit and focus on what matters.
Picture this: seashells on a beach spelling out “86 47,” a cryptic message that’s got President Donald Trump and his supporters seeing red.
Former FBI Director James Comey posted the image on Instagram, only to delete as soon as the backlash began, the Daily Mail reported. Now, critics are roaring that this was no innocent snapshot but a coded call for violence against the 47th president.
This bizarre saga boils down to Comey’s photo igniting a political firestorm, with Trump accusing him of signaling an assassination threat, Republicans demanding consequences, and a DHS probe underway while Comey pleads ignorance.
It all started when Comey, fired by Trump back in 2017, shared that beach photo showing shells arranged as “86 47.” The slang “86” for getting rid of something, paired with Trump’s presidential number, had alarm bells ringing among conservatives. To many, this wasn’t art—it was a dog whistle for disaster.
Trump didn’t mince words during a Fox News sit-down with Bret Baier, aired Friday at 6 p.m. “He knew exactly what that meant,” Trump declared.
Trump doubled down, calling the post a clear nod to assassination. He argued Comey’s history as a “dirty cop” only adds fuel to the malicious intent. The public’s backlash, Trump noted, shows unwavering loyalty to his cause over Comey’s antics.
Comey, for his part, claimed he just stumbled on the shells during a casual beach stroll. “I oppose violence of any kind,” he insisted, explaining the swift deletion of the post. Sure, and pigs might sprout wings—his excuse is thinner than a woke apology.
Republicans pounced, with Donald Trump Jr. blasting Comey as “vile” on X for what he sees as a death wish against his father. The timing, following two assassination attempts on Trump during his recent campaign, has only cranked up the outrage. This isn’t just a bad look; it’s a five-alarm fire.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem didn’t hesitate, announcing a joint investigation with the Secret Service into the post as a potential presidential threat. “Disgraced former FBI Director James Comey just called for the assassination of President Trump,” she posted on X. Actions have consequences, and seashell stunts might land Comey in deeper waters than he expected.
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard tore into Comey’s defense, calling it “ridiculous and insane.” How does a man with his resume not grasp the weight of such symbols? Gabbard insisted this endangers Trump’s life and demanded he face real accountability, not just a slap on the wrist.
Comey’s story of finding pre-arranged shells by pure chance has commentators rolling their eyes. A seasoned prosecutor not seeing the violent undertones of “86 47” is difficult to believe for many on the right.
Gabbard wasn’t buying it either, arguing Comey’s position of authority makes the post a reckless risk to Trump’s safety. “He should be held accountable and put behind bars,” she stated flatly. The Republican chorus agrees: no one gets a pass, not even a former FBI bigwig.
Trump, deferring to Attorney General Pam Bondi for legal moves, didn’t hold back on calling the post “terrible.” With Comey’s past—leaking memos, botching the Clinton email mess—Trump implied leniency isn’t on the table. Bondi’s team, it seems, will have plenty to chew on.
Comey’s 2017 firing by Trump came after a tenure marred by controversy, including the Clinton probe many Democrats still blame for her 2016 loss. His post-firing email to FBI staff admitted a president can axe a director for any reason, yet here he is, still poking the bear with beachside cryptics. Some folks never learn.
This seashell mess proves one thing: even a casual post from a figure like Comey can ripple into a tsunami of trouble.
With investigations rolling and Republican rage at a boiling point, the former FBI director might soon find cryptic messages aren’t as harmless as a sandy stroll, as pressure in D.C. to investigate and potentially charge the former intelligence official reaches new heights.
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.
