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.
Hold the plane—literally—because a federal judge in Massachusetts has just thrown a wrench into the Trump administration’s plan to deport unauthorized Asian migrants to Libya, Just The News reported on Wednesday.
This ruling, delivered on Wednesday, halts the deportation of individuals from nations like Laos, the Philippines, and Vietnam, igniting a fierce debate over border security versus procedural fairness in a nation already divided on immigration policy.
The decision came after lawyers filed an emergency motion to stop deportations set for this week, arguing the process lacked basic fairness.
A temporary restraining order was granted, pausing the administration’s push to send these migrants to Libya or other third-world destinations via U.S. military aircraft.
The court documents reveal a troubling gap: no reasonable fear screenings or contestation periods were provided, which critics on the right see as just another tactic to stall enforcement of our laws.
Turns out, skipping steps doesn’t sit well with everyone, even if the goal is to secure the border—a priority many Americans still hold dear.
Last month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio hinted at a broader strategy, openly discussing efforts to find countries willing to accept unauthorized migrants.
“We want to send you some of the most despicable human beings,” Rubio reportedly said, a blunt framing that captures the frustration of those tired of porous border policies.
While his words may sting, they reflect a hard truth for many: repeated illegal crossings drain resources, and sending migrants far away could be a practical deterrent—if only other nations would agree.
Libya, however, isn’t playing ball, firmly denying any talks with the Trump administration about accepting deported individuals.
This refusal complicates the plan and underscores a reality conservatives often point out: other countries put their own interests first, so why shouldn’t the U.S. do the same?
For now, the deportation strategy is stuck in diplomatic quicksand, leaving supporters of tough immigration enforcement frustrated at yet another roadblock.
The judge’s intervention means these migrants remain in the U.S., their future uncertain, while working-class Americans question why their tax dollars fund endless legal delays.
The Trump administration’s silence on next steps only fuels speculation—will they push back against this judicial halt, or cave to progressive pressure masquerading as fairness?
As this legal battle unfolds, it’s clear the heart of the immigration debate beats stronger than ever, pitting national sovereignty against a relentless push for open-border ideals—a clash that leaves many wondering whose priorities will ultimately prevail.
Hold onto your hats, folks—declassified documents have just exposed a jaw-dropping scheme by the Biden administration to turn federal law enforcement loose on everyday, law-abiding Americans.
This chilling revelation, brought to light by Just the News, uncovers a June 2021 memo that greenlights targeting citizens for behavior deemed “concerning” but not even remotely criminal.
Back in June 2021, this now-infamous memo surfaced, revealing directives that instructed federal agents to go after Americans based on nothing more than vague suspicions. What’s “concerning,” you ask? Apparently, the administration gets to decide that on a whim, no evidence required.
Now, let’s talk about who’s in the crosshairs of this Orwellian nightmare. The documents explicitly name active-duty servicemen, gun owners, and anyone accused of spreading so-called disinformation as prime targets. These aren’t criminals—they’re patriots, heroes, and regular folks exercising their God-given rights.
Gun owners were singled out as if owning a firearm is a thought crime. Sorry, Biden team, but the Constitution isn’t a suggestion—it’s the law. This kind of hostility toward lawful citizens is a gut punch to liberty.
Then there’s the sheer audacity of targeting active-duty servicemen, the very people who bleed for this nation. Labeling their non-criminal actions as suspicious isn’t just a slap in the face; it’s a full-on betrayal of those who defend our freedoms. How’s that for gratitude?
Perhaps most insidious is the focus on “disinformation,” a term so nebulous it could mean anything the administration dislikes. This isn’t law enforcement; it’s a blank check to silence dissent and crush free speech. Welcome to the woke police state, where thoughts are now crimes.
Federal law enforcement is supposed to protect us, not play political hit squad for the powers that be. Yet, this memo turns them into tools to harass innocent Americans over non-criminal behavior. Turns out, trust in our institutions isn’t just eroding—it’s being dynamited.
The Biden administration’s disregard for individual rights is on full display here, blurring the line between policing and outright persecution. “Concerning behavior” as a standard? That’s not justice; that’s a fishing expedition for anyone who dares to disagree.
Just The News' reporting has ripped the mask off this disturbing agenda, showing undeniable proof of government overreach in these declassified papers. For conservatives and lovers of liberty, this hits hard—targeting servicemen and gun owners is an attack on the heart of American values.
These aren’t fringe radicals being targeted; they’re the working-class backbone of this country, the folks who keep faith, family, and freedom alive. The administration casting a wide net with ambiguous terms like “concerning” is a deliberate loophole to snare anyone they fancy. Nice try, but we see through the smokescreen.
This policy isn’t just a misstep; it’s a dangerous precedent that could embolden even worse encroachments on personal freedoms down the line. If they can target these groups today, who’s safe tomorrow? Every American should be sounding the alarm.
Americans deserve straight answers about who cooked up this memo and why it was ever approved in the first place. The Biden administration must face the music for weaponizing federal power against its own people. Transparency isn’t optional—it’s the only path to rebuild shattered trust.
The stakes here go beyond the groups named in these documents; this is about the bedrock principles that define us as a nation. If left unchecked, this directive threatens to unravel the very freedoms we hold dear. Patriots of all stripes 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.
Warren Buffett’s bombshell decision to step down as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway has rocked the financial world, sending shares tumbling. At the company’s annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, the 94-year-old icon announced he will relinquish his CEO role effective January 1, 2026, while staying on as chairman. The move, coupled with a reported dip in earnings, has sparked concerns among investors about the future of the conglomerate.
According to CNBC, Buffett’s announcement came during Berkshire’s annual gathering, a pilgrimage for shareholders who revere his traditional, no-nonsense approach to wealth-building. The company, once a struggling textile mill, was transformed by Buffett over six decades into a $1.2 trillion powerhouse spanning insurance, railroads, retail, manufacturing, and energy.
The Berkshire board, in a unanimous vote on Sunday, named Greg Abel, the vice chairman of noninsurance operations, as the new president and CEO. Abel’s appointment aims to ensure continuity for a company that embodies American economic resilience. Despite the transition, Buffett’s decision to remain chairman offers reassurance to those wary of change.
Before the announcement, Berkshire’s shares had soared to record highs, with Class A shares closing at $809,350 and Class B at $539.80 on Friday. The company’s 19% stock rise this year outpaced the S&P 500, reflecting investor confidence in its defensive insurance empire and robust balance sheet. Yet, Monday’s decline erased some of those gains, signaling unease about the leadership shift.
Berkshire’s first-quarter results, released alongside the announcement, added to the market’s jitters. Operating earnings fell 14%, driven by a 48.6% plunge in insurance underwriting profit. A $1.1 billion loss from Southern California wildfires further strained the company’s financials.
Despite the earnings setback, Berkshire’s diversified portfolio remains a beacon of stability in an economy often swayed by fleeting trends and woke corporate agendas. The conglomerate’s roots in tangible industries like railroads and manufacturing resonate with Americans who value hard work over Wall Street’s speculative schemes. Buffett’s steady hand has long shielded Berkshire from the chaos of progressive economic experiments.
Greg Abel, Buffett’s chosen successor, steps into a role defined by one of America’s greatest capitalists. Abel’s leadership of Berkshire’s noninsurance operations has earned him the board’s confidence, but he faces the daunting task of filling Buffett’s shoes. The transition underscores the importance of grooming leaders who prioritize shareholder value over ideological crusades.
Buffett’s decision to stay on as chairman ensures his wisdom will guide Abel and Berkshire’s future. “Retaining the position of Chairman means he can continue to mentor Greg,” said Macrae Sykes, a portfolio manager at Gabelli Funds and Berkshire shareholder. This arrangement offers stability for a company that thrives on disciplined, time-tested principles.
Sykes also noted that shareholders should embrace the transparent transition. “Warren isn’t going anywhere,” he said, emphasizing Buffett’s ongoing influence. Such continuity is vital for a firm that stands as a bulwark against the volatility of globalist financial systems.
Berkshire’s evolution from a failing textile mill to a trillion-dollar conglomerate reflects the power of American ingenuity and free markets. Buffett’s investment partnership, launched six decades ago, turned a struggling business into a symbol of economic strength. His approach, grounded in common sense and long-term vision, contrasts sharply with the short-sightedness of today’s activist investors.
The company’s Class B shares, introduced in 1996 at one-thirtieth the price of Class A shares, made Berkshire accessible to smaller investors. A 50-for-1 split in 2010 further democratized ownership, aligning with values of opportunity and fairness. These moves broadened Berkshire’s appeal without diluting its commitment to real, productive industries.
Berkshire’s insurance empire, a cornerstone of its success, faces challenges like the recent wildfire losses. Yet, its diversified holdings provide a buffer against such setbacks. Analyst Brian Meredith of UBS praised the company’s resilience, noting it is “less reliant on Buffett’s investing capabilities.”
Meredith also highlighted Berkshire’s array of leading businesses with strong cash flows. This financial fortress, built on prudent capital allocation, stands in stark contrast to corporations chasing ESG fads or pandering to cultural elites. Berkshire’s focus on profitability over publicity offers a blueprint for restoring America’s economic backbone.
The market’s reaction to Buffett’s exit reflects the weight of his legacy, but it also underscores the strength of the foundation he built. Abel inherits a company equipped to weather economic storms, from wildfire losses to market swings.
As Berkshire navigates this transition, its commitment to American enterprise remains unshaken. The company’s success, rooted in faith in markets and skepticism of bureaucratic meddling, serves as a reminder of what makes the nation strong. With Abel at the helm and Buffett’s guidance, Berkshire is poised to continue its legacy as a titan of traditional values.
