California’s looming gas price catastrophe is a self-inflicted wound, courtesy of Democrats’ relentless regulatory crusade against fossil fuels. On Wednesday, the state’s Committee on Utilities and Energy grilled regulators over a potential 75% spike in gas prices, sparked by the closure of two major oil refineries, as the Daily Caller reports. The irony is thicker than crude itself: the same lawmakers now wringing their hands helped create the mess.
Two refineries, owned by Phillips 66 and Valero, will shutter in 2024, slashing 20% of California’s refining capacity and threatening a price surge at the pump. For years, Democrats have piled on stringent rules -- cap-and-trade, low carbon standards, and an unfavorable tax climate -- that have driven energy companies out of the state. No new refineries have opened since 1969, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
“We have a crisis on our hands that may have been self-created,” said Assemblyman David Alvarez, a San Diego Democrat, at the hearing. Self-created? That’s putting it mildly -- decades of anti-oil policies have turned California into a refinery ghost town.
The state’s gas price gouging law, signed two years ago, was touted as a win for transparency. A Newsom spokesperson crowed to the Daily Caller News Foundation that it has saved billions by avoiding a 2022-style price spike. Funny how they’re less eager to mention the refineries fleeing under the weight of that same “oversight.”
California’s average gas price is already the nation’s highest, per AAA data, and a 75% jump could push it into the stratosphere. Assemblyman Cottie Petrie-Norris warned, “I know what climate leadership does not look like, and that is $10 gas.” Bold words, but her party’s policies are steering straight for that nightmare.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has urged refineries to stay while simultaneously backing rules that make operating in California a regulatory minefield. The state legislature’s recent special sessions greenlit new storage and maintenance mandates for refiners, piling on more red tape. Actions have consequences, and California drivers are about to pay the price.
Phillips 66, one of the closing refineries’ owners, isn’t fully abandoning the state, a company spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We’re not exiting California,” they said, pointing to assets like the Rodeo Renewable Energy Complex. But losing 20% of refining capacity isn’t exactly a vote of confidence in California’s business climate.
Valero’s closure adds fuel to the fire, with no new refineries on the horizon to fill the gap. The California Energy Commission notes the state hasn’t seen a major refinery come online in over half a century. That’s not an accident -- it’s the predictable result of a regulatory environment that treats oil companies like public enemies.
Alvarez pressed regulators at the hearing: “Another closure can lead to a significant increase in costs to consumers?” The answer is obvious -- less supply, higher prices. Basic economics, apparently lost on the architects of California’s energy policy.
In a twist that reeks of desperation, regulators are floating the idea of state-owned refineries to plug the gap. California’s already flirting with socialism, but taking over refineries? That’s a leap even Karl Marx might have questioned.
The gas price gouging law’s “independent petroleum watchdog” was supposed to keep Big Oil in check, Newsom’s spokesperson boasted to the Daily Caller News Foundation. Yet here we are, staring down a price spike while refineries pack their bags. Transparency’s great, but it doesn’t fill gas tanks.
Newsom’s team claims the law has brought “more transparency from the industry than ever before.” That’s cold comfort when drivers are bracing for $10-a-gallon gas, courtesy of the state’s policies. Maybe they’ll print the price hikes in bold for extra clarity.
California’s cap-and-trade program and low-carbon fuel standards were sold as climate saviors, but they’ve kneecapped the state’s energy sector. Refineries aren’t charities; they go where they can operate without being strangled by red tape. Right now, that’s anywhere but California.
Phillips 66’s spokesperson insisted the company wants to be a “trusted partner” with the state. Trusted, sure -- but not suicidal. No company can thrive in a state that treats fossil fuels like a mortal sin.
The legislature’s new rules, backed by Newsom, show no signs of easing up. Instead, they’re doubling down on a regulatory chokehold that’s already driven out 20% of the state’s refining capacity. California’s drivers deserve better than this self-inflicted gas crisis.
A Mexican national’s arrest for allegedly threatening President Trump’s life has taken a bizarre turn. Ramon Morales Reyes, 54, was detained in Wisconsin after a handwritten letter surfaced, but authorities now suspect he may have been framed, as the New York Post reports. The plot thickens as investigators point to an incarcerated individual with a personal grudge.
On May 21, an ICE agent received a letter threatening to assassinate Trump, leading to Reyes’ arrest the next day. The Department of Homeland Security announced the bust on May 28, noting that an “illegal alien” had been taken into custody. However, handwriting analysis later cleared Reyes, suggesting that someone else had penned the menacing note.
The letter, laced with anti-Trump vitriol, was received less than a year after the president was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania. “I want to shoot your precious president,” it ranted, blaming Trump for deporting Mexicans. Progressives might cheer the sentiment, but framing an innocent man isn’t justice -- it’s a setup.
Investigators now believe that an incarcerated individual, possibly bitter over Reyes’ role as a witness in their criminal case, wrote the letter to frame him. This twist exposes the ugly underbelly of vengeance in our justice system. Actions have consequences, and this inmate’s scheme may backfire spectacularly.
Reyes, no saint himself, has a rap sheet including a felony hit-and-run and other crimes. He has crossed the border illegally nine times since 1998, a fact DHS was quick to trumpet. Yet, his status as a repeat offender doesn’t make him guilty of this particular crime.
“The investigation into the threat is ongoing,” a senior DHS official said. But their initial rush to pin the blame on Reyes reeks of political posturing. The woke crowd loves a villain, but they’d rather ignore the truth if it doesn’t fit their narrative.
The threatening letter surfaced less than two weeks after former FBI Director James Comey allegedly called for Trump’s assassination. Coincidence? Or is the anti-Trump rhetoric from elite circles inspiring copycat threats, even if they’re hoaxes?
“We are tired of this president messing with us Mexicans,” the letter fumed, claiming Mexicans have done more for America than “white people.” It’s the kind of divisive drivel that thrives in woke echo chambers. But using a migrant as a scapegoat is a new low.
Reyes remains in ICE custody, awaiting deportation. “He will remain in custody,” a DHS official declared, as if that settles the matter. Deporting a man who may be a victim of a frame job hardly screams fairness.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem didn’t mince words. “Thanks to our ICE officers, this illegal alien who threatened to assassinate President Trump is behind bars,” she said. Her eagerness to claim victory looks premature now that Reyes’ guilt is in question.
Noem also tied the letter to broader concerns. “This threat comes not even a year after President Trump was shot,” she noted. She’s right to call out the escalating threats but jumping the gun on Reyes’ guilt risks targeting an innocent man.
“All politicians and members of the media should take notice of these repeated attempts on President Trump’s life,” Noem added. The left’s obsession with demonizing Trump fuels this chaos, yet they’ll dodge accountability. Hypocrisy, as always, is their brand.
The Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office clammed up, refusing to comment on the case. Their silence speaks volumes -- nobody wants to touch this hot potato. When the truth is inconvenient, bureaucrats scatter like roaches.
“I will see him at one of his big rallies,” the letter threatened, evoking chilling images of violence. But if Reyes didn’t write it, the real culprit is still out there, laughing from a jail cell. The woke mob won’t care -- they’ve already moved on to the next outrage.
This saga proves one thing: rushing to judgment serves no one. Reyes may not be a model citizen but framing him to settle a score is a travesty. America deserves better than a justice system swayed by political winds or personal vendettas.
Unelected judges just threw a wrench into President Donald Trump’s bold tariff plan. On Wednesday, the Court of International Trade in New York ruled that the global tariffs enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act are flat-out illegal, as ABC News reports. The ruling claims the president overstepped his authority, and now the administration is scrambling to hit pause.
The court’s decision strikes down tariffs Trump slapped on over 50 countries back in April. A three-judge panel, including appointees from Presidents Barack Obama, Trump, and Ronald Reagan, ruled that the tariffs don’t meet the “extraordinary threat” threshold required to bypass Congress. This isn’t just a legal slap; it’s a direct challenge to executive power.
Congress, not the White House, typically holds the reins on tariffs, the judges argued. They called Trump’s use of emergency powers “unbounded” and lacking any real justification. Apparently, trade deficits, a decades-old issue, don’t qualify as a national crisis in their book.
“The President’s assertion of tariff-making authority … exceeds any tariff authority delegated,” the judges wrote. Nice try, but since when do courts get to micromanage foreign policy? The administration fired back, warning of “irreparable harm” to national security if the ruling stands.
The Department of Justice didn’t waste any time, requesting a stay on Thursday to keep the tariffs alive. DOJ lawyers argued that halting the policy midstream would cripple delicate diplomatic efforts. Sounds like judges are playing armchair generals with America’s global standing.
“It is not for unelected judges to decide how to address a national emergency,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said. He’s got a point -- courts aren’t elected to run the country. Yet here they are, dictating terms on a policy aimed at protecting American interests.
The Trump team has already filed an appeal, taking the fight to the Federal Circuit. The administration is also pushing for a stay to keep the tariffs in place while the case unfolds. With national security on the line, Trump officials are not about to let this ruling slide.
This legal showdown stems from two cases: one initiated by small businesses and another filed by 12 Democrat state attorneys general. The businesses’ lawsuit called Trump’s emergency claim a “figment of his imagination.” Clever rhetoric, but it dismisses the real-world stakes of global trade imbalances.
“A win for the rule of law and for Nevadans’ pocketbooks,” Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford crowed in response to the ruling. Pocketbooks? Tell that to the workers whose jobs these tariffs were designed to shield from foreign competition.
Ford didn’t stop there. “The president had no legal authority to impose these tariffs, and his unlawful actions would have caused billions of dollars of damage,” he said. Funny how he ignores the billions lost to unfair trade practices that prompted Trump’s move in the first place.
New York Attorney General Letitia James piled on, calling the ruling a “major victory” for American jobs. “These tariffs are a massive tax hike on working families,” she claimed. Yet she’s silent on how unchecked imports hammer those same families’ livelihoods.
The small businesses’ lawyer, Jeffrey Schwab, waxed poetic during a May 13 hearing. “It’s a wild pitch and hits the backstop,” he said, arguing the tariffs were legally off-base. Cute, but metaphors don’t change the fact that trade deficits aren’t just numbers -- they’re jobs.
This marks the first time a federal court has directly tackled the legality of Trump’s tariffs. A 1970s case gave presidents tariff powers under a different law, but the IEEPA’s limits are now front and center. No wonder the administration is fighting tooth and nail.
At least six lawsuits have challenged Trump’s tariff authority, showing this is no small skirmish. A Trump-nominated judge in Florida hinted the president might have the power but punted the case to New York. Now, the Federal Circuit will have the final say—unless it drags on further.
For now, the tariffs are in limbo, and so is America’s trade strategy. The court’s overreach could embolden global competitors, delighted to see the U.S. hobbled by its judges. Turns out, actions have consequences -- especially when unelected elites play umpire.
A middle schooler’s bold stand for free speech just got stonewalled by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2023, Liam Morrison, a seventh-grader at Nichols Middle School, was sent home for wearing a shirt declaring the existence of “only two genders,” sparking a legal battle that’s now stalled, as Breitbart reports. His case, backed by conservative firebrands, exposes the woke stranglehold on public schools.
The Supreme Court refused to hear Morrison’s case, leaving the lower court’s ruling intact, which favored the school’s crackdown. Liam’s parents, Christopher and Susan, sued Nichols Middle School, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) championed the cause, but the high court’s ruling leaves students’ speech rights in limbo.
Back in 2023, Morrison’s shirt caused a stir at Nichols, a school that proudly pushes pro-LGBTQ+ events like “PRIDE Spirit Week.” Administrators sent the seventh-grader home, claiming that his message disrupted their agenda. Apparently, free expression stops where progressive dogma begins.
Not one to back down, Morrison returned with a redacted shirt, swapping “two” for “censored.” The school still forced him to change, doubling down on its speech-squashing ways. This isn’t discipline -- it’s ideological conformity dressed up as policy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sided with the school in June 2024, shrugging off Morrison’s rights. The ruling leaned on a warped reading of the 1969 Tinker case, which protects student speech unless it causes major disruption. Nichols’ fragile feelings don’t clear that bar.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito weren’t having it. Thomas called the First Circuit’s decision a distortion of free speech law, demanding Supreme Court review. Alito warned that students are now stuck in schools “without the full panoply of First Amendment rights.”
Alito didn’t stop there. “Some lower courts are confused” on balancing student rights and school rules, he wrote, urging clarity for “students, teachers, and administrators.” His dissent scorched the court for letting this confusion fester.
The justices pointed to Tinker, which says schools can’t silence speech unless it materially disrupts learning or invades others’ rights. Nichols’ pro-LGBTQ+ posters and pride events didn’t get the same scrutiny as Morrison’s shirt. Selective censorship, anyone?
Alito also argued that if schools push social issues like gender identity, they must tolerate dissenting views. “Viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable” because young kids are impressionable, he said. Schools shouldn’t be indoctrination camps.
ADF senior counsel David Cortman was “disappointed” that the Supreme Court dodged the case. “Students don’t lose their free speech rights” at school, he insisted. Yet Nichols’ actions suggest otherwise, punishing Morrison for daring to dissent.
Cortman highlighted the school’s hypocrisy. Nichols promotes its gender views through posters and events, encouraging student expression, so long as it aligns with their narrative. Morrison’s shirt, though, crossed an invisible line.
“The government cannot silence any speaker” just because it dislikes their view, Cortman said. ADF vows to keep defending students’ rights to speak freely. Their fight underscores a truth: schools shouldn’t be safe spaces for only one ideology.
Nichols’ “PRIDE Spirit Week” and pro-LGBTQ+ instruction show where the school's priorities lie. Administrators there are fine with students wearing message-laden clothing, as long as it’s the “right” message. Morrison’s shirt, however, was a bridge too far.
The First Circuit’s ruling gives schools a blank check to suppress speech they don’t like. By refusing to step in, the Supreme Court has left students like Morrison vulnerable to woke administrators. Free speech deserves better.
This case isn’t just about a shirt -- it’s about who controls the narrative in our schools. Nichols’ actions prove they’d rather censor than debate. Turns out, when you challenge the progressive orthodoxy, consequences follow.
Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential bid crashed spectacularly, exposing the crumbling myth of Obama-era strategists’ invincibility. The Democratic Party, once dazzled by Barack Obama’s political machine, now faces a reckoning as its reliance on his playbook falters, as NBC News reports. Harris’ loss to Donald Trump has conservatives chuckling at the left’s nostalgia for a bygone era.
Harris’ campaign, leaning heavily on Obama’s old guard, fell flat against Donald Trump’s juggernaut. Her defeat, a stinging rebuke of progressive hubris, revealed the Democratic Party’s strategic missteps. The old Obama coalition -- young voters, minorities, and the disengaged -- shifted toward Trump in droves.
Harris reached out to Jim Messina, an Obama campaign veteran, to steer her 2024 run. Messina, wisely sensing a sinking ship, declined after a blunt warning from Democratic Party megadonor John Morgan. “You’re going to be a loser,” Morgan told him, sparing Messina’s reputation from the wreckage.
David Plouffe, the supposed genius behind Obama’s 2008 win, joined Harris’ campaign but couldn’t salvage it. “The shine’s off Plouffe now,” Morgan quipped, gleefully noting his fall from grace. Conservatives might argue Plouffe’s “golden boy” status was always more hype than substance.
Plouffe, bitter in defeat, pointed fingers at Joe Biden in a new book, whining, “He totally f---ed us.” Blaming Biden for the campaign’s compressed 107-day timeline feels like a weak excuse. The real issue? An outdated strategy that couldn’t counter Trump’s populist surge.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is scrambling to recover, even eyeing New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy to host Obama for a fundraiser. But DNC officials aren’t mincing words about Obama’s legacy. They’ve criticized his neglect of state parties during his presidency, which left local organizing in shambles.
DNC finance chair Chris Korge slammed the reliance on Obama’s consultants, declaring, “The old Obama playbook no longer works.” His call for fresh faces resonates with conservatives who see the left’s obsession with recycled strategies as laughably out of touch. It’s time the Democrats ditch the nostalgia, Korge seems to suggest.
Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Democratic Party chair, echoed this sentiment, dismissing the “Pod Save America” crowd’s influence. “We don’t give a s--- about what camp a political consultant cut their teeth in,” she said, touting her party’s success in the Omaha mayoral race. Her team’s independent ad strategy helped John Ewing trounce incumbent Jean Stothert by nearly 13 points.
Kleeb’s frustration with party infighting cuts to the core of the Democrats’ woes. “Let this intraparty fighting and whose camp is better -- let it go,” she urged. Conservatives might smirk, knowing a divided left only strengthens the MAGA movement’s momentum.
The Obama coalition, once a progressive powerhouse, abandoned Harris in 2024. Younger voters and voters of color, lured by Trump’s anti-establishment appeal, left Democrats stunned. Embattled DNC vice-chair David Hogg noted, “They don’t remember much of what Obama talked about,” highlighting the generational disconnect.
Hogg, a young activist, admitted that the Democrats lack a clear message for those under 20. Growing up in Trump’s shadow, these voters see him as the political norm, not Obama’s lofty rhetoric. The left’s failure to adapt to this reality is a self-inflicted wound.
Mike Nellis, another prominent Democrat insider, lamented the “de-evolution” of politics since Obama’s era. He pines for a time when Obama’s leadership style defined the party. But conservatives know nostalgia won’t win elections -- results do.
Harris’ campaign leaned on Obama alumni like Jen O’Malley Dillon, who appointed Stephanie Cutter, Mitch Stewart, and Rufus Gifford to key roles. Their undeniable experience couldn’t overcome a shifting electorate or Trump’s relentless campaign. Chuck Rocha criticized the clique, saying, “There’s never any opportunity for new blood.”
Chris Kofinis, a noted Democratic Party strategist, didn’t hold back, comparing the old guard to “a surgeon who keeps killing patients.” His jab at their track record stings, especially since Obama’s wins were more about his charisma than their genius. “It’s pretty easy to win with a guy like Obama,” Kofinis scoffed.
Steve Schale defended Plouffe, calling critics “idiots” and praising his “clear-eyed” vision. Yet, with the 2028 election looming -- 20 years after Obama’s first victory -- the Democrats must rethink their approach. Clinging to a faded playbook while Trump’s movement grows is a recipe for more losses, and conservatives are here for it.
Charlie Rangel, Harlem’s longtime political titan, is gone at 94. The former New York congressman, whose presence was felt on Capitol Hill for nearly half a century, died Monday, leaving a legacy that’s both impressive and divisive, as the New York Post reports. His passing marks the end of an era for a man who thrived in the old-school political machine.
Rangel, elected in 1971 after toppling Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., served 23 terms in the House, cementing his status as a Harlem legend. His death on Monday sparked tributes from figures like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and businessman John Catsimatidis, who lauded his impact on Harlem, New York City, and beyond. This outpouring of praise conveniently sidesteps the controversies that dogged his later years.
Starting his career by defeating a political giant, Rangel quickly became one himself. He joined the “Gang of Four,” a Harlem power bloc with David Dinkins, Percy Sutton, and Basil Paterson, shaping Upper Manhattan’s political landscape for decades. Their influence, while formidable, often leaned on insider deals and progressive promises that didn’t always deliver.
Rangel’s roots as a Harlem youth made him a local icon. “You couldn’t walk down a street without someone calling his name,” Catsimatidis said, painting a picture of a man deeply embedded in his community. Yet, that same community often bore the brunt of the big-government policies Rangel championed.
His legislative prowess was undeniable, with City College of New York noting he led all colleagues in passing laws. Named after him, their school of public service reflects his impact on Harlem’s institutional landscape. But let’s not kid ourselves -- more laws don’t always mean better outcomes.
The “Gang of Four” wielded outsized influence, steering Harlem’s political direction with a mix of charisma and clout. Their era, though, was as much about power consolidation as it was about progress. It’s a reminder that political dynasties often prioritize loyalty over results.
Rangel’s 23 terms in Congress earned him the title of most effective lawmaker, per City College’s statement. That’s no small feat in a place where egos clash and bills stall. Still, effectiveness in Washington often means piling on bureaucracy, not cutting through it.
“The Lion of Lenox Ave was a transformational force,” Jeffries wrote on X, a nod to Rangel’s larger-than-life presence. Transformational, sure, but for whom? Harlem’s persistent struggles suggest his victories didn’t always trickle down.
“Harlem, NYC & America are better today because of his service,” Jeffries added. That’s a bold claim when progressive policies Rangel backed -- like expansive welfare programs -- have left mixed legacies. Good intentions don’t always mean good results.
“May he forever rest in power,” Jeffries concluded, a poetic but predictable eulogy. The rhetoric feels more like political posturing than a candid reflection on Rangel’s complex record. Rest in power? How about rest in accountability?
Catsimatidis called Rangel “a symbol of Harlem, a fighter for justice, a skilled diplomat.” Fifty years of friendship colored that praise, but justice fighters don’t always get a free pass. Rangel’s ethics scandals, though not mentioned in tributes, linger in memory.
“Charlie was a Harlem youth,” Catsimatidis noted, emphasizing Rangel’s local cred. That connection fueled his rise, but it also shielded him when controversies, like his 2010 House censure, threatened his legacy. Popularity can be a powerful deflector.
Rangel’s death closes a chapter on Harlem’s political history. His ability to navigate Congress and build alliances was unmatched, yet his progressive agenda often fed the very systems that keep communities dependent. Actions, as they say, have consequences.
The City College of New York’s tribute highlighted his legislative dominance, a point hard to dispute. But dominance in a broken system isn’t always something to celebrate. Rangel’s laws shaped America, for better or worse.
Harlem mourns a native son, but his story is a cautionary tale. Power and popularity don’t guarantee progress, and Rangel’s legacy -- equal parts triumph and trouble -- proves it. Here’s hoping the next generation learns from both.
A cold-blooded killer gunned down two Israeli Embassy staffers in Washington, D.C., and he now faces the ultimate reckoning. Elias Rodriguez, a 31-year-old Chicagoan, allegedly shot Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim outside the Capital Jewish Museum on Wednesday night, as the New York Post reports. The brazen attack has sparked outrage and a federal case that could end with Rodriguez’s life on the line.
Rodriguez is accused of murdering Lischinsky, 31, and Milgrim, 26, during an American Jewish Committee event, with charges including murder of foreign officials and first-degree murder. The Wednesday night shooting left the couple, set to be engaged, dead in a crosswalk. This isn’t just a tragedy -- it’s a calculated assault on diplomacy and decency.
The attack unfolded as the victims, both Israeli Embassy employees, attended a gathering of Jewish professionals and diplomats. Surveillance footage captured a suspect in a blue jacket and hood, wielding a 9 mm handgun, approaching from behind. Rodriguez, authorities say, opened fire without warning, reloading to continue his rampage as Milgrim tried to crawl away.
Rodriguez legally purchased the handgun in Illinois in 2020 and transported it as checked luggage on a flight from Chicago to D.C. the day before. He bought a ticket to the event just three hours prior, suggesting premeditation that chills the spine. This wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment act but a meticulously planned execution.
Authorities recovered 21 shell casings, an empty handgun, and a discarded magazine at the scene. Lischinsky was pronounced dead at 9:14 p.m. by D.C. emergency services, while Milgrim succumbed at 9:35 p.m. at the medical examiner’s office. The sheer brutality -- firing even after the victims collapsed -- demands justice that matches the crime.
Witnesses noted Rodriguez wore a red keffiyeh, a symbol often linked to Palestinian activism, during the attack. “I did it for Palestine,” he allegedly told police at his arrest, shouting “Free Palestine” as officers cuffed him. Such declarations don’t justify murder; they expose a twisted ideology that glorifies violence over dialogue.
Rodriguez didn’t resist when arrested by Metropolitan Police at 9:08 p.m. Wednesday. He waived his detention hearing and now sits in custody without bond, awaiting a preliminary hearing on June 18. Actions have consequences, and Rodriguez’s choice to pull the trigger could lead to a death penalty verdict.
The charges are severe: murder of foreign officials, a federal capital offense, alongside firearm violations and two counts of first-degree murder. Conviction on the federal charge could mean execution, while D.C.’s first-degree murder statute carries 30 years to life. Either way, Rodriguez faces a long, hard road for his alleged sins.
Jeanine Pirro, interim U.S. Attorney for D.C., spoke of the community’s shock: “The community is reeling as a result of one person’s actions.” Reeling, yes, but also resolute -- Americans won’t cower before terrorists who target innocents. Pirro’s words underscore the need for swift, unyielding justice.
Pirro also mourned the victims: “Two families are now left to grieve for dreams that will never be realized.” Lischinsky and Milgrim, a couple with a future stolen, deserved better than to die in a hail of bullets. Their loss is a gut-punch to everyone who values life and love.
A preliminary autopsy confirmed Milgrim died from multiple gunshot wounds; Lischinsky’s results are still pending. The savagery of shooting a crawling victim defies comprehension. It’s a stark reminder that evil exists and must be confronted head-on.
Rodriguez’s alleged motives, tied to Palestinian causes, don’t excuse his actions but highlight a dangerous mindset. Shouting “Free Palestine” while committing murder isn’t activism -- it’s terrorism. True peace advocates don’t reload to finish off the wounded.
The American Jewish Committee event was meant to foster connection, not carnage. Rodriguez’s decision to target it shows a contempt for civility that’s all too common in today’s polarized world. We can’t let such acts become the norm.
The federal capital offense charge carries weight because it protects those who serve diplomatically. Allowing attacks like this to go unpunished would embolden others to follow Rodriguez’s path. A strong response is the only way to deter future bloodshed.
As Rodriguez awaits trial, the nation watches. Will justice prevail, or will excuses and leniency undermine the rule of law? For Lischinsky and Milgrim, for their families, and a country tired of violence, the answer must be clear: No mercy for murderers.
President Donald Trump just dropped a bombshell on Apple, and Tim Cook is probably sweating bullets. The commander in chief took to Truth Social, warning that iPhones sold in America better be made on American soil -- or else. A hefty 25% tariff looms if Apple doesn’t ditch its foreign factories, as Breitbart reports.
Trump’s ultimatum demands that Apple shift production from China and India to the U.S., threatening a tariff slap if the company does not comply. Apple has been cozying up to India’s trade perks, but Trump’s not having it. This isn’t a suggestion -- it’s a red-white-and-blue demand.
The saga kicked off when Trump and Cook met at the White House on Tuesday. Sparks flew as Trump aired his gripes about Apple’s India expansion. Cook, who donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration, might’ve thought he had an ally -- guess again.
“I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States,” Trump declared. That’s not a request; it’s an economic gauntlet. Apple’s globalist dreams just hit a patriot-sized wall.
Apple’s shares took a 3% nosedive in premarket trading after Trump’s post. Investors know tariffs mean higher costs, and Apple’s already bracing for $900 million in tariff-related expenses this quarter. Turns out, defying Trump’s America-first agenda stings.
Trump has been hammering Apple to move production stateside for years. He previously nudged them to ditch India, but Apple doubled down, with Foxconn pumping $1.5 billion into Indian facilities. Looks like Cook’s betting on curry over country.
“I had a little problem with Tim Cook yesterday. He is building all over India,” Trump fumed. That “little problem” could cost Apple billions if tariffs hit.
Most iPhones are assembled in China, but Apple’s been shifting some production to India to dodge trade tensions. India’s favorable U.S. trade status made it a safe bet -- until Trump’s Truth Social tirade. Now, Apple’s stuck between a rock and a tariff.
Trump’s not just targeting Apple. He’s also pushing for a 50% tariff on EU imports, signaling a broader trade crackdown. The U.S. had eased tariffs, including with China, but Trump’s ready to crank up the heat again.
Apple’s trying to play nice, announcing a $500 billion U.S. investment, including AI servers in Houston. But that’s pocket change compared to the tariff tsunami Trump’s threatening. Throwing cash at inauguration funds won’t buy Cook a pass.
Foxconn’s $1.5 billion India expansion is a bold move, but it’s poking the tariff bear. Trump has made it clear: iPhones sold here get made here, or Apple pays the price. Cook’s global supply chain dreams are looking like a costly mirage.
Trump is currently on a state visit to Qatar, but his trade war’s raging from afar. His Truth Social posts are shaking markets and boardrooms alike. Apple is learning the hard way: ignore Trump at your peril.
Apple’s earnings report already flagged $900 million in tariff costs for this quarter. A 25% iPhone tariff would jack up prices, hitting consumers and Apple’s bottom line. Maybe it’s time Cook rethinks that India obsession.
Trump’s tariff talk isn’t new, but his resolve is ironclad. He’s not swayed by Cook’s charm or Apple’s promises. This is about American jobs, not corporate excuses.
The ball’s in Apple’s court, but the clock is ticking. Will Cook bring iPhone production home, or will he roll the dice on tariffs? One thing’s clear: in Trump’s America, actions have consequences.
A 4-4 Supreme Court tie just derailed Oklahoma’s effort to empower a Catholic virtual charter school with public funding, as the New York Post reports.
In June 2023, Oklahoma’s Virtual Charter School Board voted 3-2 to approve St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, but Thursday’s deadlock upheld a state ruling blocking it, leaving faith-based education unfairly restricted.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal, tied to her Notre Dame connections, tipped the scales, denying religious schools a fair shot at serving families.
The board’s approval of St. Isidore’s offered hope for parents seeking values-driven education, backed by Gov. Kevin Stitt and Trump allies who value religious freedom.
Attorney General Gentner Drummond’s lawsuit to stop it leaned on tired arguments about church-state separation, ignoring the real issue: parental choice.
His fearmongering about funding “radical” groups is a distraction—St. Isidore’s aims to nurture students, not push extreme agendas.
St. Isidore’s countered with a lawsuit against Drummond, leading to April 2025 Supreme Court arguments that spotlighted the First Amendment’s promise of religious liberty.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh rightly argued that excluding the school for its faith is discrimination, plain and simple.
Banning religious schools from public funds doesn’t protect neutrality—it punishes families who want education aligned with their beliefs.
Most conservative justices rallied behind St. Isidore’s, seeing an opportunity to shield religious liberty from secular overreach.
Chief Justice John Roberts referenced a past case, asking why religious schools should face harsher rules than faith-based adoption agencies.
It’s a fair question—treating religious education as a pariah while secular schools push their own ideologies is rank hypocrisy.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed St. Isidore’s students would be forced to adopt Catholic teachings, missing the point that parents choose these schools willingly.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson labeled it a “religious public school,” as if charters aren’t built on choice, not coercion.
Their arguments reek of bias, sidelining faith-based options while secular schools indoctrinate with unchecked progressive ideals.
Jake Tapper’s mea culpa stings. On The Megyn Kelly Show, the CNN anchor admitted he was wrong to dismiss Lara Trump’s 2020 warnings about Joe Biden’s cognitive decline, as the New York Post reports. Conservative instincts, it seems, sniffed out the truth first.
Tapper’s apology stems from a heated 2020 CNN interview in which Lara Trump raised concerns about Biden’s mental sharpness, only to be accused of mocking his stutter. The exchange, now revisited in Tapper’s new book, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again, co-authored with Alex Thompson, exposes how Democratic Party insiders hid Biden’s condition to block a Trump comeback. Lara’s foresight was ignored, and Tapper abruptly ended the interview.
In 2020, Lara Trump remarked on Biden’s halting speech, saying, “Joe, can you get it out.” Tapper fired back, accusing her of insensitivity toward Biden’s stutter and claiming she had no standing to diagnose cognitive decline. She clarified she was unaware of Biden’s stutter, pointing instead to visible mental deterioration.
Fast forward to this year, Tapper says he called Lara Trump to apologize. “You were right,” he told her, admitting his research for the book revealed Biden’s severe acuity issues. The conversation, he claims, “went well,” with Lara reiterating she never mocked Biden’s stutter.
Lara Trump didn’t let the apology slide quietly. She posted on X, blasting Tapper for accusing her of mocking a disability and shutting down their 2020 interview when she raised Biden’s cognitive red flags. Conservatives on social media pounced, calling out CNN’s hypocrisy for downplaying Biden’s fitness until it suited their narrative.
Tapper’s book, based on interviews with over 200 Democratic Party insiders, paints a damning picture. Many admitted to shielding Biden’s condition, driven by fear of a second Trump term. Their loyalty to the party over truth, it seems, blinded them to reality.
Aides described “two Bidens” -- one occasionally competent, the other visibly impaired. Signs of deterioration began as early as 2015, after Beau Biden’s death, and worsened with Hunter Biden’s legal troubles. Yet, the progressive machine kept the facade intact.
By 2022, Biden’s lapses were glaring. At a White House event, he asked, “Where’s Jackie?” about Rep. Jackie Walorski, who had died in a car accident a month earlier. Tapper, interviewing Biden around that time, sidestepped the gaffe entirely.
Instead, Tapper’s Biden interview focused on safe topics like foreign policy and Ukraine. He later admitted to Kelly he didn’t press Biden on the Walorski incident or his mental sharpness. Softball questions, it appears, were the order of the day.
In 2020, Biden promised Tapper he’d release his medical records. That promise went unfulfilled, and Tapper didn’t push. Transparency, evidently, wasn’t a priority for either.
Kelly didn’t hold back, grilling Tapper for his silence. “You sat right across from him, and you asked none of that,” she said, pointing out he could’ve raised Biden’s age or the Walorski blunder. Tapper’s response? A weak, “That’s correct. I didn’t.”
Tapper now claims “tremendous humility” in reflecting on his coverage. “I wish I had covered the issues of age and acuity much more,” he said. Hindsight’s 20/20, but conservatives aren’t buying the remorse act.
Social media critics hammered Tapper and CNN for their selective outrage. Lara Trump’s 2020 concerns were dismissed as cruel, yet now Tapper’s book profits off the same narrative. The irony isn’t lost on MAGA supporters.
Democratic Party insiders, Tapper noted, rationalized their silence by believing in a need to block Trump. “They justified everything in their minds,” he said, adding they were “remarkably willing” to spill after the fact. Loyalty to the cause trumped integrity, and the public paid the price.
Lara Trump’s vindication underscores a broader truth: conservative warnings are often mocked until undeniable. Tapper’s apology, while a start, doesn’t erase the media’s role in burying Biden’s decline. Actions, as always, have consequences.
