The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department just stepped into a political minefield with a now-deleted X post calling U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites "tragic," according to the New York Post.
On Sunday, the department posted on X, expressing condolences for “victims and families” affected by the strikes, sparking a firestorm of online criticism. The post claimed the department was monitoring the situation with local, state, and federal partners. Critics pounced, arguing the strikes targeted dangerous nuclear facilities, not innocent civilians.
“Our hearts go out to the victims and families impacted by the recent bombings in Iran,” the department’s post read. Victims? The airstrikes hit Iran’s nuclear program, not a marketplace, leaving many to wonder who exactly the sheriff’s office was mourning.
The post didn’t just raise eyebrows—it ignited a digital uproar. Independent journalist Collin Rugg and Libs of TikTok highlighted its deletion after the backlash grew too loud to ignore. The internet doesn’t forget, and neither do the critics who screenshot the misstep.
Stop Antisemitism, an American advocacy group, questioned if the account was hacked or if an employee went rogue. “There were no victims in last night’s successful targeting of Iran’s nuclear sites,” they fired back. The group demanded answers, suspecting foul play or gross incompetence.
“Please verify this post was not posted by an employee of the LA County Sheriff’s HQ,” Stop Antisemitism added. The implication was clear: either the department’s security is a joke, or someone’s agenda slipped through the cracks. Both options spell trouble.
Under pressure, the sheriff’s department tried to edit the post, scrubbing references to “victims” and the “tragic” label. The cleanup attempt was too little, too late, and the post vanished entirely from X. Damage control doesn’t work when the screenshots are already circulating.
Late Sunday, the department issued a groveling apology, calling the post “offensive and inappropriate.” “This post was unacceptable, made in error, and does not reflect the views of Sheriff Robert G. Luna or the Department,” they stated. Apologies don’t erase the question: how did this happen in the first place?
The department confirmed the post was tweaked before its deletion, but that only deepened the mystery. Who authorized the changes, and why did they think a quick edit would quiet the storm? Transparency is clearly not their strong suit.
An internal review is now underway to uncover how this blunder made it online. The department promised to strengthen its social media oversight protocols, admitting that their current system is a mess. Better late than never, but the public’s trust is already shaken.
“Steps are being taken to strengthen our social media oversight protocols,” the department vowed. Sounds good, but protocols won’t fix a culture that lets anti-American sentiment slip into official posts. The review better dig deep.
X users didn’t hold back, with one calling the post “shocking” given the bravery of U.S. forces. “It is shocking that the LA Sheriff Department employs someone who would post such messages,” they wrote. The sentiment reflects a broader frustration with woke bureaucrats undermining national pride.
Another user demanded that the responsible party be fired and investigated. “That individual should be fired immediately and then investigated,” they insisted. When a sheriff’s department sounds like it’s sympathizing with Iran’s regime, heads should roll.
Some went further, demanding Sheriff Robert Luna’s resignation. “Los Angeles Sheriff Robert Luna should resign in disgrace,” one user raged. While Luna himself may not have typed the post, the buck stops with him, and the public’s patience is thin.
The department’s apology emphasized its focus on public safety, not foreign policy. “Our mission remains solely focused on protecting public safety and serving our diverse communities,” they claimed. If that’s true, they’d do well to stick to policing and leave geopolitics to the grown-ups.
Elon Musk’s latest clash with the New York Times exposes the media’s relentless push to smear a conservative ally. In late May, the Times published a hit piece alleging the Tesla CEO’s heavy drug use during President Trump’s 2024 campaign, as Variety reports. The report’s shaky claims crumbled when Musk posted a clean drug test on X, prompting a defensive retort from the Times.
The Times accused Musk of abusing ketamine, Ecstasy, and psychedelic mushrooms, even claiming he carried a daily pillbox with 20 tablets, some labeled Adderall. Musk, the world’s richest man and CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, swiftly countered with an X post showing a urine test negative for 20 substances, including ketamine. His caption? A simple “lol” that spoke volumes.
The Times’ report leaned on a photo and unnamed witnesses to paint Musk as a drug-addled mogul whose ketamine use damaged his bladder. Yet Musk’s drug test, shared publicly, directly challenged their narrative. The billionaire’s history of admitting to prescription ketamine use years ago on X only underscores his transparency, not their accusations.
The New York Times’ PR account on X doubled down, insisting Musk’s test didn’t contradict the outlet's reporting. “Elon Musk is continuing to lash out because he doesn’t like our reporting,” the Times declared. The audacity to frame a factual rebuttal as a tantrum reveals more about the paper's agenda than Musk’s actions.
Musk fired back with a meme -- the “Why Are You Gae” clip from a 2012 Ugandan TV debate -- and a pointed question: “How exactly is that ‘lashing out’?” His playful yet sharp response exposed the Times’ attempt to spin his defense as unhinged. The meme, per Gayety, added a layer of internet-savvy wit to his clapback.
“I literally just posted ‘lol’ and the drug test results,” Musk wrote, dismantling the Times’ “lashing out” narrative with precision. The Times’ refusal to retract or clarify their claims suggests a deeper motive -- perhaps discomfort with Musk’s influence as a Trump ally. Their reporting seems less about truth and more about targeting a conservative heavyweight.
Musk’s role as a close Trump ally, donating roughly $275 million to the 2024 campaign, likely made him a prime target for the Times. He served as head of the Department of Government Efficiency under Trump until late May. The Times’ focus on his alleged drug use during the campaign reeks of political opportunism.
The Times’ narrative conveniently ignores Musk’s proven leadership at Tesla and SpaceX, where no evidence of drug-related impairment exists. Their reliance on vague “witness accounts” and a single photo of a pillbox feels flimsy against Musk’s concrete drug test results. It’s a classic case of media overreach, aiming to tarnish a figure who challenges their worldview.
Musk’s falling out with Trump over a Congressional spending bill adds context to the outlet's timing. Musk called the bill “a disgusting abomination,” criticizing its excesses. Trump suggested that Musk’s frustration stemmed from the bill’s removal of electric vehicle incentives, which would hit Tesla hard.
In a now-deleted X post, Musk alleged Trump’s name appeared in the “Epstein files,” hinting at why those records remain sealed. This explosive claim, though retracted, fueled speculation about Musk’s motives and his rift with Trump. It also distracted from the Times’ drug allegations, shifting focus to a broader political firestorm.
The Times’ insistence on standing by their journalism, despite Musk’s evidence, raises questions about their credibility. “Nothing that he’s said or presented since our article about his drug use during the presidential campaign was published contradicts what we uncovered,” they claimed. Yet their failure to address the negative drug test directly undermines their authority.
Musk’s blunt denial -- “I am NOT taking drugs! The New York Times was lying their ass off” -- cuts through the Times’ polished prose. His straightforward approach resonates with those tired of media spin. The outlet's refusal to engage with his evidence only deepens public skepticism of its motives.
The Times’ attack on Musk fits a pattern of targeting figures who defy progressive orthodoxy. As a billionaire who openly supports Trump and mocks woke culture, Musk is a lightning rod for their ire. Their reporting seems crafted to weaken his influence, not to uncover truth.
Musk’s drug test and witty responses have turned the tables, exposing the Times’ narrative as flimsy and biased. The public, increasingly wary of legacy media, sees through their tactics. Musk’s ability to fight back on X, unfiltered, highlights why the platform remains a battleground for truth.
This saga underscores a broader truth: the media’s obsession with smearing conservative allies like Musk often backfires. The Times’ failure to grapple with hard evidence -- while clinging to its story -- only erodes their relevance. Musk, with a single “lol,” has the last laugh, proving facts trump fiction every time.
Medicaid fraud is bleeding taxpayers dry. Arizona’s GOP lawmakers dropped a bombshell report revealing 130,000 unverified applicants slipped through the cracks last year during President Joe Biden's tenure in office, potentially costing $6 billion annually, as Just the News reports. This isn’t just sloppy bookkeeping -- it’s a systemic failure rewarding deceit.
Arizona’s mess, alongside scandals in Ohio, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Texas, exposes a nationwide Medicaid fraud crisis costing billions. Only 24% of Arizona’s Medicaid applicants were vetted, and of those checked, 34% were wrongly approved, padding the rolls with ineligible claimants. Congress, meanwhile, dithers over $50 billion in estimated yearly waste.
In Arizona, State Senate Majority Leader Janae Shamp is sounding the alarm. “When we’re talking about cutting fraud, waste, and abuse, that is exactly where we start,” she told Just the News. Her righteous indignation is refreshing, but it’s time for action, not just words, to stop this taxpayer-funded free-for-all.
Only a quarter of Arizona’s 388,000 Medicaid applicants last year faced scrutiny. The rest? Rubber-stamped into a program already straining under fraudulent claims, leaving taxpayers to foot a $6 billion bill for unchecked handouts.
Shamp’s report lays bare a verification process that’s more sieve than safeguard. “I always want to believe in the good,” she said, hoping for bipartisan fixes, per Just the News. Naive optimism won’t cut it when 34% of vetted applicants were wrongly approved.
She’s demanding answers from the governor’s office, calling it “directionless” and “unaccountable.” Her letter, quoted by Just the News, is a start, but Arizona needs more than sternly worded missives to plug this fiscal black hole.
Ohio’s Medicaid mess mirrors Arizona’s, with a Bloomberg Law probe exposing lax oversight. A Gainwell Technologies pharmacist claimed bosses ordered him to greenlight all prescription claims in 2022, even dodgy ones. This isn’t oversight -- it’s a wink at fraud.
Janay Corbitt, a Dayton fraudster, exploited Ohio’s lax system, stealing $1.5 million via fake counseling agencies. Sentenced to six to nine years, her case, led by Attorney General Dave Yost’s team, shows justice can bite -- but only after millions vanish.
Ohio State Rep. Mike Dovilla’s House Bill 356 aims to boot 10,000 millionaires off Medicaid rolls, saving $1.2 billion yearly. Millionaires on Medicaid? That’s not a safety net; it’s a progressive fantasy fleecing hardworking taxpayers.
Minnesota’s Medicaid took a $7.4 million hit from a barred operator billing for nonexistent services. Falsified records hid the scam, proving fraudsters are bolder than the bureaucrats tasked with stopping them. This isn’t isolated—it’s epidemic.
In North Carolina, a business owner got 16 years for an $11 million scheme involving unneeded tests and kickbacks. The audacity of billing Medicaid for useless services while bureaucrats snooze is a slap to every taxpayer.
Texas nailed fraudsters like Dennis Damian Anugwom and ApolloMDx, who bilked millions through fake billing and unneeded genetic tests. Texas’ Medicaid Fraud Control Unit is fighting back, but the scale of deceit -- $142 million from one company -- demands more.
Rhode Island’s Eleanor Slater Hospital faced lawsuits alleging that Gainwell Technologies had ignored improper billing, coding the facility as a nursing home to dodge oversight. Such creative accounting isn’t innovation -- it’s theft dressed up as paperwork. Taxpayers deserve better.
Congressional leaders talk tough about $50 billion in Medicaid waste, yet states and contractors keep approving claims with barely a glance. Prioritizing speed over scrutiny is a recipe for more fraud, not less. When will the feds wake up?
States such as Ohio and Arizona are stepping up, but the federal government’s inertia lets fraud flourish. Dovilla’s bill and Shamp’s report are bold, but without national reform, Medicaid will remain a playground for scammers. It’s time to ditch the progressive pipe dream of unchecked entitlements and protect taxpayer dollars.
Col. Nathan McCormack’s social media rants just cost him his Pentagon gig. The military official, yanked from his advisory role to the Joint Chiefs of Staff this week, allegedly spewed antisemitic and anti-Israel venom online, as Just the News reports. This isn’t just a bad tweet—it’s a wake-up call for accountability in our ranks.
The Pentagon suspended McCormack, a Levant and Egypt branch chief, after reports surfaced of his inflammatory posts, which branded Israel a “death cult” and America’s “worst ally,” amid escalating U.S.-Israel tensions following Israel’s strike on Iran’s nuclear sites.
Last week, Israel’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which killed several Iranian military leaders and scientists, stirred global controversy. The U.S. and Israel have long held a firm line against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. McCormack’s posts, however, crossed into dangerous territory, targeting a key ally with reckless rhetoric.
McCormack’s semi-anonymous social media account became his undoing. The Jewish News Syndicate first flagged the posts, prompting the Pentagon to act swiftly. His suspension signals that even high-ranking officials aren’t above scrutiny.
A Pentagon official confirmed the department is investigating the matter. “The information on the X account does not reflect the position of the Joint Staff or the Department of Defense,” the official stated. That’s a polite way of saying McCormack’s views are radioactive and unwelcome.
The investigation is now underway, with an officer assigned to dig into the mess. McCormack has been sent back to his service, effectively sidelined from the Joint Staff. It’s a humbling fall for someone who should’ve known better.
“The individual is being returned to his service while the matter is being investigated,” the Pentagon official noted. Translation: McCormack’s out of the big leagues until the brass figures out how deep this goes. It’s a move that protects the Pentagon’s credibility while the truth unfolds.
McCormack’s posts didn’t just offend -- they undermined the U.S.-Israel alliance at a critical moment. Calling Israel a “death cult” isn’t just inflammatory; it’s a betrayal of the strategic partnership that keeps our enemies in check. This isn’t free speech; it’s a self-inflicted wound.
The Pentagon’s response shows a rare spine in an era where woke ideology often shields bad actors. Suspending McCormack proves that antisemitism, even cloaked in “criticism,” won’t get a free pass. It’s a refreshing departure from the usual bureaucratic handwringing.
Israel’s recent strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has heightened tensions across the Middle East. The attack, which eliminated key Iranian figures, was a bold move to curb Tehran’s nuclear threat. McCormack’s ill-timed posts only poured fuel on an already volatile situation.
The U.S. and Israel’s shared stance against Iran’s nuclear program is non-negotiable. McCormack’s rhetoric, however, suggested otherwise, painting a distorted picture of a vital ally. His words weren’t just careless -- they were a geopolitical liability.
“Our global alliances and partnerships are vital to our national security,” the Pentagon official emphasized. That’s not just boilerplate; it’s a reminder that loose cannons like McCormack jeopardize the strength of our collective defense. His suspension is a necessary course correction.
The investigation’s outcome will test the Pentagon’s resolve. Will McCormack face real consequences, or will this be swept under the rug? Conservatives demand transparency, not excuses, from a military too often swayed by progressive dogma.
This scandal exposes the dangers of unchecked social media in sensitive roles. McCormack’s semi-anonymous account gave him false bravado, but it couldn’t shield him from reality. It’s a lesson for every official: your words have weight, and the internet isn’t your diary.
The Pentagon’s swift action is a win for accountability, but the fight against antisemitism in our institutions is far from over. McCormack’s case should be a warning to others: spew hate, and you’ll pay the price. America’s alliances -- and its honor -- deserve better.
President Donald Trump just saved the Snake River from a muddy grave. Last week, he issued a memorandum halting a Biden-era plan to dismantle four hydroelectric dams, as Just the News reports, a move that could have wrecked the region’s ecosystem and economy. This isn’t just a policy win -- it’s a middle finger to reckless environmentalism.
Trump’s memo scraps a Biden-Harris directive pushing for the Snake River dam removals, a plan mirroring the disastrous Klamath River project. The Klamath’s 2023 dam removal turned a pristine waterway into a sediment-choked mess, killing fish and gutting local livelihoods. Progressives called it “restoration”; locals call it ruin.
The Klamath saga started in 2010 with the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement, signed by federal agencies, tribes, and green groups. It birthed the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, tasked with overseeing the removal of four dams near the Oregon-California border. The agreement promised thriving fish and stable water for farmers—promises now drowned in mud.
By 2018, Siskiyou County residents were sounding alarms. Their lawyers warned the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission about risks to salmon, water quality, and local communities, slamming the corporation’s 2,300-page plan as flimsy on environmental review. Yet, the green machine rolled on, undeterred by reason.
In 2022, 79% of Siskiyou County voters rejected the Klamath dam removal. Despite this, the county board greenlit the project in May 2023, caving to pressure from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and environmentalists. The dams came down between September 2023 and October 2024, leaving devastation in their wake.
Sediment from the Klamath dam removal turned the river into a murky death trap for salmon. These fish, vital to the ecosystem, follow three-year cycles, swimming to the ocean and back to spawn. The sludge killed them en route, proving the “save the fish” mantra was a hollow sales pitch.
“They claimed it was to save the fish, but it was never really about fish,” said Richard Marshall, a Fort Jones resident. He’s right -- dam removal was about ideology, not ecology. Marshall’s community fought hard but lacked the cash to counter global eco-warriors.
Fishing tourism along the Klamath is dead. Al Kutzkey, owner of Kutzkey Guide Service, saw his business collapse: “My business is gone. It’s dead.” The river’s muddied waters are unfishable, and Kutzkey doubts any trout remain.
Salmon flies, a key food source for fish, have vanished. “This time of year, they should be everywhere,” Kutzkey noted, lamenting their absence. Without these insects, the entire river ecosystem—from fish to bugs—faces collapse.
The Klamath disaster was no surprise. Siskiyou County’s objections in 2018 highlighted risks to species, roads, and water supplies, but environmentalists ignored the warnings. Their “Definite Plan” underestimated costs and overstated benefits, a blueprint for failure.
Despite the carnage, green groups refuse to rethink dam removal. Jeff Reynolds, senior editor at Restoration News, predicted they’ll “push out propaganda” claiming success. Facts be damned -- narrative is king in their world.
Contractors and rafting guides have cashed in, with rafters now navigating a longer river. But this small gain comes at a brutal cost: fishing guides are bankrupt, and farmers face ruin if the last two Klamath dams are targeted. The agrarian heart of the region hangs by a thread.
Trump’s memorandum isn’t just about the Snake River -- it’s a stand against eco-fanaticism. “The negative impacts would be devastating,” he warned, citing the loss of low-cost energy. He’s not wrong; dams provide stable power, unlike the intermittent whims of wind and solar.
The Klamath debacle proves that dam removal is no silver bullet. Sediment-choked rivers, dead fish, and shattered communities are the real legacy of these projects. Biden’s team ignored this; Trump didn’t.
Siskiyou County’s fight shows the little guy can’t always win against well-funded green agendas. But with Trump’s intervention, the Snake River has a fighting chance to avoid Klamath’s fate. Common sense just scored a rare victory.
Michigan middle schoolers banned for wearing "Let's Go Brandon" sweatshirts are fighting back, claiming their First Amendment rights were trampled. Two unnamed students from Tri County Area Schools sued after administrators deemed the phrase -- born from a cheeky NASCAR chant -- a veiled jab at former President Joe Biden. The case now sits before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges are grappling with whether schools can censor such political zingers, as Just the News reports.
The students, backed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argue that their sweatshirts were harmless political speech, protected under the 1969 Tinker precedent, which upheld Vietnam War protests in schools. Last summer, U.S. District Judge Paul Maloney sided with the school, citing a 1986 Fraser ruling that allows curbing lewd or indecent speech. This clash of precedents has the appeals court in a legal tug-of-war, with free speech hanging in the balance.
Tri County’s dress code bans "lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane" phrases, and school lawyer Annabel Shea insisted "Let's Go Brandon" implies profanity. Yet, the school oddly permits Make America Great Again hats, suggesting selective enforcement of political expression. Such inconsistency reeks of woke administrators cherry-picking which messages get a pass.
Judge John Bush, a Donald Trump appointee, wasn’t buying the school’s argument during a recent hearing in the case, quipping, "No one was advocating having sex with the president." He compared "Let's Go Brandon" to Confederate flag displays, which courts have protected as nondisruptive. Bush’s jab exposes the absurdity of equating a sly political slogan with graphic indecency.
Judge Karen Nelson Moore, a Bill Clinton nominee, scoffed at using congressional speeches -- where "Let's Go Brandon" has echoed -- as a benchmark for school-appropriate speech. Her skepticism misses the point: if politicians can sling the phrase on the House floor, why can’t kids wear it on a hoodie? The double standard is glaring.
Judge John Nalbandian, the apparent swing vote, questioned whether schools should have "unlimited discretion" to label speech profane. He noted that "profanity trumps the political nature of the speech," but seemed uneasy with administrators acting as speech police. His indecision could tip the scales in this case.
The 1969 Tinker case set a high bar for schools to restrict political speech, requiring proof of disruption. Conor Fitzpatrick, the students’ lawyer, argued that no reasonable official could call "Let's Go Brandon" profane under Tinker’s protections. He’s right -- schools shouldn’t be in the business of sanitizing witty political barbs.
In contrast, the 1986 Fraser precedent lets schools regulate lewd speech, like the sexually explicit metaphor in a campaign speech. Judge Maloney leaned on Fraser to justify the sweatshirt ban, claiming "Let's Go Brandon" carries a profane undertone. That’s a stretch, considering the phrase itself is clean enough for prime-time TV.
The 1971 Cohen case, where a man’s "f— the draft" jacket was protected, and a 9th Circuit ruling against banning "scab" buttons, bolster the students’ case. These precedents show courts often shield edgy political speech, even when it offends. Tri County’s ban feels like a woke overreach, punishing kids for a clever dig at Biden.
Shea, the school’s lawyer, claimed Tri County has no issue with political expression, just implied profanity. But allowing MAGA hats while banning "Let's Go Brandon" suggests a bias against anti-Biden sentiment. This selective censorship undermines the school’s neutral stance.
Fitzpatrick fired back, saying the school "ignored centuries of history" in using expurgated profanity, like radio edits or "h-e-double hockey sticks." His point is sharp: society has long softened curses for public consumption, so why punish kids for it? The school’s logic feels like a flimsy excuse to silence dissent.
Nalbandian floated qualified immunity for administrators, suggesting they might dodge liability due to murky precedents. Even if the ban violated rights, he mused, it wasn’t "obvious" under existing law. This hedging could let school officials off the hook, even if they overstepped.
The "Let’s Go Brandon" phrase, born at a NASCAR race, has become a cultural lightning rod, even inspiring the Biden campaign’s "Dark Brandon" meme. Its widespread use, from Congress to social media, shows it’s more political satire than profane outburst. Schools banning it risk looking like humorless enforcers of progressive dogma.
The 1978 Pacifica precedent, which lets the FCC regulate indecent broadcasts like George Carlin’s "7 Words" monologue, was mentioned but feels irrelevant here. "Let's Go Brandon" isn’t a string of expletives -- it’s a coded jab. Conflating the two is a legal sleight-of-hand to justify censorship.
The 6th Circuit’s ruling, expected in the near future could clarify where schools draw the line on political speech. For now, these Michigan students are caught in a battle over free expression, with woke administrators on one side and First Amendment defenders on the other. The outcome will test whether schools can stifle clever political speech under the guise of propriety.
Tim Walz froze like a deer in headlights when asked to define a woman. During a House Oversight Committee hearing, South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace grilled the Minnesota governor, exposing his apparent confusion on basic biology, as the Daily Mail reports. The exchange was a masterclass in progressive befuddlement.
The hearing, held this week, tackled "Sanctuary Governors" and their immigration policies, but Mace steered it to transgender ideology. Walz, alongside Democrat Govs. Kathy Hochul and J.B. Pritzker faced scrutiny over state policies, yet it was Mace’s question on womanhood that stole the spotlight. Her pointed inquiry revealed the left’s struggle with simple truths.
Mace opened with a direct challenge: "What is a woman?" Walz, visibly stunned, fumbled, claiming he didn’t understand the question. His hesitation spoke volumes about the progressive agenda’s detachment from reality.
Mace didn’t let up, repeating her question for clarity. She demanded Walz affirm that a woman is an adult human female, asserting men cannot become women. Walz’s response -- asking what Mace wanted him to say -- was a dodge that only deepened the hole into which he had fallen.
"I’m not quite sure I understand," Walz stammered, as if basic definitions were a foreign language. His inability to answer betrayed a broader ideological cowardice. Progressives like Walz seem allergic to clear answers when biology is on the line.
Mace, 47, has long opposed transgender policy expansions, arguing they undermine women’s rights. Her clash with Walz was no surprise, given her history of challenging liberals on gender ideology. She’s a bulldog for clarity in a world muddied by woke rhetoric.
Mace escalated, accusing Walz’s party of erasing women and promoting violence. She labeled their policies bigoted, misogynistic, and sexist, pulling no punches. The left’s obsession with redefining gender, she implied, disrespects biological women.
"You don’t respect us," Mace charged, her voice rising. Walz had no chance to respond as she abruptly yielded her time. It was a mic-drop moment that left the governor speechless and the room buzzing.
Progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tried to downplay the exchange, quipping about a "Bingo" moment. Her flippant remark only underscored the left’s discomfort with Mace’s unapologetic truth-telling. Dodging the issue with humor won’t make it disappear.
Mace later shared a video of the hearing on X, crowing that Walz was "speechless" under her questioning. She dubbed him "Tampon Tim," a jab at his progressive posturing. The nickname, while cheeky, captured the conservative frustration with his evasive performance.
Before the womanhood debate, Mace had already criticized Walz for likening ICE agents to the Gestapo in a recent speech. She pressed him on whether he knew ICE hadn’t committed genocide. Walz’s silence on that front was as telling as his womanhood flub.
"Trump’s modern-day Gestapo," Walz had called ICE, a reckless hyperbole that Mace wasn’t about to let slide. Her question about ICE’s record was a trap, and Walz’s non-answer only fueled her point. Exaggeration is no substitute for policy critique.
The hearing also saw Hochul and Pritzker grilled on their states’ immigration approaches. While immigration was the ostensible focus, Mace’s detour into gender ideology exposed a deeper cultural rift. Conservatives like Mace are fed up with progressive efforts to redefine reality.
Mace’s performance was a rallying cry for those who value biological truth over ideological gymnastics. Walz’s stumble showed how far the left has strayed from common sense. The exchange will likely reverberate in conservative circles.
The clash was a stark reminder: clarity on sex and gender isn’t negotiable. Mace’s insistence on plain definitions cut through the fog of progressive dogma. For conservatives, it was a win for reason in a world gone woke.
David Hogg’s exit from the Democratic National Committee’s vice chair race signals the end of a messy intraparty squabble. The gun control activist, known for pushing progressive causes, won’t seek reelection after the DNC voted to redo its leadership contests, as CNN reports. His departure highlights the party’s struggle to balance its activist wing with establishment priorities.
The DNC’s decision to nullify its Feb. 1 vice chair elections, originally won by Hogg and Malcolm Kenyatta, sparked the current drama, with Hogg opting out to avoid further conflict. This redo, approved by 75% of DNC members, aims to reset the leadership race amid tensions over Hogg’s controversial plans. The saga has distracted Democrats from rebuilding after recent electoral setbacks.
In late February, a challenge to the initial vice chair vote surfaced, well before Hogg’s announcement to primary “ineffective” Democratic incumbents. His Leaders We Deserve PAC aimed to shake up safe seats, ruffling feathers among party insiders. Hogg claimed DNC leaders targeted him for this initiative, but members insist he misread the room.
Hogg’s assertion that the DNC wanted him out over his primary plan raised eyebrows. “Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters,” Hogg said. His self-martyring tone conveniently sidesteps the fact that the vote redo predated his PAC’s launch.
DNC members, with 89% participation, overwhelmingly backed the new election, suggesting broad unease with the original outcome. Hogg’s narrative of being pushed out feels more like spin than substance. The party’s move to revisit the vote reflects a desire for stability, not a vendetta.
Had Hogg run again, he’d have faced off against Kenyatta for the male vice chair slot, per the DNC’s gender parity rules. Kenyatta, quick to pivot, expressed gratitude for support. “I’m grateful to the overwhelming support I’ve received in this reelection from DNC members,” he said, sounding eager to move on.
Kenyatta’s decision to stay in the race contrasts sharply with Hogg’s exit. “I wish David the best,” Kenyatta added, keeping it classy while subtly distancing himself from the drama. His focus on electing Democrats suggests a steadier hand for party leadership.
The female vice chair race, set for Sunday through Tuesday, features three candidates: Kalyn Free, Jeanna Repass, and Shasti Conrad. Free, an Oklahoma activist, filed the original challenge to the February vote, setting this overhaul in motion. The trio’s contest underscores the DNC’s push for diverse representation, though it’s tangled in the same procedural mess.
DNC chairman Ken Martin praised Hogg’s activism while gently ushering him offstage. “I commend David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation,” Martin said. The compliment feels like a polite send-off for a figure whose rhetoric often outpaced his results.
Martin’s proposed neutrality rule, requiring party leaders to stay out of primaries, takes direct aim at antics like Hogg’s. The DNC plans to vote on this measure in August, signaling a crackdown on internal agitation. Such a rule could prevent future clashes but risks stifling the party’s activist energy.
Hogg’s PAC, Leaders We Deserve, aimed to oust sitting Democrats deemed too cozy in their roles. His plan, while bold, alienated party loyalists who prefer unity over ideological purges. The DNC’s swift reaction suggests Hogg underestimated the backlash.
The redo vote’s timing -- before Hogg’s primary scheme went public -- undercuts his victim narrative. Party members’ insistence that he mischaracterized the decision holds water. This wasn’t a conspiracy; it was a course correction.
Martin’s leadership is steering the DNC toward calmer waters, with the neutrality proposal as a guardrail. “I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map,” Martin said of Hogg. The optimism sounds more like wishful thinking than a genuine endorsement.
The DNC’s focus now shifts to its upcoming elections and rebuilding momentum. The vice chair contests, particularly the female race, will test the party’s ability to unify behind new leaders. Free, Repass, and Conrad each bring regional clout, but they’ll need to navigate the same factional divides.
Hogg’s exit, while framed as a selfless act, leaves the DNC free to prioritize pragmatism over performative activism. The party’s reset offers a chance to refocus on winning elections, not settling scores. For conservatives, this Democratic Party disarray is a reminder: unity trumps idealism in politics.
A secret Instagram group of 8,500 LAPD officers is sounding the alarm on Los Angeles’ descent into chaos amid violent protests and political meddling. The “Defend the LAPD” club, a digital refuge for cops and supporters, exposes a city crippled by progressive policies and underfunded policing, as the Daily Mail reports. Their revelations paint a grim picture of a force stretched thin and betrayed by local leaders.
In Los Angeles, America’s second-largest city with nearly 4 million residents, clashes over President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown have turned streets into battlegrounds. The private group reveals officers’ frustrations with Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsom, who they accuse of undermining law enforcement while protests rage against federal immigration raids. This digital uprising highlights a deep rift between the LAPD and California’s Democratic Party elite.
Street demonstrations erupted Friday in Southern California, with activists clashing against sheriff’s deputies during federal anti-immigration operations targeting foreign-born and Latino communities. Protesters swarmed a government immigration lockup, escalating tensions in a city already on edge. The chaos, say group members, was a disaster foretold by years of neglect.
A 38-page report from “Defend the LAPD,” compiled with input from over 300 officers, details a police force gutted by “quiet defunding” since the 2020 George Floyd protests. The LAPD, short thousands of officers, is unprepared for large-scale unrest, hamstrung by progressive politicians’ constraints. “The Department was not prepared,” a group spokesperson declared, blaming “poor planning” and “inefficient deployment.”
Officers in the group vent their fury at Bass for allegedly seizing control of the LAPD control room, delaying deployments. This “unprecedented interference,” a group post claims, breached the chain of command, endangering federal agents and civilians. Bass’s office, predictably silent, offers no defense against these damning accusations.
The group also accuses local media outlets such as KTLA of peddling biased narratives, spotlighting police actions while ignoring rioters’ violence, such as Molotov cocktails hurled at officers. “The media is not reporting honestly,” a post fumes, exposing the progressive press’s selective outrage. Such coverage, they argue, fuels public mistrust while shielding dangerous activists.
Trump, unapologetic, has deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and active-duty U.S. Marines to quell Los Angeles’ unrest. “Everyone supports all the help they can get,” a “Defend the LAPD” spokesperson said, praising federal backup for a city overwhelmed. Officers cheer Trump’s vow to “hit harder” against protesters, a stark contrast to local leaders’ dithering.
Trump’s strategy, part of his second-term immigration crackdown, aims to deport record numbers and lock down the U.S.-Mexico border, with ICE targeting 3,000 daily arrests. The LAPD group backs this federal muscle, arguing it compensates for their own depleted ranks. “We need the help,” a spokesperson admitted, “because we can’t handle it.”
Newsom, ever the grandstander, calls the National Guard deployment a “manufactured crisis” and “un-American.” “Not true,” snaps a group spokesperson, crediting federal forces with keeping streets safe. Newsom’s posturing, they argue, ignores the real crisis: a city leadership that prioritizes optics over order.
Posts in the “Defend the LAPD” group accuse Bass of delaying LAPD support, putting Department of Homeland Security officers and FBI agents at risk. “This breach of the chain of command,” one post states, “prevented crucial operations decisions.” Such meddling, officers warn, turns Los Angeles into a tinderbox where safety is sacrificed for political points.
The group also blasts L.A. City Council member Ysabel Jurado, a progressive lawyer, for allegedly cursing police during her campaign. Jurado’s silence on the unverified claim only fuels officers’ distrust of woke crusaders. These slights, real or perceived, deepen the divide between cops and city hall.
Officers report being assaulted with bottles, concrete, and fireworks while ordered to stand down. “It’s clear the current leadership is prioritizing optics over officer safety,” a spokesperson said, condemning this cowardice. The betrayal stings worse when progressive policies leave cops defenseless against mob violence.
“That dysfunction is no longer theoretical,” a “Defend the LAPD” spokesperson warned, as street chaos proves their warnings true. The group’s report, a cry for help ignored by City Hall, predicted this unraveling. Now, with federal forces stepping in, Los Angeles’ leaders face a reckoning for their failures.
Trump’s threat to arrest Newsom, who decries federal intervention as dictatorial, underscores the political chasm. Officers, aligned with Trump’s no-nonsense approach, see Newsom’s protests as empty rhetoric from a governor out of touch. The clash between state and federal power only intensifies the city’s turmoil.
“Defend the LAPD” stands as a grassroots rebellion against a city elite that’s left officers out to dry. Their 8,500-strong voice, now amplified by the Daily Mail, demands accountability from Bass, Newsom, and a media complicit in their failures. As Los Angeles burns, this secret club’s warnings echo louder than ever.
Over 100 House Democrats just thumbed their noses at condemning an antisemitic terrorist attack in Boulder, Colorado. This week, 113 Democrats voted against a Republican resolution denouncing the June 1 firebombing that injured 15 people, as the New York Post reports. The resolution, led by Rep. Gabe Evans (R-CO) also took aim at Colorado’s sanctuary state policies.
The attack, allegedly perpetrated by Mohammed Sabry Soliman, an Egyptian national who overstayed his visa, targeted peaceful marchers demanding the release of Hamas-held hostages in Gaza, leaving 15 injured. Soliman reportedly used Molotov cocktails and a makeshift flamethrower while shouting “Free Palestine.” House Democrats’ refusal to back the resolution, which passed 280-113 with 75 Democrats joining Republicans, has sparked fierce backlash.
Soliman’s attack on June 1 shook the town of Boulder, targeting a march in support of hostage release with brutal efficiency. The National Republican Congressional Committee didn’t mince words, accusing the 113 Democrats of “siding with terrorists” and opposing law enforcement. Their vote against the resolution, which praised ICE and local police, suggests a troubling priorities list.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) called the resolution a political stunt, sneering, “This is not a serious effort.” His dismissal of Evans’ measure as insincere ignores the 15 victims burned in Boulder’s streets. Jeffries’ sanctimonious tone reeks of dodging accountability for his party’s vote.
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) himself a Jewish lawmaker, also voted no, claiming on the House floor, “We Jews are sick of being used as pawns.” Goldman’s theatrics sidestep the resolution’s core: condemning a clear antisemitic attack. His vote aligns with progressive posturing over practical solutions.
The resolution’s passage, despite Democrats' resistance, affirms support for law enforcement collaboration to prevent future attacks. Evans, a former police officer, argued that it ensures “free and open” cooperation between state and federal authorities. Yet 113 Democrats seem more concerned with sanctuary state dogma than public safety.
Evans didn’t hold back, blasting Democrats’ refusal to condemn the attack as proof that the “Left is unserious about solutions.” His floor speech tied Colorado’s sanctuary laws to enabling “antisemitic terrorists like Soliman” to strike. The data backs him: Soliman, an overstayed visa holder, exploited lax policies.
“Condemning terrorism is not a joking matter,” Evans declared, rebuking Jeffries’ flippant critique. The NRCC echoed this, branding Democrats the “pro-terrorist, anti-cop” caucus on X. Hyperbole aside, the vote split exposes a Democratic Party struggling to confront antisemitism head-on.
Democrats griped about the resolution’s nod to ICE, claiming that it politicized a tragedy. Their objection conveniently overlooks the ways in which federal-state cooperation could have flagged Soliman earlier. It’s a classic progressive dodge: cry foul over language to avoid the issue.
A separate resolution, introduced by Reps. Jeff Van Drew (R-NJ) and Joe Neguse (D-CO) sailed through 400-0. It broadly denounced rising antisemitic attacks across the U.S. without touching sanctuary policies or ICE. Funny how Democrats found their spines when the stakes were less policy-specific.
Evans, undeterred, stood firm: “The passing of my resolution ensures we condemn all acts of antisemitism.” His measure’s focus on law enforcement and sanctuary laws hit a nerve that Democrats couldn’t stomach. The contrast with the unanimous resolution highlights their selective outrage.
Jeffries doubled down, accusing Evans of “weaponizing” antisemitism politically. His pearl-clutching rings hollow when 113 Democrats couldn’t muster a vote against a firebombing terrorist. The hypocrisy is glaring: call out policy failures, and suddenly it’s “not serious.”
The Boulder attack’s victims -- 15 marchers burned for demanding that hostages be freed -- deserve better than Democratic Party deflections. Goldman’s claim that Jews are “sick of being pawns” might resonate if his vote didn’t undermine condemning a clear antisemitic act. Actions speak louder than floor speeches.
Evans’ resolution, while pointed, addressed a real issue: sanctuary policies that shield visa overstayers like Soliman. Democrats’ refusal to engage on this point suggests they’d rather play woke word games than protect communities. It’s a dangerous precedent in an era of rising antisemitic violence.
The House’s 280-113 vote proves most lawmakers see the urgency, but 113 Democrats beg to differ. Their no votes signal a troubling comfort with half-measures on antisemitism and public safety. Boulder’s marchers and America deserve a Congress that doesn’t flinch in calling evil by its name.
