A Texas man’s reckless Facebook posts have landed him in federal custody for threatening President Donald Trump’s life. Robert Herrera, 52, from San Antonio, thought he could play tough guy online, but the FBI wasn’t amused, as Fox News reports. His arrest exposes the left’s unhinged obsession with targeting conservative leaders.

Herrera was nabbed Thursday after posting violent threats on a local news outlet’s Facebook page. The posts, tied to Trump’s Kerrville visit after deadly Fourth of July flooding, included a chilling “I won’t miss” taunt. This wasn’t just hot air -- it referenced a July 2024 assassination attempt on Trump in Pennsylvania.

Using the alias “Robert Herrer,” the suspect posted under a photo of Trump with Secret Service agents. His words dripped with menace, directly alluding to the Pennsylvania rally where a gunman grazed Trump’s ear and killed attendee Corey Comperatore. Herrera’s bravado shows how far some will go to stoke division.

Social media threats swiftly escalate

When another user challenged Herrera’s threat, he doubled down, posting, “I’ll just come for you.” He paired it with a photo of himself clutching what looked like a rifle with loaded magazines. This wasn’t free speech -- it was a federal crime, plain and simple.

“While the FBI fully supports… free speech,” said Special Agent in Charge Aaron Tapp, “threatening violence… is a federal crime.” Tapp’s words are a polite reminder that the First Amendment doesn’t cover death threats. Yet, the progressive crowd might still cry “censorship” to dodge accountability.

The FBI and Secret Service moved swiftly, arresting Herrera the same day his posts surfaced. The threatening content was yanked from Facebook, but not before it raised alarms. Law enforcement’s quick action shows that agents are not playing games with Trump’s safety.

Trump visits flood-ravaged Kerrville

Trump and the first lady arrived in Kerrville on Friday to survey flood damage and meet first responders. “The federal government will provide whatever relief Texas needs,” Trump declared. His visit aimed to uplift a community reeling from tragedy, not to fuel more division.

Herrera’s threats were posted on a news outlet’s page discussing Trump’s trip. The outlet’s identity wasn’t disclosed, but the posts’ timing suggests a deliberate attempt to disrupt. Some folks can’t handle a president showing up to help.

The accused now faces charges of threatening the president and interstate threatening communications. Each charge carries up to five years in prison if he’s convicted. Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Roomberg is leading the prosecution, and justice will likely be swift.

Law enforcement stands united

“The FBI and our partners take threats of violence seriously,” Tapp emphasized. He thanked the Secret Service, San Antonio Police, and Texas Department of Public Safety for their teamwork. This unity is a stark contrast to the chaos peddled by Herrera’s reckless posts.

Special Agent in Charge Brian J. Gibson of the Secret Service echoed Tapp’s resolve. “Investigating threats towards individuals under Secret Service protection are treated as our highest priority,” Gibson stated. His no-nonsense stance shuts down any woke whining about “overreach.”

Gibson also praised the “countless reasons” the Secret Service values its law enforcement partnerships. “As this is an ongoing investigation, the Secret Service will have no further comment,” he added. The message is clear: they’re focused on results, not grandstanding.

Pennsylvania shooting still looms large

Herrera’s threats referenced the July 2024 Pennsylvania rally attack, where a gunman fired from 150 yards. The bullet grazed Trump’s ear and killed Corey Comperatore, a rally attendee, before the Secret Service neutralized the shooter. That tragedy still haunts conservatives who value bold leadership.

“We urge all members of the public to express their views peacefully,” Tapp said. His call for civility is noble, but it’s hard to ignore how the left’s rhetoric often fuels these outbursts. Herrera’s posts are a symptom of a deeper cultural rot.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office, Secret Service, and San Antonio Police didn’t respond to media inquiries. Their silence speaks to a focus on duty over publicity. Meanwhile, Herrera’s arrest serves as a warning: threaten the president, and you’ll face the consequences.

Big Tech and Big Media’s cozy cartel just got a reality check from the Justice Department. The Trusted News Initiative (TNI), a 23-member alliance including giants like Meta, Google, and the Washington Post, faces scrutiny for allegedly colluding to silence voices like the Children’s Health Defense (CHD), founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as Breitbart reports. This isn’t just about “disinformation” -- it’s about who gets to control the narrative.

In 2023, CHD launched an antitrust lawsuit against TNI, claiming the group has been choking out rival news publishers since 2020. The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, under Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater, will file a statement of interest on July 11, in the ongoing case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit accuses TNI of orchestrating a “group boycott” to deny competitors access to dominant social media platforms.

TNI’s mission? To squash “harmful disinformation” in real time, especially during elections. Sounds noble, until you realize it’s a self-appointed gatekeeper deciding what’s true. CHD argues TNI’s actions violate federal antitrust law, which bans agreements that block rivals from critical market access.

TNI’s alleged censorship scheme

“Partners alert each other to high risk disinformation,” TNI claims, as if they’re saving democracy. But CHD calls it a “massive group boycott,” denying smaller publishers a voice on platforms like Meta and Google. Since 2020, TNI’s chokehold has targeted those who dare challenge its orthodoxy, per the lawsuit.

Federal antitrust law is crystal clear: group boycotts are illegal, no exceptions. The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits actions that restrain trade, including stifling competition in viewpoints. CHD’s lawsuit seeks treble damages for the harm caused by TNI’s alleged collusion.

The Justice Department’s statement of interest isn’t just a footnote -- it’s a signal. It argues that harms to diverse news sources are antitrust injuries under the Sherman Act. Suppressing competition in the “marketplace of ideas” isn’t just bad for liberty; it’s illegal.

DOJ flexes muscles

“Suppressing competition in the marketplace of ideas … is not a cognizable antitrust injury,” TNI’s defendants scoff. The Justice Department begs to differ, citing the 1945 Supreme Court case Associated Press v. United States. News organizations don’t get a free pass to collude just because they deal in information.

“Individual liberty -- and consumer welfare -- benefit greatly from viewpoint competition,” the Justice Department insists. Americans rely on diverse perspectives to keep the powerful in check. TNI’s alleged scheme threatens that, and the DOJ isn’t staying silent.

Gail Slater and her team at the Antitrust Division are no strangers to taking on Big Tech. In 2025, they secured a ruling against Google for illegally maintaining a search market monopoly. Now, they’re turning their sights on TNI’s alleged censorship cartel.

Big Tech’s grip on speech

“Today’s online platforms control … the flow of our nation’s commerce and communication,” Slater warns. When tech giants and media elites team up, they don’t just set prices—they decide who gets heard. That’s not a market; it’s a monopoly.

CHD’s Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel, sees the DOJ’s move as a game-changer. “The DOJ … is stepping in here, hopefully means this case will move forward,” she said. The courts may finally force TNI to answer for its actions.

Dina Kallay, deputy assistant attorney general, recently flagged “product-fixing” schemes where firms collude to limit market offerings. “Don’t fix features of products,” she warned at a June 2025 conference. TNI’s coordinated censorship fits that bill, and the DOJ is watching.

"America First" antitrust push

“America First Antitrust policy is about empowering America’s forgotten men and women,” Slater declares. TNI’s elite club of media and tech titans seems more interested in control than competition. The DOJ’s involvement could level the playing field.

The Supreme Court has long held that news publishers aren’t above the law. “All are alike covered by the Sherman Act,” it ruled in 1945. TNI’s claim to be protecting democracy doesn’t excuse illegal collusion.

The CHD lawsuit is a wake-up call for those who think Big Tech and Big Media can gatekeep the truth. The Justice Department’s backing shows the government isn’t buying TNI’s “disinformation” excuse. This case could redefine who controls the flow of ideas in America.

Former FBI Director James Comey’s beach stroll sparked a Secret Service manhunt over a cryptic social media post. In May, he shared an Instagram photo of seashells arranged as “86 47,” a number some decoded as a veiled threat against President Donald Trump. The post, captioned innocently, vanished after backlash, but not before law enforcement took notice.

Comey’s seashell snapshot, posted while Trump was abroad in the Middle East, stirred controversy for its alleged coded message. The numbers “86,” slang for elimination in restaurant lingo, and “47,” tied to Trump as the 47th president, raised red flags. Authorities, citing “exigent” circumstances, launched a swift investigation into the former FBI chief’s intentions, as Just the News reports.

Comey’s Instagram post, captioned “Cool shell formation on my beach walk,” seemed harmless to him. He claimed ignorance of the numbers’ darker connotations, but critics, including President Trump, weren’t buying it. Trump declared, “A child knows what that meant,” accusing Comey of signaling assassination.

Secret Service springs into action

The Secret Service didn’t wait for Comey’s explanation. The day after the post, agents tracked his cellphone as he and his wife, Patrice, drove from a North Carolina vacation through Virginia. Unmarked cars and plainclothes officers shadowed the couple back to their Washington, D.C.-area home.

That evening, the Secret Service grilled Comey over the phone. He insisted he meant no harm to the president, but the agency wasn’t satisfied. They demanded an in-person interview at their D.C. headquarters the next day.

Comey’s claim of innocence didn’t quell suspicions. “I oppose violence of any kind,” he said, explaining why he deleted the post. Yet, his history as a polarizing figure made his beachside “art” look like a calculated jab to skeptics.

Comey faces questioning

Upon returning home, Comey was met by Secret Service personnel. They escorted him to their D.C. office for a formal questioning session. The agency’s thoroughness underscored their zero-tolerance stance on potential threats, regardless of the suspect’s stature.

“The Secret Service will vigorously investigate any individual,” spokesman Anthony Guglielmi stated, emphasizing their duty to protect. No one, not even a former FBI director, gets a free pass. This swift response sent a clear message: coded messages won’t be ignored.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem didn’t mince words, either. “James Comey just called for the assassination of [President] Trump,” she claimed, amplifying the post’s perceived menace. Her statement fueled public outrage, though Comey’s defenders called it an overreach.

Inquiry’s outcome remains murky

Despite the intense scrutiny, Comey hasn’t been charged with any crime. The Secret Service’s inquiry, launched independently without White House prompting, continues to hang over him. Its current status remains shrouded in secrecy, leaving questions unanswered.

A White House official, speaking anonymously, confirmed the investigation was the Secret Service’s call. This distancing suggests Trump’s team wanted no part in directing the probe. Still, the optics of tracking a former FBI director are hard to ignore.

Comey’s representative stonewalled the New York Times, declining to comment. This silence only deepens the mystery around his intentions. Was it a clueless blunder or a sly provocation?

Public trust takes a hit

The incident has reignited debates over Comey’s credibility. Once a towering figure in law enforcement, his post-Trump era antics have painted him as a bitter ex-official to conservatives. The seashell saga only cements that image for MAGA supporters.

President Trump’s own words cut deep: “He knew exactly what that meant.” To his base, Comey’s post was a deliberate middle finger to their leader. The Secret Service’s response, they argue, was both justified and necessary.

This episode exposes the fragility of public trust in a hyper-polarized era. A former FBI director’s beach photo shouldn’t spark a federal manhunt, yet here we are. Comey’s misstep, intentional or not, proves even seashells can stir a political storm.

Two North Carolinians face justice for arming a would-be assassin targeting President Trump. The Department of Justice accuses Tina Brown Cooper and Ronnie Jay Oxendine of illegally selling a Chinese-made SKS rifle to Ryan Routh, charged with attempting to kill Trump at his Florida golf club, as CBS News reports. This case exposes the dangerous underbelly of unchecked gun deals.

Cooper and Oxendine, indicted in March and arrested in April, sold the rifle to Routh in August, prosecutors say. Routh, barred from owning firearms due to a 2002 conviction, allegedly paid $350 to Oxendine and $100 to Cooper for her role as middleman. The transaction went down at a Greensboro roofing company where Cooper worked for Oxendine.

Fast-forward six weeks, and Routh was caught lurking outside Trump’s West Palm Beach golf club with an SKS-style rifle. Prosecutors haven’t confirmed it’s the same gun, but the timing raises eyebrows. This wasn’t a random sale -- Cooper knew Routh was a prohibited buyer, court filings reveal.

Guilty pleas and shady deals

Cooper pleaded guilty to firearm trafficking on Monday, admitting she helped Routh skirt the law. She claimed Routh wanted the gun “for his son’s protection,” a flimsy excuse that collapses under scrutiny. Progressive gun control advocates might cheer her arrest, but their selective outrage ignores how their policies often fail to stop real threats.

Oxendine, no saint himself, copped to possessing an unregistered short-barreled shotgun found in his storage unit. He pleaded guilty last month, distancing himself from Routh’s alleged plot. Yet his willingness to deal with a known felon suggests a reckless disregard for public safety.

The trio’s history adds context to this mess. Oxendine and Routh crossed paths in the 1990s as roofing company owners, though they weren’t buddies. Cooper, a former employee of Routh’s from the same era, played the go-between, proving old ties can lead to new crimes.

Cover-ups and FBI encounters

Cooper’s post-sale behavior screams guilt. She admitted to the FBI she deleted phone files to dodge ties to Routh’s assassination attempt, fearing “criminal consequences.” Her confession of lying to agents only digs her hole deeper, exposing a desperate attempt to evade justice.

Oxendine didn’t fare much better. He allegedly told the FBI that Cooper urged him to stonewall investigators and deny everything. This kind of obstruction shows a blatant contempt for the rule of law, something the left conveniently overlooks when it suits their narrative.

Neither Cooper nor Oxendine claims to have known Routh’s plans, and prosecutors haven’t suggested otherwise. Still, their actions enabled a dangerous man, and ignorance is no excuse. The Second Amendment doesn’t protect reckless deals that arm criminals.

Routh’s legal battle looms

Routh, charged with attempted assassination and unlawful gun possession, has pleaded not guilty. His trial is set for September, but he’s already stirring drama by moving to ditch his public defenders on Tuesday. His arrogance in thinking he can outsmart the system is almost laughable.

The allegations, first reported by Headline USA, highlight a chilling reality: Routh’s attempt came just two months after Trump survived a shooting at a Pennsylvania rally. The left’s obsession with demonizing Trump ignores how their rhetoric fuels these attacks. Yet they’ll dodge accountability, as always.

Cooper’s court filing lays bare her complicity: she “admitted she was ‘guilty’ of assisting Routh,” knowing he couldn’t legally own a gun. Her feeble lies to the FBI unravel any sympathy she might claim. This isn’t about “protection” for a son -- it’s about enabling a felon.

A wake-up call of accountability

The Justice Department’s case against Cooper and Oxendine sends a clear message: illegal gun sales won’t be tolerated. While the woke crowd pushes for more restrictions on law-abiding citizens, they’re silent on enforcing laws against actual criminals. Hypocrisy, as usual, reigns supreme.

Routh’s indictment doesn’t name Cooper or Oxendine directly, but the dots connect. Their guilty pleas confirm they played a role in arming a man hell-bent on chaos. This isn’t just a crime -- it’s a betrayal of public trust.

Trump’s survival is a testament to resilience, but this case underscores a grim truth: lax enforcement and shady deals put everyone at risk. The MAGA movement demands accountability, not more empty progressive platitudes. Cooper and Oxendine’s reckoning is a start, but the fight for justice continues.

New York City’s mayoral race is a chaotic cage match where independent heavyweights Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo are slugging it out to avoid a progressive takeover. The incumbent mayor and the former governor are locked in a bitter feud, each demanding the other step aside to consolidate the anti-woke vote, as Politico reports. This high-stakes drama threatens to fracture the city’s moderate coalition.

The election pits Democratic Party nominee Zohran Mamdani, a progressive darling, against independents Adams, Cuomo, and Jim Walden, plus Republican Curtis Sliwa, in a November showdown. Mamdani’s primary win, fueled by young voters and moderate Latino and South Asian neighborhoods in Queens, sent shudders through the city’s business and real estate elite. His radical agenda has moderates scrambling to unite behind a single challenger.

Tensions erupted as Adams and Cuomo began publicly pressuring each other to drop out. Adams, the sitting mayor, insists he’s the rightful standard-bearer against Mamdani’s progressive wave. Cuomo, backed by nearly $30 million in super PAC and campaign funds, believes his broader appeal makes him the stronger contender.

Pressure mounts for unity

Last week, independent candidate Walden floated a novel idea: an independent survey to identify the strongest anti-Mamdani candidate. He urged weaker contenders to rally behind the frontrunner, though ballot rules prevent candidates from withdrawing their names. It’s a desperate bid to avoid splitting the non-progressive vote.

Cuomo’s team admitted on July 7 that the crowded field of moderate and GOP candidates risks diluting their chances. Polls consistently show Mamdani leading, with Cuomo outperforming Adams even in surveys favoring the mayor. The numbers don’t lie: disunity could hand the city to the woke left.

Adams fired back, accusing Cuomo of “arrogance” for refusing to bow out after losing the Democratic Party primary by 12 points. “You expect me to step aside?” Adams scoffed on CNBC’s Squawk Box. His defiance masks a deeper worry: Cuomo’s war chest and name recognition could overshadow his campaign.

Old wounds resurface

Adams escalated the feud by alleging Cuomo has a history of undermining Black candidates like David Paterson, H. Carl McCall, and Charlie King. The charge stings, but it’s muddied by Paterson and McCall endorsing Cuomo’s 2025 run, with King serving as a key campaign figure. Adams’ attempt to paint Cuomo as a racial opportunist feels like a low blow that misses the mark.

Cuomo, undeterred, called Adams directly to request he exit the race. “Put aside political selfishness,” urged Rich Azzopardi, Cuomo’s spokesperson, on July 7. The plea reeks of hypocrisy, given Cuomo’s refusal to step back despite his primary drubbing.

Paterson, a Cuomo ally, weighed in at a midtown press conference, calling for “sacrifice” to unite against Mamdani. “It’s going to take a united effort,” he said. His words sound noble, but they conveniently align with Cuomo’s strategy to clear the field.

Adams digs in

Adams, fighting to keep his job, announced plans to mobilize “a million new voters” who awoke to Mamdani’s threat after the primary. His optimism is bold but dubious—turning out that many new voters in a city already fatigued by politics is a tall order. He’s banking on fear of Mamdani’s policies to spark a moderate uprising.

The mayor’s rhetoric is fiery, but his strategy hinges on painting Cuomo as a loser. “They heard your message. You lost,” Adams taunted on CNBC. It’s a sharp jab, but polls suggest voters may not share his confidence in his own electability.

Cuomo’s campaign, flush with cash, is leaning on star power and endorsements to outshine Adams. The former governor’s ability to dominate airwaves and rally business leaders gives him an edge. Yet, his refusal to cede ground risks alienating voters desperate for a unified front.

A city on edge

The November ballot, with its crowded field, promises a mayoral race more competitive than any in recent memory. Mamdani’s progressive momentum, fueled by a coalition of young and diverse voters, poses a real threat to the city’s traditional power structure. Moderates and conservatives face a stark choice: unite or lose.

Walden’s survey proposal, while creative, seems like a long shot to break the Adams-Cuomo stalemate. Neither man shows any sign of backing down, each convinced he’s New York’s last hope against a woke dystopia. Their egos could pave the way for Mamdani’s victory.

As the campaign intensifies, New Yorkers brace for a bruising election. The Adams-Cuomo feud isn’t just a sideshow -- it’s a high-stakes gamble that could reshape the city’s future. Will moderates find a way to rally, or will progressive dreams triumph by default?

Democrats -- including high-profile senators -- are finally admitting they botched border security, and the New York Times isn’t letting them off easy. A scathing report reveals top party leaders confessing their failures in policy and messaging, a mea culpa that’s as overdue as it is unsurprising, as Fox News reports. For years, conservatives have sounded alarms, only to be dismissed as alarmists by the progressive elite.

A Times piece details how Democrats, from congressmen to think tank gurus, now acknowledge their border strategy collapsed under the weight of reality. The party’s inability to address illegal immigration decisively has handed ammunition to critics like President Donald Trump, who campaigned hard on border enforcement. This isn’t just a policy fumble; it’s a political earthquake.

Rep. Vicente Gonzalez, a Texas Democrat, represents a district that’s been blue for over a century. His area, the most Latino district outside Puerto Rico, backed Trump, signaling a seismic shift in voter priorities. “This should be a wake-up call,” Gonzalez said, but one wonders if Democrats were napping through the last decade.

Latino voters shift alliance

Every county along the Mexico border in Gonzalez’s district supported Trump, a stunning rebuke of Democratic Party orthodoxy. The party’s failure to connect with voters who live with the border crisis daily is a self-inflicted wound. Progressive platitudes don’t pay the bills when chaos spills over from unchecked migration.

In 2020, a Democratic Party primary debate exposed the party’s disconnect, with nearly every candidate endorsing decriminalizing illegal border crossings. That moment, replayed endlessly by conservative media, cemented perceptions of Democrats as soft on enforcement. It’s no shock that voters, tired of excuses, sought stronger leadership elsewhere.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, admitted the party “looked feckless” and failed to listen to voters. His words sting, but they’re too little, too late for a party that’s been outmaneuvered on this issue. Gallego’s recent border security plan feels like a desperate attempt to catch up to reality.

Democrats’ late policy pivot

Gallego’s plan, rolled out in May, pushes for faster asylum processing and tackling cartel violence. It’s a start, but skeptics might call it election-year window dressing. After years of inaction, why should voters trust Democrats to suddenly get tough?

The Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, now urges expanding legal immigration while tightening border security. Its president, Neera Tanden, insists the border “has been too insecure,” a rare admission from the progressive camp. But her call for reform sounds hollow when paired with years of open-border advocacy.

Tanden claims she’s ready to debate policy hawks like Trump administration official Stephen Miller, but conservatives aren’t holding their breath. The think tank’s proposals, while pragmatic on paper, dodge the root issue: a lack of political will to enforce existing laws. Voters aren’t fooled by half-measures dressed up as bold reform.

Border crisis hits home

Rep. Veronica Escobar, another Texas Democrat, felt the crisis firsthand when illegal immigrants overwhelmed El Paso in December 2022. “This would cause a massive shift,” she predicted, and she wasn’t wrong. Her district’s struggles exposed the human cost of Democratic Party dithering.

Escobar admitted the party “created a vacuum” on immigration policy, allowing Trump to dominate the narrative. Her candor is refreshing, but it doesn’t erase years of sidestepping the issue. Voters fed up with excuses, rewarded the candidate who promised action over rhetoric.

Cecilia Muñoz, a former Obama aide, called the results of Democratic Party inaction “appalling.” She’s right, but her party’s refusal to course-correct earlier paved the way for today’s backlash. Blaming the current administration won’t erase the Democrats’ fingerprints on this mess.

Consequences of inaction in spotlight

Muñoz lamented that the country is “living with the results” of Democratic Party missteps. Those results include a border crisis that’s eroded public trust and fueled a conservative resurgence. The party’s failure to act decisively has consequences that won’t fade with a few op-eds.

Gallego’s claim that Democrats were “led astray” by past elections rings hollow. Voters have been clear for years: secure the border and enforce the law. Ignoring that mandate while chasing progressive applause lines was a choice, not a misstep.

The New York Times report lays bare a party grappling with its irrelevance on a defining issue. Democrats’ belated scramble to address border security might win headlines, but it won’t undo the damage. Conservatives, meanwhile, are proving that listening to voters isn’t just smart -- it’s essential.

Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral campaign just hit a speed bump that smells like woke privilege run amok. The 33-year-old democratic socialist, born in Uganda and now the frontrunner for New York City mayor, checked both “Asian” and “Black or African American” on his 2009 Columbia University application, which was rejected, as the New York Post reports. This revelation, courtesy of a hacker’s data breach, has conservatives crying foul over identity politics.

Last week’s cyberattack exposed sensitive data from over 2.5 million Columbia students, applicants, and employees, including Mamdani’s application. The hacktivist, claiming to probe Columbia’s affirmative action practices, sent shockwaves through the university, which used race-based admissions in 2009 until the Supreme Court later struck it down. Mamdani, a Muslim immigrant who became a U.S. citizen in 2018, now faces scrutiny over his self-identified racial categories.

Mamdani launched his mayoral bid in 2024 as a little-known Queens assemblyman, promising free buses, free child care, and steep taxes on the wealthy. He clinched the Democratic Party's nomination last week, defeating former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, but now competes against incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, running as an Independent, alongside Cuomo, Curtis Silwa, and Jim Walden in the general election. A new American Pulse survey shows Mamdani leading with 35%, though his lead may wobble as voters digest this controversy.

Identity claims spark outrage

“Most college applications don’t have a box for Indian Ugandans, so I checked multiple boxes,” Mamdani said, defending his Columbia application. Nice try, but conservatives aren’t buying it -- checking both Asian and African Americans smells like gaming the system for affirmative action perks. Critics argue this move cheapens the lived struggles of those communities.

“It’s disgraceful to exploit this country’s legacy of slavery,” said Matthew Schweber of Columbia’s Jewish Alumni Association. Schweber’s point lands hard: Mamdani, son of a Columbia professor and an Oscar-nominated filmmaker, hardly fits the profile of the oppressed he claims to champion. Privilege, not struggle, seems to be his real inheritance.

Mamdani’s 2009 application rejection didn’t stop him from building a political career, but the timing of this leak stings. “He was trying to get into a school by lying about his racial background,” said Gerard Kassar, state Conservative Party chairman. Kassar’s blunt assessment cuts through the progressive fog: identity shouldn’t be a buffet you pick from for personal gain.

Conservatives demand accountability

“Being from Uganda doesn’t make you black,” Kassar added, doubling down on his critique. His logic is simple—race isn’t a feeling or a passport stamp; it’s a specific reality Mamdani allegedly bent for advantage. This accusation fuels conservative distrust of progressive identity politics.

“The African American identity is not a checkbox of convenience,” Mayor Eric Adams declared. Adams, trailing Mamdani in the polls, nails the issue: co-opting a community’s history for a college application reeks of opportunism. Voters may wonder what else Mamdani has been flexible with.

“It’s now clear that Zohran Mamdani misrepresented his racial identity,” said Todd Shapiro, Adams’ campaign spokesperson. Shapiro’s demand for answers echoes a broader conservative call for transparency from a candidate who’s dodged accountability before. Mamdani’s refusal to condemn “globalize the intifada” already raised eyebrows -- now this.

Campaign faces voter scrutiny

“Mamdani has an early lead and a clear message,” said Dustin Olson, American Pulse pollster. But Olson’s warning that “deeper scrutiny may erode enthusiasm” feels prophetic as this Columbia saga unfolds. Voters don’t like being played, especially by a candidate preaching authenticity.

Mamdani’s platform -- free services and soak-the-rich taxes -- thrives on progressive idealism, but this scandal could sour even his base. “It’s possible some voters already have buyer’s remorse,” Olson noted, pointing to Mamdani’s refusal to denounce controversial slogans. That’s a polite way of saying his woke credentials might be crumbling.

President Donald Trump weighed in, calling for Mamdani’s arrest and deportation if he meddles with ICE as mayor. It’s a classic Trump zinger, but it underscores the stakes: Mamdani’s progressive posturing clashes with conservative demands for law and order. New Yorkers will decide if they trust him.

Privilege under microscope

“Even though these boxes are constraining, I wanted my application to reflect who I was,” Mamdani claimed. Sorry, but that sounds like a rehearsed line from the woke playbook -- vague, self-serving, and conveniently unprovable. His elite upbringing makes the excuse ring hollow.

Columbia’s admissions complied with the Supreme Court’s ruling, a university official insisted on July 2, 2025. Yet the 2009 race-based system Mamdani allegedly tried to exploit exposes the flaws of affirmative action, a policy conservatives have long argued distorts merit and fairness. This leak proves their point.

Mamdani’s lead in the polls may not survive this firestorm. With his privileged background and questionable identity claims now in the spotlight, New Yorkers face a choice: a candidate rooted in principle or one surfing the waves of progressive expediency. The general election just got a lot spicier.

Tragedy struck near the U.S. Capitol when a young Congressional intern was gunned down in a senseless act of violence. Eric Tarpinian-Jachym, a 21-year-old working for Rep. Ron Estes, lost his life Monday night in a shooting that spared no innocence, as the Daily Mail reports. Washington, D.C.'s spiraling crime wave claims another victim, and the nation mourns.

Late Monday, gunfire erupted near 1200 7th Street, leaving Tarpinian-Jachym dead and two others -- a woman and a 16-year-old male -- wounded. The Metropolitan Police Department believes the attack was deliberate, but Tarpinian-Jachym, an intern with dreams of public service, was merely a bystander caught in the crossfire. This is what happens when urban chaos is left unchecked.

Around 10:30 p.m., police responded to reports of shots fired, finding Tarpinian-Jachym unconscious and the other victims alert but injured. Multiple suspects, exiting a vehicle with cold precision, unleashed a hail of bullets on a group of people. Progressive policies coddling criminals have turned D.C. streets into a war zone.

Innocent bystander caught in chaos

The three victims, struck by gunfire, were rushed to a nearby hospital for treatment. Tarpinian-Jachym, despite medical efforts, succumbed to his wounds by Tuesday. Another life cut short because soft-on-crime agendas prioritize feelings over safety.

Tarpinian-Jachym had been interning for Estes for just two months, according to a LinkedIn profile believed to be his. A rising senior at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, he majored in finance with a political science minor, embodying the ambition of America’s youth. Yet, D.C.’s failure to enforce law and order robbed him of his future.

Before Capitol Hill, Tarpinian-Jachym worked at a government relations firm in D.C., sharpening his skills in public policy. A Springfield native and Pope Francis Preparatory School alumnus, he was the pride of his community. Now, that community grieves, betrayed by a system that refuses to prioritize their safety.

Community mourns bright star

"I will remember his kind heart and how he always greeted anyone who entered our office with a cheerful smile," Rep. Estes said. Kind words, but they ring hollow when D.C.’s leaders let criminals roam free, turning interns into collateral damage. Conservatives know strong policing, not platitudes, saves lives.

Rep. Estes, a Kansas Republican since 2017, serves on key House committees, including Ways and Means and the Social Security Subcommittee, which he chairs. His office became Tarpinian-Jachym’s training ground for public service. But no internship should end in a body bag -- D.C.’s leadership must answer for this.

"We are grateful to Eric for his service to Kansas' 4th District and the country," Estes added. Gratitude is fine, but justice is better -- why aren’t city officials cracking down on the gang violence plaguing our nation’s capital? The silence from progressive lawmakers is deafening.

Police hunt for killers

The Metropolitan Police Department is offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the shooters. Tips can be called in at (202) 727-9099 or texted to 50411. If only D.C.’s leaders showed this urgency before bullets flew, Eric might still be alive.

"A rising senior at UMass Amherst, Eric was in D.C. interning on Capitol Hill, pursuing his passion for public service," said Rep. Richard E. Neal. Noble sentiment, but Neal’s party pushes defund-the-police rhetoric that emboldens thugs. Spare us the crocodile tears -- fix the broken system.

"Eric embodied what it means to be part of a community committed to learning, growth, and civic engagement," Neal continued. Civic engagement didn’t save Eric from a bullet; nor will woke buzzwords stop the next shooting. America demands real solutions, not flowery eulogies.

Grieving a stolen future

"Any parent will tell you there is no greater pain than the pain of losing a child," Neal said. Heartbreaking, but where’s the outrage over policies that let criminals turn D.C. into a killing field? Parents deserve better than condolences—they deserve safe streets.

Tarpinian-Jachym’s death is a grim reminder of the cost of unchecked urban violence. The nation’s capital, once a beacon of democracy, now bleeds under the weight of progressive mismanagement. Conservatives warned this would happen when “reform” became code for lawlessness.

America mourns a young man who sought to serve his country, only to be struck down by the chaos liberal policies have wrought. Eric Tarpinian-Jachym deserved better -- his death must be a wake-up call. It’s time to restore order, lock up criminals, and make D.C. safe again.

President Donald Trump just dropped a bombshell, naming Lara Trump as his top pick to replace Sen. Thom Tillis in North Carolina’s 2026 Senate race, as the New York Post reports. The announcement, made Tuesday, signals a bold move to keep the Tar Heel State firmly in the MAGA camp. Lara’s no stranger to the spotlight, but can she swap Fox News for Capitol Hill?

On Sunday, Tillis, a Republican senator since 2015, declared he won’t seek re-election, opening the door for Lara, who Trump praised as a native who “grew up there.” Lara, 42, born in Wilmington and a North Carolina State grad, served as RNC co-chair during Trump’s 2024 campaign. Her current gig hosting My View with Lara Trump on Fox News has her preaching conservative values to a loyal audience.

Tillis’ exit followed his vote against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a move that likely didn’t sit well with the MAGA faithful. Lara, sensing opportunity, teased her interest in her show Sunday, saying she’s “considering it” after learning Tillis’ seat was up for grabs. The timing feels less like a coincidence and more like a calculated step toward a Trump dynasty.

Lara’s roots, ambitions in review

Lara’s no political novice, having flirted with Senate runs in 2022 for North Carolina and Florida. “I’ve considered kind of running,” she admitted, noting past bids didn’t align with her schedule. Now, with Tillis out, she’s eyeing a return to her home state to claim a bigger stage.

President Trump’s full-throated endorsement wasn’t subtle, calling Lara “a great person” who “did fantastically” at the RNC. He’s betting her star power and North Carolina roots will resonate with voters tired of establishment Republicans. But her current residence in Jupiter, Florida, raises questions about eligibility.

The U.S. Constitution demands that senators live in the state they represent at election time. WCNC reports Lara must relocate to North Carolina by September to meet the state’s 90-day party affiliation rule. Moving back won’t be a stretch -- her parents still live there, and Trump insists “she’s there all the time.”

Challenges remain on horizon

Lara’s potential candidacy isn’t a done deal, as Trump expects at least one North Carolina House member to vie for the seat. The competition could test her political chops, especially against seasoned local politicos. Yet, with Trump’s backing, she’s already got a head start in the MAGA primary lane.

Her Fox News platform, which Trump bragged is “like the number one show,” gives her a megaphone to rally the base. Lara’s knack for connecting with viewers could translate to campaign trail charisma. Still, swapping soundbites for Senate debates is a leap, even for Trump.

Lara’s past Senate considerations -- North Carolina in 2022 and Florida for Rubio’s seat -- show she’s been eyeing this level of power for years. “The timing of both of those didn’t really work out,” she said, but now the stars might align. Her ambition is clear, but North Carolina voters will demand more than name recognition.

North Carolina’s political landscape

Trump’s endorsement of Lara underscores his grip on the GOP, steering it away from the squishy moderates of yesteryear. Tillis, with his occasional breaks from party orthodoxy, never fully embraced the MAGA ethos. Lara, by contrast, is a loyalist who’s unlikely to buck the Trump agenda.

North Carolina, a battleground state, has leaned red in recent years, with Ted Budd’s 2022 Senate win as proof. Lara’s challenge will be convincing voters she’s not just a celebrity import but a committed advocate for their interests. Her Wilmington roots and NC State diploma might help seal the deal.

Trump’s confidence in Lara hinges on her RNC success, where she proved she can mobilize the base. “She’s done well,” he said, touting her leadership and media savvy. But governing isn’t campaigning, and Senate life demands more than rousing rally speeches.

What’s next for Lara?

Lara’s Florida lifestyle with husband Eric and their two kids adds a wrinkle to her Senate bid. Uprooting her family for a North Carolina campaign could draw scrutiny from opponents eager to paint her as an outsider. She’ll need to move fast to establish residency and silence the doubters.

Trump hasn’t yet discussed the race with Lara, suggesting this endorsement might’ve caught her off guard. “This is all kind of fresh,” she admitted, hinting at the whirlwind pace of her potential candidacy. The next few months will reveal whether she’s all in or just testing the waters.

For now, Lara’s weighing her options, but Trump’s public nod puts pressure on her to act. North Carolina’s GOP primary could become a MAGA showcase, with Lara as its leading lady. If she runs, expect a campaign that’s loud, proud, and unapologetically anti-woke.

President Donald Trump’s claws are out, threatening to deport Elon Musk and sic the “DOGE monster” on his former ally, as the Daily Mail reports. The once-chummy duo, bonded over Tesla showcases and campaign cash, now trade barbs like political prizefighters. This isn’t just a spat -- it’s a conservative cage match with Washington watching.

Trump and Musk’s feud erupted over a tax cut and spending bill, debated for over 20 hours in the Senate, with a vote looming Tuesday. Musk, once a key player in Trump’s orbit, slammed the legislation for slashing electric vehicle subsidies and ballooning the deficit. The clash has spiraled into threats, taunts, and talk of a new political party.

Earlier this year, Trump rolled out a Tesla on the South Lawn, hyping his ties with Musk after buying one in cash. “Not everybody wants an electric car,” Trump now sneers, regretting his purchase. His pivot from Musk fanboy to foe reveals a deeper rift over policy and power.

From allies to adversaries

Musk, a naturalized citizen from South Africa, faces Trump’s deportation jab, a low blow even for bare-knuckle politics. “We’ll have to take a look,” Trump told the Daily Mail, dodging but not denying the threat. It’s a head-scratcher -- can a citizen be deported for disagreeing with the boss?

The Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, founded by Musk, is now Trump’s weapon of choice. “DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump quipped, turning Musk’s creation against him. This is what happens when you hand a president a shiny new toy and then criticize his playbook.

Musk’s tenure heading DOGE ended when he bolted back to the private sector, leaving protests at his auto dealerships in the dust. His cost-cutting zeal didn’t win hearts, but it did win Trump’s ear—until now. The fallout proves even MAGA’s brightest stars can crash.

Social media showdown

Monday night’s social media brawl lit the fuse, with Musk torching Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” on X. “If this insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day,” Musk vowed, eyeing a challenge to GOP dominance. A new party? Bold, but it’s poking the bear with a stick.

Trump fired back, warning Musk against playing “that game” with him. “Elon is not getting his mandate,” Trump declared, doubling down on his anti-EV stance. The president’s message is clear: loyalty to MAGA trumps Musk’s billions.

Musk’s threat to bankroll primary challenges against GOP bill supporters ups the ante. “If it is the last thing I do on this Earth,” he posted, signaling a war chest ready to reshape Washington. This isn’t just talk -- last year, he funneled nearly $300 million to Republican candidates.

Bill sparks bigger battle

The Senate’s marathon debate over the bill, packed with tax cuts and spending, is the feud’s flashpoint. Musk’s gripe -- deficit growth and gutted EV subsidies -- puts him at odds with Trump’s economic vision. It’s a classic clash: free-market tech bro versus America First dealmaker.

Trump claims Musk knew his anti-EV mandate stance “long before he so strongly endorsed me.” Yet Musk’s millions fueled Trump’s 2024 campaign, suggesting a deal gone sour. The president’s Truth Social posts read like a scorned partner airing dirty laundry.

Musk’s America Party idea could splinter the GOP, a nightmare for conservatives battling a progressive tide. “Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty,” Musk argued, but splitting the right risks handing wins to the woke left. It’s a gamble that could haunt MAGA for years.

Tesla dreams turn sour

Trump’s Tesla purchase, once a symbol of Musk’s influence, now feels like a bad bet. Turning the South Lawn into a showroom was peak bromance, but Trump’s heart was never in EVs. His regret underscores a broader truth: MAGA’s base prefers gas-guzzlers over green dreams.

Musk’s exit from DOGE and return to his empire didn’t shield him from Trump’s wrath. “He better be careful,” Trump warned, hinting at consequences beyond lost subsidies. The president’s not bluffing -- he’s got the bully pulpit and a loyal following.

This feud isn’t just personal; it’s a referendum on where conservatism heads next. Trump’s DOGE threats and Musk’s party plans signal a GOP at war with itself, not the left. As the Senate votes, the fallout will test whether MAGA can keep its coalition -- or its cool.

STAY UPDATED

Subscribe to our newsletter and receive exclusive content directly in your inbox