A young congressional intern’s life was senselessly cut short by gunfire just a mile from the White House. Eric Tarpinian-Jachym, 21, was gunned down near Mount Vernon Square Metro station in Washington, D.C., on June 30, caught in a violent outburst that exposes the capital’s spiraling crime crisis, as the Daily Mail reports. His death, a grim milestone as D.C.’s 85th homicide this year, demands answers from a city leadership asleep at the wheel.
Eric, a bright intern for Rep. Rob Estes, was heading to McDonald’s for a late meal when masked men from a black Acura SUV unleashed a hail of bullets, injuring a woman and a teenage boy. This shooting, part of a bloody weekend that saw a three-year-old killed by a stray bullet, underscores a city where lawlessness festers under Mayor Muriel Bowser’s watch. The progressive obsession with soft-on-crime policies has left innocents like Eric as collateral damage.
An earlier argument that day between one victim and the assailants escalated into the deadly gunfire. Eric, texting friends without his wallet, was no target -- just a bystander who took a bullet meant for a 16-year-old, now paralyzed. This isn’t just a tragedy; it’s a policy failure screaming for accountability.
A man in a wheelchair nearby described the chaos as “bullet after bullet after bullet.” The shooting, near the Walter E. Washington Convention Center, shattered any illusion of safety in D.C.’s core. Yet, the city’s leadership offers little beyond platitudes while crime surges.
Eric’s mother, Tamara Tarpinian-Jachym, learned of his death two days later when Rep. Estes’ office flagged his absence. “My son had a false sense of security that time of night,” she said, rightfully furious that D.C.’s streets betrayed her son’s trust. Her words indict a city where even a congressional aide isn’t safe.
Tamara and her husband Bob rushed to D.C. on July 2, desperate for answers. Police found Eric’s phone, but his family was left in the dark, learning of a reward increase from $25,000 to $40,000 through news reports. This lack of communication is a slap in the face to grieving parents.
The Metropolitan Police Department, alongside the FBI, is enhancing grainy footage of the suspects, but progress is glacial. “No significant updates,” admitted Tom Lynch, a police spokesman, urging public tips. This sluggish response fuels distrust in a system that seems to prioritize politics over justice.
Eric’s mother voiced her anguish: “I don’t know anything. They don’t tell the family.” Her pain highlights a bureaucracy more concerned with secrecy than supporting victims’ families. Transparency, not tight-lipped investigations, is what D.C. owes its citizens.
Some in Congress are seizing on Eric’s death to push for repealing D.C.’s Home Rule Act, arguing the city’s leadership can’t handle its crime epidemic. Mayor Bowser and Police Chief Pamela Smith face mounting pressure as shootings, stabbings, and carjackings plague the capital. Their failure to act decisively invites federal intervention.
Eric, despite a heart condition, asthma, and dyslexia, was a brilliant mind with a 135 IQ. He taught himself multiplication and chess, earning praise for his deductive reasoning. This was a young man who deserved better than D.C.’s dangerous streets.
Working for Rep. Estes after a Fund for American Studies fellowship, Eric thrived in D.C.’s political scene. He texted his mother about meeting Federal Reserve leaders, calling it a career highlight. Yet, the city’s chaos robbed him of his future.
In April, Eric called a White House Rose Garden visit the “best day of my life.” His excitement contrasts starkly with the grim reality of his death. D.C.’s progressive policies have turned dreams into nightmares for too many.
An accomplished archer and outdoorsman, Eric was the youngest board member of the Pioneer Valley Boat and Surf Club. He cherished fishing trips with his father, Bob, calling one in May the “best day” they shared. These memories now fuel a family’s resolve to honor him.
The Eric Tarpinian-Jachym Memorial Scholarship will support future D.C. students, ensuring his legacy endures. “He always greeted anyone with a cheerful smile,” Rep. Estes said, mourning a dedicated aide. But kind hearts can’t thrive in a city where bullets fly unchecked.
Eric’s funeral mass was held on July 10 at St. Cecilia Parish in Wilbraham. As D.C.’s homicide count modestly drops, it’s cold comfort for a family shattered by violence. The nation’s capital must reject woke leniency and restore order before more lives are lost.
A federal judge has slapped Caroline Wren, a key figure in Donald Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, Ellipse rally, with a $2,000 daily fine for dodging a subpoena, as The Hill reports. The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, aims to force Wren to hand over records tied to her role in the event. This move exposes the relentless legal hounding of Trump allies, framed as justice but reeking of political vendetta.
Wren’s fine stems from a lawsuit by Capitol Police officers accusing Trump of inciting the Jan. 6 Capitol chaos. The officers demand documents detailing Wren’s work on the rally’s planning, fundraising, security, and VIP arrangements. Middlebrooks’ ruling paints Wren as a roadblock, delaying the officers’ so-called entitled discovery.
Judge Middlebrooks, wielding the gavel with righteous fervor, found Wren in civil contempt for her “pattern of disregard.” That phrase, dripping with judicial scorn, suggests Wren’s refusal to play ball is a personal affront to the court’s authority. Yet, one wonders if this is less about justice and more about punishing those loyal to Trump’s cause.
The contempt order came down on a Wednesday, though the exact date remains murky. Middlebrooks didn’t mince words, warning that Wren’s defiance could lead to harsher measures. “If these fines prove ineffective,” he declared, “I will consider additional steps,” hinting at the specter of jail time.
At a hearing that same day, the judge admitted he’d rather not “resort to incarceration.” Such restraint sounds noble, but it’s hard to ignore the implied threat hanging over Wren’s head. The message is clear: comply or face the progressive justice system’s full wrath.
Wren’s role in the Jan. 6 rally, a patriotic gathering for many, has now landed her in this legal quagmire. The officers’ lawsuit, dragging on for four years, also targets groups such as the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. This sprawling case feels less like accountability and more like a fishing expedition to tarnish Trump’s legacy.
The subpoena seeks specifics on how Wren orchestrated the rally’s logistics, from cash flow to crowd control. Non-compliance, Middlebrooks argues, stalls the officers’ quest for truth. But is this really about discovery, or is it a tactic to squeeze Trump’s inner circle until they break?
Wren isn’t the only one feeling the heat. Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s steadfast ally, has also sidestepped a subpoena in the same lawsuit. Joshua Margolin, the officers’ lawyer, griped that “Mr. Giuliani has failed to appear,” as if loyalty to a cause is a crime in itself.
Last month, Margolin pushed another judge to force Giuliani’s cooperation, showing this lawsuit’s relentless scope. The Hill reached out to Wren for comment, but her silence speaks volumes. Perhaps she sees this as a battle not worth dignifying with a response.
Middlebrooks’ contempt finding hinges on Wren’s alleged stonewalling, labeled a “pattern of disregard.” That phrase, thrown around like a moral cudgel, ignores the broader context of lawfare against Trump’s supporters. It’s as if standing firm is now a contemptuous act in the eyes of the woke judiciary.
The $2,000 daily fine is no small change, designed to bleed Wren’s resources until she caves. Yet, the judge’s threat of “additional steps” looms larger, a not-so-subtle nod to incarceration. This escalation feels less like justice and more like coercion dressed in legal robes.
The officers’ lawsuit claims Trump spurred the Capitol attack, a narrative the left clings to with fervor. But targeting Wren for rally logistics stretches the blame too thin. Is organizing a speech now equivalent to inciting a riot in the eyes of these plaintiffs?
For four years, this lawsuit has churned through the courts, ensnaring anyone tied to Jan. 6. The inclusion of groups like the Oath Keepers suggests a broader agenda to vilify conservative movements. Wren’s fine is just another chapter in this saga of selective outrage.
Middlebrooks’ reluctance to jail Wren, while sternly warning of it, smacks of performative fairness. “To which they are entitled,” he said of the officers’ discovery, but entitled to what? Endless harassment of Trump’s allies under the guise of legal accountability?
As Wren faces mounting fines and Giuliani dodges his subpoena, the true cost of this lawsuit becomes clear. It’s not about truth; it’s about punishing those who dared support a president the establishment despises. The conservative base watches, knowing this is lawfare, not justice, at work.
A former Marine reservist is now a fugitive after a brazen attack on a Texas ICE facility. Benjamin Hanil Song, 32, allegedly led a violent ambush at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, leaving law enforcement scrambling, as the New York Post reports. This isn’t just a crime -- it’s a calculated assault on order.
On July 4, Song and 10 to 12 others, clad in black military gear, attacked the detention center, firing AR-15 rifles, spraying graffiti, and launching fireworks to sow chaos. The FBI is hunting Song, offering $25,000 for his capture, while 10 other suspects are in custody, facing serious charges. Another individual was nabbed for trying to cover up the crime.
It started just after 10:30 p.m. on Independence Day. Correctional officers, already on edge, spotted suspicious activity and called 911. An Alvarado police officer rushed to the scene, only to be shot in the neck by a hidden gunman.
The attackers, moving like a trained unit, didn’t stop there. One assailant unleashed a barrage of bullets at unarmed correctional officers outside the facility. Song, the FBI alleges, was wielding two AR-15-style rifles, one tricked out with a binary trigger for rapid fire.
The Prairieland Detention Center became a war zone. Graffiti marred vehicles and a guard structure, while fireworks lit up the night, masking the gunfire. This wasn’t a protest -- it was a progressive fantasy of “resistance” gone rogue.
Ten of the assailants fled but were quickly rounded up by additional law enforcement. Song, however, slipped through the cracks, leaving behind a trail of weapons and questions. A white Mercedes-Benz tied to his relative was found two days later, near another suspect’s home.
Song allegedly bought four guns linked to the attack, including the two AR-15s found at the scene. Another AR-15 was recovered during searches of residences and vehicles. The firepower suggests a plot far beyond a spontaneous outburst.
The FBI slapped Song with three counts of attempted murder of a federal officer. Add to that three counts of discharging a firearm in a crime of violence. If caught, he’s facing a long stretch behind bars.
A Blue Alert went out on July 9, warning Texans that Song is armed and dangerous. The public’s on edge, and rightly so -- Song’s military background makes him a formidable threat. Yet some corners of the internet are already spinning him as a “patriot.”
The 10 other suspects -- Cameron Arnold, Savanna Batten, Nathan Baumann, Zachary Evetts, Joy Gibson, Bradford Morris, Maricela Rueda, Seth Sikes, Elizabeth Soto, and Ines Soto -- are in custody. Their roles in the attack are still being unraveled, but the FBI isn’t playing games. Another person was charged with obstruction, trying to erase evidence of this disaster.
The attack targeted a facility housing unauthorized migrants, a flashpoint for political tensions. While the left cries about “inhumane” detention centers, this ambush shows what happens when rhetoric turns to violence. Law enforcement officers didn’t sign up to be target practice.
Song’s Marine Corps reservist history adds a chilling layer. Trained by the U.S. military, he’s now using those skills against federal officers. It’s a betrayal of service that demands accountability, not applause.
The FBI’s $25,000 reward is a clear signal: Song’s days of running are numbered. His face is plastered across Texas, and every cop in the state is on high alert. But with Song still at large, the risk of another attack looms.
This isn’t just about one man -- it’s about a broader erosion of respect for law and order. The woke crowd might cheer “defund” or “abolish ICE,” but when bullets fly, it’s the officers who stand in the gap. Their bravery deserves better than graffiti and gunfire.
As the manhunt continues, Texans are left wondering: Where’s Song, and what’s next? The FBI’s closing in, but until he’s caught, the Prairieland attack is a stark reminder of what happens when ideology festers into violence. Let’s hope justice is swift and final.
Joe Biden’s personal cell phone number became a political landmine when a journalist dialed it directly. In a new book, a reporter’s unexpected access to the former president’s private line sent Biden’s aides into a frantic tailspin, as Fox News reports. The incident exposes the tight control Biden’s team exerted, raising questions about transparency in his administration.
A book released Tuesday, co-authored by New York Times reporter Tyler Pager and others, details how Pager reached Biden on his cell in March 2024 to request an interview. The former president answered, agreed to talk the next day, and fielded a few questions before cutting the call short to catch a train. This brief exchange triggered a swift reaction from Biden’s inner circle, who were stunned that Pager had the number.
Biden’s aides quickly contacted Pager, their alarm palpable over how he obtained the president’s contact. Their response wasn’t just concern -- it was a scramble to plug a perceived leak in their fortress. This overreaction suggests a team obsessed with controlling access, wary of unfiltered scrutiny.
Pager shared the story on a podcast with Kara Swisher, who quipped, “This is why they lost.” Her jab cuts deep, implying Biden’s team’s paranoia alienated the press and, by extension, the public. The comment underscores a broader narrative of an administration dodging accountability.
After the interview, Pager found his number blocked by Biden’s team, a petty move that screams defensiveness. Two days later, Biden’s phone number was disconnected entirely, as if the call was a national security breach. This knee-jerk response reeks of a team more focused on optics than openness.
A Biden spokesperson dodged Fox News Digital’s request for comment, and a representative flat-out declined to address the issue. Their silence speaks volumes, reinforcing perceptions of a presidency shrouded in secrecy. Stonewalling the press only fuels distrust, a misstep Biden’s team repeatedly made.
The book, 2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America, isn’t alone in peeling back Biden’s curtain. Other recent releases, like Jake Tapper’s Original Sin and Jonathan Allen’s Fight, detail allegations of Biden’s mental decline and his team’s efforts to shield him. These accounts paint a picture of a presidency carefully stage-managed to hide vulnerabilities.
Tapper’s book, released in May, and Allen’s, out in April, describe a White House insulating Biden from media scrutiny. Chris Whipple’s Uncharted, also from April, echoes claims of a team curating Biden’s public image. This pattern suggests a deliberate strategy to limit exposure, not just a one-off phone fiasco.
A House Oversight Committee probe, backed by the Trump administration, is now digging into claims that Biden’s team concealed his cognitive struggles. Nine former White House officials are slated to testify soon, potentially amplifying these allegations. The investigation could cement the narrative of a presidency built on carefully crafted illusions.
Biden told Pager he viewed Trump’s second term as “very negative,” claiming he didn’t “see anything he’s done that’s been productive.” This sour grapes remark reveals more about Biden’s bitterness than Trump’s record. It’s a deflection from his own administration’s stumbles.
On dropping out of the 2024 race, Biden said, “No, not now. I don’t spend a lot of time on regrets.” His cavalier tone dismisses the chaos his exit caused, ignoring the Democratic disarray that followed.
A former Biden speechwriter took to X, scoffing at the idea that journalists should have direct access to the president’s phone. “That strikes me as... insane,” they posted, mocking the expectation of transparency. Their snark misses the point: a president’s team shouldn’t panic when a reporter does their job.
The cell phone saga is a microcosm of Biden’s presidency -- guarded, reactive, and allergic to scrutiny. Pager’s call wasn’t a breach; it was journalism. Yet, Biden’s team treated it like a crisis, exposing their fragility.
Blocking Pager’s number and disconnecting Biden’s phone weren’t just defensive -- they were desperate. These actions betray a team more concerned with controlling the narrative than engaging with the public. It’s no wonder trust in the administration eroded.
The books, the probe, and this incident all point to one truth: Biden’s team built a bunker, not a presidency. Their obsession with shielding him left them blindsided when a simple phone call slipped through. In their scramble, they forgot the first rule of leadership: the truth always finds a way out.
California’s green dreams are wilting fast. Democrats, once the loudest cheerleaders for climate policies, are now slashing environmental rules to dodge voter backlash. The retreat reeks of political cowardice, not conviction, as Politico reports.
Democrats in the Golden State have gutted key climate initiatives, from clean fuel mandates to oil profit caps, while loosening environmental reviews for construction. This rollback follows sweeping electoral losses, with cost-of-living concerns trumping climate dogma. Other blue states like New York and Maryland are also hitting the brakes on carbon trading schemes.
Two years ago, Gov. Gavin Newsom pushed bold environmental laws, including threats to cap oil industry profits. Now, his administration proposes avoiding those caps to keep refineries open, as two California refineries announced closure plans. The shift prioritizes stable gas prices over ideological purity.
Newsom claims this isn’t a rollback but “marching forward” thoughtfully. His words sound like a spin from a politician desperate to save face. Voters fed up with high costs aren’t buying the green rhetoric anymore.
In 2024, Newsom ordered weaker plastic waste rules to ease business burdens. He also exempted housing, health clinics, and high-speed rail from a decades-old environmental law. These moves signal a clear pivot from eco-zeal to pragmatism.
California’s cap-and-trade program, reauthorized in 2017 with some Republican support, faces uncertainty as it nears its 2030 expiration. Newsom vows to extend it, but his credibility wanes as he sues to preserve the state’s clean car standards against federal overreach. The hypocrisy is glaring: fight for car rules, but ditch fuel standards.
A 2024 poll showed climate change dead last among voter priorities, with the cost of living reigning supreme. “Democrats are doing some soul-searching,” said Marie Liu, a climate lobbyist, admitting the party’s disconnect. Soul-searching won’t fix policies that jack up gas prices.
Oil producers, spending $15 million on anti-climate-policy campaigns, have swayed public opinion by blaming green rules for high costs. The California Energy Commission’s plan to keep refineries running aims to avoid price spikes. It’s a rare nod to reality over eco-fantasy.
Even Congress shows cracks in the green facade, as 36 Democrats, including California’s Rep. Lou Correa and Rep. George Whitesides, backed overturning the state’s vehicle rules. This betrayal underscores the party’s scramble to align with voter frustrations. Green dogma is crumbling under economic pressure.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is delaying a carbon-trading system and slowing clean vehicle rules, mirroring California’s retreat. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore has paused carbon trading efforts, signaling a broader Democratic Party surrender. The blue-state climate crusade is losing steam.
“Californians love the environment,” said state Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, “but not policies that destroy livelihoods.” His jab hits the mark: voters want clean air, not economic ruin. Democrats’ failure to balance both is their undoing.
During President Donald Trump’s first term, California struck deals with automakers to uphold its emissions rules, defying federal rollbacks. Now, with Newsom’s leadership questioned, that defiance feels like a distant memory. Chris Chavez of the Coalition for Clean Air doubts California’s climate leadership remains.
The head of California’s Air Resources Board called a state Senate push to weaken fuel rules “irresponsible.” Yet Democrats press on, wary of refinery closures and gas price surges. The state’s mid-transition energy mess demands tough choices, not blind ideology.
“It’s one of the more disappointing turnabouts,” said Jamie Court of Consumer Watchdog, lamenting the near-surrender. Court’s white handkerchief metaphor is apt, but Democrats aren’t waving it -- they’re hiding behind it. Short-term fixes trump long-term vision.
Chad Mayes, a former Republican leader ousted for supporting cap-and-trade, now urges honesty about energy costs. “How expensive are we going to allow our energy to be?” he asks. It’s a question Democrats must answer before voters deliver another reality check.
Elon Musk’s latest political stunt is shaking up the conservative landscape. The tech mogul announced his America Party on X, aiming to dismantle the Republican-Democrat stranglehold. President Donald Trump, unimpressed, warns this third-party gambit will only sow chaos, as the U.S. Sun reports.
On Friday, Musk polled X users on breaking the two-party system, netting 1.2 million votes with 65% craving change. Saturday, he unveiled the America Party, claiming it would restore freedom from a corrupt one-party state. The move, bold but untested, has yet to register with election authorities.
Trump fired back Sunday on Truth Social, lamenting Musk’s spiral into a “train wreck.” He argued third parties never win in America’s rigged system, destined only to disrupt. His warning carries weight for conservatives wary of splitting the vote.
Musk’s X poll wasn’t just a whim -- it was a calculated jab at the establishment. Over 1.2 million responses signaled public frustration, but polls don’t win elections. His America Party announcement rode that wave, yet lacked the infrastructure to compete.
The billionaire’s motives seem tied to his feud with Trump over the “Big, Beautiful Bill” signed July 4. This multi-trillion-dollar law, packed with tax breaks, defense hikes, and deportation funds, sparked Musk’s ire. He claims it balloons the deficit to $2.5 trillion, a fiscal disaster.
Trump, however, smells a different agenda. He alleges Musk’s opposition stems from the bill’s axing of the Electric Vehicle Mandate, a blow to Tesla’s bottom line. The president’s counterpunch paints Musk as a self-serving elitist, not a patriot.
The “Big, Beautiful Bill” is no small potatoes -- it’s a conservative triumph. Tax cuts, border security, and military might define its core, but Musk calls it “pork-filled” and “outrageous.” His June X post raged against Congress, accusing them of bankrupting America.
Musk’s deficit hawk routine rings hollow to Trump loyalists. The bill delivers on MAGA promises, from deportations to economic relief, while Musk’s complaints sound like progressive whining. His America Party pitch seems more about ego than principle.
Trump’s Truth Social posts cut deeper, accusing Musk of pushing a “blue-blooded Democrat” to lead NASA. This friend, unnamed but tied to SpaceX, raises red flags about conflicts of interest. The president’s rebuke frames Musk as meddling for personal gain.
Musk’s America Party promises freedom but ignores history. Third parties, from Ross Perot to Ralph Nader, rarely shift the needle and often spoil elections. Trump’s warning of “disruption and chaos” resonates with conservatives who fear a fractured base.
Musk’s foreign birth in South Africa bars him from the presidency, a constitutional roadblock he can’t dodge. His party, then, hinges on finding a viable figurehead, a tall order in today’s polarized climate. Without a clear leader, the America Party risks fizzling fast.
Trump’s critique of Musk’s “train wreck” trajectory isn’t just rhetoric. The tech titan’s NASA push and budget tantrums suggest a man unmoored from conservative values. His third-party stunt feels more like a vanity project than a revolution.
The MAGA base sees Trump’s point: unity trumps division. Musk’s America Party, while seductive to the frustrated, threatens to hand victories to the radical left. Trump’s call for stability over chaos aligns with voters prioritizing results over experiments.
Musk’s claim of a “one-party system” loaded with “waste and graft” isn’t wrong, but his solution is naive. The America Party lacks the grassroots muscle to challenge entrenched powers. Conservatives know real change comes from reforming the GOP, not torching it.
Trump’s sadness over Musk’s fall reflects a broader conservative disappointment. Once a tech hero, Musk now flirts with the same elitist chaos he once mocked. His America Party may grab headlines, but it’s Trump’s steady hand that keeps the movement grounded.
Patriotism in America is fracturing along political fault lines, with a new poll exposing a chasm between Republicans and Democrats. A National Research Inc. survey reveals that 91% of Republicans proudly claim the patriot label, while only 50% of Democrats do the same, as the New York Post reports. This stark divide signals a deeper crisis in national unity that demands attention.
The survey, conducted by a GOP-affiliated firm in New Jersey, polled 1,000 registered voters from June 21-23, showing a clear partisan split in national pride. Among 2024 voters, 90% of Trump supporters embraced patriotism, compared to just 55% of Kamala Harris backers. Conservatives (87%) far outpaced liberals (51%) in self-identifying as patriots, highlighting ideology’s role in shaping allegiance.
Gallup’s parallel poll paints an even bleaker picture, with only 58% of Americans expressing extreme or very high pride in their country. This marks a nine-point drop from the prior year, the lowest this century. The data suggests a nation drifting apart, with political tribes retreating to opposing corners.
Democrats’ pride has cratered, with just 36% saying they’re extremely or very proud to be American, per Gallup’s June 2-19 survey. That’s a steep fall from 62% the previous year, a collapse that raises eyebrows. Progressives seem increasingly detached from the nation’s core identity, a trend that invites scrutiny.
Adam Geller, a pollster, called the findings “sobering” and “a little breathtaking.” He argued for a country where pride endures regardless of who’s in the White House. But when half the left shuns patriotism, one wonders if woke ideology has eroded their sense of shared values.
Geller also admitted confusion over why only 50% of the left feels proud of America. “What is going on in our country right now?” he asked, probing for answers. Perhaps the progressive obsession with America’s flaws has blinded them to its strengths.
Republicans, by contrast, are steadfast, with 92% expressing high pride, up seven points from last year. Their consistency reflects a worldview that cherishes tradition and national exceptionalism. The left’s drift only sharpens this contrast, exposing a cultural divide that’s hard to ignore.
Independents aren’t immune, with 53% reporting extreme or very proud feelings, down seven points. This erosion among unaffiliated voters suggests the malaise isn’t confined to Democrats. A nation losing its middle ground risks fraying at the seams.
Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat, lamented that only 36% of his party feels proud to live in “the greatest country in the world.” He called it “just wrong” and vowed to stay “unapologetically grateful” for America. Yet his party’s rank-and-file seem to disagree, leaving patriots like him outliers.
Generational differences further complicate the picture, with Gen Z showing the least pride at 41%, per Gallup. Millennials (58%), Gen X (71%), and Baby Boomers (75%) express greater attachment, but the youth’s apathy is telling. Indoctrination in progressive echo chambers may be sapping their love for the country.
Back in 2001, Gallup found 87% of adults were very proud, surging to 91% after 9/11 united the nation. Those days of shared purpose feel distant now. Today’s polarization, fueled by partisan media and academic revisionism, has fractured that unity.
Geller insisted Americans should rally around shared values, even if they dislike the president. “We need to have a country where you’re still proud to be an American,” he said. But with Democrats’ pride in freefall, that vision seems like wishful thinking.
The polls’ margins of error -- ±3.1 for National Research, ±4.0 for Gallup -- confirm the trends are no fluke. Patriotism is becoming a partisan litmus test, with Republicans waving the flag and Democrats hesitating. This divide isn’t just statistical; it’s a cultural earthquake.
What drives the left’s reluctance to embrace patriotism? Is it guilt over historical sins, amplified by woke curricula, or disdain for a nation they see as flawed? The answer matters because a house divided cannot stand.
America’s future hinges on rediscovering common ground, but the left’s patriotism gap makes that tough. Republicans and conservatives remain anchored in pride, while Democrats and liberals drift toward ambivalence. If this trend persists, the nation’s soul could be at stake.
A federal judge has slammed the brakes on President Donald Trump’s bold move to expel asylum seekers at the border, sparking outrage among conservatives. On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Randolph Moss ruled that Trump’s proclamation violated federal law, as UPI reports. The decision has reignited debates over border security and judicial overreach.
Trump’s proclamation, signed on his first day back in office, aimed to curb what he called an “invasion” of migrants. Titled “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion,” it sought to block asylum claims by invoking emergency powers. In February, a coalition of immigrant rights groups challenged the policy, claiming it trampled on established law.
Judge Moss, in a partial summary judgment, declared the proclamation and its guidance from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem unlawful. He argued they clashed with the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The ruling, however, is stayed for 14 days, as an appeal from the administration looms.
Trump defended his policy, stating that asylum screenings under current law can be “wholly ineffective.” He insisted the president has emergency tools to block detrimental immigration. Yet, Moss’s ruling suggests such powers don’t extend to rewriting asylum protocols on a whim.
The judge acknowledged the “enormous challenges” of managing unlawful entries and asylum backlogs. But he stressed that the Immigration and Nationality Act governs removals exclusively. This legal tether, conservatives argue, binds the executive’s hands while border chaos persists.
Stephen Miller, a key Trump administration official, blasted the decision, claiming it elevates “potential future illegal aliens” to a protected global class. His fiery rhetoric underscores the frustration among MAGA supporters. They see the ruling as a judicial roadblock to securing the nation’s borders.
Attorney General Pam Bondi labeled the ruling an “unconstitutional power grab” by the judiciary. Her words echo a growing sentiment that courts are meddling in executive authority. The absence of a nationwide injunction, however, aligns with a recent Supreme Court decision limiting such measures.
Legal commentator Gene Hamilton called the decision a “judicial insurrection,” a term that resonates with those wary of progressive overreach. Conservatives argue that unelected judges are thwarting the will of voters who backed Trump’s border agenda. The ruling, they say, prioritizes legal technicalities over national security.
Moss deferred decisions on relief for plaintiffs no longer in the U.S., leaving some issues unresolved. He ordered both parties to propose a briefing schedule for these lingering questions. This procedural move suggests the legal battle is far from over.
The Trump administration is expected to appeal swiftly, given the 14-day stay. Supporters hope higher courts will restore the proclamation’s teeth. They view it as a necessary tool to deter unchecked migration and ease border strain.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Trump v. CASA Inc. looms over this case. It clarified that universal injunctions are rarely justified unless specific harms demand them. Moss’s sidestepping of an injunction shows caution but doesn’t quell conservative ire.
Trump’s proclamation was a cornerstone of his renewed border strategy, rooted in his campaign promises. Its derailment by a single judge fuels accusations of a politicized judiciary. Critics argue that such rulings embolden open-border advocates cloaked in legal jargon.
The clash highlights a deeper divide over immigration policy in America. Conservatives champion strict enforcement, viewing asylum loopholes as magnets for unlawful entry. They fear Moss’s decision hands a victory to those pushing a progressive, borderless agenda.
Immigrant rights groups, meanwhile, celebrate the ruling as a defense of due process. Yet conservatives counter that such victories clog the system, delaying deportations and rewarding illegal crossings. The tension between compassion and control remains unresolved.
As the appeal process unfolds, the nation watches closely. Trump’s border legacy hangs in the balance, with courts playing an outsized role. For now, conservatives rally behind their president, decrying a judiciary they see as out of step with America’s priorities.
Stranded lawmakers are racing against time to reach Washington, D.C., for a pivotal vote on President Donald Trump’s signature legislation, as Just the News reports.
Lawmakers from both parties are scrambling to return to the Capitol to cast their votes on the revised “One Big Beautiful Bill,” a flagship Trump initiative facing tight deadlines and tighter margins.
Last month, the House passed the original version of this ambitious bill, a cornerstone of the America First agenda. The Senate, in its infinite wisdom, tweaked it, forcing the House to reconvene and approve the changes. Now, the clock’s ticking to get it to the White House by Independence Day.
Tuesday’s weather threw a wrench into travel plans, with over 200 flights into Ronald Reagan National Airport canceled or delayed. Progressive dreams of grounding conservative momentum might be smiling, but the chaos is nonpartisan. Lawmakers are resorting to drastic measures to make the vote.
Rep. Nancy Mace, a South Carolina Republican, is burning rubber on an eight-hour overnight drive to the Capitol. Her colleague, Rep. Russell Fry, also from South Carolina, is matching her grit, steering through the night for Trump’s bill. These patriots aren’t letting a storm derail the people’s business.
Even Democrats are hustling, though you’d think they’d rather stall. Illinois Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi bragged, “We got some gas money, we got some snacks, and away we go,” during a virtual town hall, per Politico. His 14-hour road trip sounds more like a campaign stunt than genuine urgency.
The House’s slim Republican majority means every vote is a nail-biter. One absence could tip the scales toward the woke left’s obstructionism. Speaker Mike Johnson has his work cut out, herding cats in a thunderstorm.
Johnson told reporters, “We’re monitoring the weather closely.” He admitted delays are piling up, adding, “I’ve got to play the cards that are dealt to me.” Sounds like a man who knows the swamp’s tricks but won’t let them win.
Wisconsin Democrat Rep. Mark Pocan’s flight got the boot, so he’s driving overnight to Chicago to catch a Wednesday morning plane. You’d almost admire the effort if it weren’t for his party’s track record of derailing common-sense policies. Still, he’s showing up, which is more than some bureaucrats manage.
The Senate’s revisions to the bill aren’t public, but they’ve got enough juice to demand this last-minute House vote. With the White House waiting, the pressure’s on to deliver for the American people. Nobody wants to be the one who fumbles this touchdown.
Mace and Fry’s midnight drives are the kind of hustle you’d expect from leaders who get what’s at stake. Krishnamoorthi’s “just in time” GPS boast might win him social media clout, but it’s the bill’s fate that matters. His road trip reeks of optics over substance.
Johnson’s uncertainty about full attendance is a grim reminder of how fragile this majority is. “We’re working through that, talking to all members and all caucuses,” he said. Translation: he’s twisting arms to keep the MAGA train on track.
The bill’s nickname, “One Big Beautiful Bill,” reflects Trump’s knack for branding policies that resonate with heartland voters. While the left mocks the flair, they can’t match the vision. This vote is about delivering results, not endless debates.
Weather’s no excuse when the stakes are this high. Lawmakers like Mace, Fry, and even Pocan are proving that commitment trumps convenience. But let’s not kid ourselves -- some are in it for the photo op, not the policy.
By Wednesday morning, the House will decide if Trump’s bill becomes law or another victim of D.C.’s gridlock. Americans are watching, and they’re tired of excuses. Here’s hoping enough lawmakers show up to put country over chaos.
The Department of Justice is cracking down on naturalized citizens, aiming to strip citizenship from those who commit heinous crimes like terrorism or human rights abuses, as Axios reports. This bold move, part of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge, has progressives clutching their pearls over “due process.” It’s a policy that says: if you betray America, don’t expect to keep its privileges.
A DOJ memo, penned by Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, prioritizes denaturalization for naturalized citizens involved in war crimes, extrajudicial killings, or terrorism. The policy also targets those who illegally obtained citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation. In one sentence: the DOJ is intensifying efforts to revoke citizenship from naturalized Americans who commit serious crimes or lie to get their papers, sparking a firestorm over constitutional rights.
Naturalization, per the Immigration and Nationality Act, grants citizenship to lawful permanent residents after meeting strict requirements like five years of residency. Applicants must also prove they can read, write, and speak English while passing a U.S. history test. It’s a rigorous process -- yet some still game the system, and now the DOJ’s saying, “Not on our watch.”
From 1990 to 2017, the DOJ filed about 11 denaturalization cases annually, totaling 305. During Trump’s first term, that number spiked, with at least 30 cases filed in 2017 alone—double the previous year’s count. The left cries foul, but cleaning up fraud in the system isn’t exactly a scandal.
By August 2018, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services flagged 2,500 cases for potential denaturalization, referring 110 to the DOJ. One recent case saw a collector of child sexual abuse material lose his citizenship post-conviction. If you’re committing atrocities, maybe don’t expect a free pass to stay American.
The DOJ’s memo lists denaturalization among its top five enforcement priorities, right up there with “ending antisemitism.” Shumate’s directive is clear: “maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings” when evidence supports it. Sounds like a plan to keep America’s citizenship rolls honest.
The Trump administration’s focus on antisemitism includes cases like Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and green card holder, detained for months. Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued Khalil’s presence undermines efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment. Critics call it overreach; supporters see it as standing firm against hate.
Rubio’s memo claimed that allowing Khalil to stay would weaken U.S. policies combating antisemitism globally. “Undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism,” Rubio said, tying Khalil’s case to broader national security goals. The woke crowd might scream “Islamophobia,” but prioritizing Jewish safety isn’t exactly a conspiracy.
Denaturalization isn’t just about crime -- it’s also about fraud. The DOJ targets those who “illegally procured” citizenship or hid material facts during naturalization. Lying your way into America’s good graces? That’s a one-way ticket to the exit.
In 2022, 46.2 million immigrants lived in the U.S., with 24.5 million -- or 53% -- being naturalized citizens. Over the past decade, 7.9 million people became citizens, with a median of 7.5 years as permanent residents before naturalizing. These numbers show a system that’s generous but now demands accountability.
Eligibility for naturalization isn’t a cakewalk: five years as a permanent resident, plus exceptions for military members or spouses of citizens. Applicants must also demonstrate civic knowledge and language skills. It’s a high bar, so why should cheaters get to keep the prize?
Assistant Attorney General Shumate’s memo doesn’t mince words: “The Civil Division shall prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization.” Progressives wail about “cruelty,” but enforcing the law isn’t a feelings contest -- it’s about justice.
Law professor Cassandra Burke Robertson once claimed, “Denaturalization is no longer so rare.” She argues civil denaturalization violates due process and the 14th Amendment’s protections. Nice try, but protecting America from terrorists and fraudsters isn’t exactly trampling the Constitution.
“Stripping Americans of citizenship… infringes on the rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment,” Robertson told NPR. Her ivory-tower take ignores the reality: citizenship isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card for war criminals. The DOJ’s focus is precision, not persecution.
The Trump administration’s policy is clear: if you commit egregious crimes or scam your way to citizenship, expect consequences. Critics may howl about “xenophobia,” but this is about upholding the integrity of American citizenship. In a world of rising threats, that’s a stance worth defending.
