Author name: LifeZette

Trump Secures ‘Biggest Oil Deal in World History,’ More Than Doubles American Oil Reserves [WATCH]
News

Trump Secures ‘Biggest Oil Deal in World History,’ More Than Doubles American Oil Reserves [WATCH]

/

President Donald Trump delivered a blockbuster energy announcement Friday evening, revealing an agreement between the United States and Venezuela that he described as “the biggest oil deal in world history.”

If completed as presented, the arrangement could dramatically expand American control over proven petroleum reserves while strengthening energy security and reducing pressure on consumers.

Trump announced the agreement in characteristically bold fashion: “BREAKING NEWS: The United States of America has just entered into an Agreement with the Country of Venezuela on, THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY! At my direction, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, working closely with Highly Respected Interim President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodriguez, and, through a partnership with private business, have secured majority U.S. control of more than 65 BILLION BARRELS of proven Oil Reserves in Venezuela, at no cost to the American Taxpayer.”

The president continued: “This Historic Transaction MORE THAN DOUBLES American Oil Reserves, greatly increases our Oil Supply, and will substantially lower Gas Prices for all Americans, long into the future, while helping to continue to set Venezuela on a course toward Tremendous Success and Great Prosperity.”

“This Transaction will greatly strengthen the already growing relationship between Venezuela and the United States!” Trump added.

He concluded: “Thank you for your attention to this groundbreaking matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

The scale alone makes the announcement extraordinary.

Securing majority American control over more than 65 billion barrels, without charging taxpayers for the acquisition, would represent a massive strategic victory and another clear example of Trump using private investment and American leverage instead of another bloated government spending scheme.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio also praised the agreement as a victory for citizens of both countries.

He said Trump’s foreign policy had secured stable reserves and affordable oil in the Western Hemisphere while creating the potential for nearly $100 billion in private investment and thousands of well paying jobs in Venezuela.

WATCH:

Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio similarly characterized the arrangement as beneficial to Americans and Venezuelans.

Supporters see an opportunity to redirect Venezuela’s vast resources away from hostile regimes and toward a partnership capable of producing economic stability, investment, and lower energy costs.

The contract itself has not yet been publicly released, leaving important questions about its structure and enforcement.

Proceeds from Venezuelan oil sales currently enter an account supervised by the United States Treasury, with Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent controlling how funds are distributed.

Venezuela possesses the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, estimated at roughly 303 to 304 billion barrels.

That figure represents about 19 percent of global reserves, giving the country enormous economic potential that decades of socialist corruption and authoritarian rule somehow managed to squander.

Venezuelan production once exceeded 3 million barrels per day, but years of neglect and political chaos devastated the industry.

Output averaged roughly 941,000 barrels per day in 2025 before recovering to approximately 1.23 million to 1.25 million barrels per day by late August 2026.

That recovery marked the highest production level since early 2019 and represented an increase of nearly 30 percent since January 2026.

Sanctions relief and reductions in the government’s share of certain projects, from approximately 83 percent to between 20 and 35 percent, helped make renewed production more attractive.

China became the leading buyer of Venezuelan oil under Nicolás Maduro, giving Beijing another foothold in America’s hemisphere.

The Maduro regime also sent discounted oil to Cuba in exchange for intelligence assistance, military training, and medical personnel drawn from the communist government’s forced labor system.

For Washington, the agreement offers an opportunity to weaken those relationships while placing a critical resource under greater American influence.

That is the sort of strategic foreign policy the political establishment regularly claimed was impossible, right up until Trump started pursuing it.

Still, Venezuelans have legitimate reasons to remain cautious about their immediate future.

Many continue facing blackouts, economic hardship, and deteriorating public services, while the earthquakes that struck in June added another painful burden to communities already exhausted by years of socialist mismanagement.

Many Venezuelans remain grateful to Trump, Rubio, and the United States for removing Maduro, but gratitude does not restore electricity or rebuild an economy overnight.

They want elections, competent leadership, and a clean break from the officials who helped preside over the country’s collapse.

Trump’s description of Delcy Rodriguez as “Highly Respected” may not sit well with Venezuelans eager to move beyond the old regime.

Diplomacy often requires uncomfortable language, however, and the real test will be whether this agreement produces freedom, investment, stable government, and tangible improvements.

The full details will determine whether the arrangement lives up to its historic billing.

For now, Trump has announced a potentially enormous America First energy victory that could lower prices, sideline hostile powers, and give Venezuela a genuine path out of the socialist wreckage left behind.

Michelle Obama Celebrates Ditching Motherhood [WATCH]
News

Michelle Obama Celebrates Ditching Motherhood [WATCH]

/

Former First Lady Michelle Obama is drawing fresh criticism after bluntly telling Jon Stewart that she does not miss having her adult daughters living at home.

Her declaration on the “IMO” podcast quickly became another revealing glimpse into how she describes marriage, motherhood, and life after the White House.

Stewart framed parenting as a demanding daily responsibility that had given his own life meaning and structure.

When he asked whether Obama missed that active stage of raising children, her answer was remarkably direct and carried none of the nostalgia many parents might expect.

“I don’t miss them. I don’t. I love them. I’m going to see them tonight for dinner. I love them,” Obama said.

She then explained that her Friday nights are no longer consumed by fear and questions about where her daughters might be.

Obama contrasted her response with that of her husband, former President Barack Obama.

She said he cried when daughters Malia and Sasha departed for college, while she was far more ready to wave goodbye and reclaim control of her time.

WATCH:

That contrast quickly attracted attention from conservatives who heard more than ordinary parental relief in her remarks.

California Republican Party Delegate Elizabeth Barcohana argued that Obama sounded resentful about motherhood rather than simply exhausted by its very real demands.

“She seems happy that her daughters’ childhoods are over. That is not a relatable feeling for most mothers at all,” Barcohana said.

She also connected the remarks to the broader national discussion surrounding the Lindsay Clancy trial, where questions involving motherhood have taken on especially painful significance.

Obama attempted to make clear that she loves her daughters and remains involved in their lives.

Still, critics focused on the enthusiasm with which she celebrated the end of having her schedule shaped by the responsibilities of raising children under her roof.

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh was among those who delivered a sharp response.

He argued that Obama had access to resources and assistance unavailable to ordinary mothers, yet still appeared eager to escape even the reduced demands placed upon her time.

“And yet she still couldn’t wait for the kids to leave because the minor demands they made on her time and energy were still too much for her. Just a total raging narcissist,” Walsh said.

X Screenshot – Matt Walsh

Political commentator Link Lauren also criticized the former first lady, portraying her podcast as a venue for complaints from a position of extraordinary privilege.

His assessment was even harsher, taking aim at her repeated public comments about family life and personal sacrifice.

“This podcast is just her sitting around her mansion in Martha’s Vineyard complaining about how hard her life of luxury is and how much she despises her husband and children,” Lauren said.

That criticism reflects a growing frustration with wealthy political celebrities presenting their inconveniences as profound struggles.

Obama, however, emphasized that she had already invested years of close attention in her daughters and now enjoys their independence.

Her explanation centered heavily on the freedom she gained when the daily demands of active parenting finally receded.

“I love my schedule. I have a great schedule, and it’s all mine,” Obama said. “I mean, I’ve had so much quality time with my children. So much. Yeah, yeah. I know them inside and out.”

She has previously praised Barack Obama as a committed father and said both parents deliberately protected family time during his presidency.

“It was important for both of us, for me and Barack, to carve out that time in those eight years when our girls were in their formative years, you know,” she said.

Nobody disputes that parents can welcome a quieter home after years of worry, packed calendars, and constant responsibility.

Yet Obama’s dismissive delivery landed poorly because millions of mothers would gladly trade mansion schedules and celebrity obligations for one more ordinary Friday night with their children at home.

The backlash also fits an established pattern surrounding Obama’s public reflections on family and personal sacrifice.

Each new interview seems to offer another complaint about duties that many Americans regard not as burdens imposed upon them, but as blessings worth every sleepless night.

Don Lemon Bashes CNN, Invokes Inner Malcolm X, Attacks White Working Class Voters [WATCH]
News

Don Lemon Bashes CNN, Invokes Inner Malcolm X, Attacks White Working Class Voters [WATCH]

/

Former CNN anchor Don Lemon says freedom from corporate media has finally allowed him to speak without the internal restraints he developed during years on cable television.

Appearing Thursday on The Bakari Sellers Show, Lemon portrayed his departure from CNN as liberation from newsroom caution.

He said the transition required him to break habits that made him repeatedly reconsider his words before going public.

“I had to untrain myself from the things that I had learned in corporate media about thinking 85 times before I said something. I didn’t have to do that. I could say whatever the f**k I want,” Lemon said.

Apparently, losing a corporate anchor desk has not encouraged quiet reflection.

Instead, Lemon says it has given him permission to deliver the sort of commentary that even CNN executives might have considered excessive.

Lemon invoked Malcolm X while discussing remarks he had delivered earlier that day.

“I could never do what I did today in corporate media by saying, ‘Look, I’m going to tell you I feel the spirit of Malcolm X coming over me when we talk about the ballot and the bullet. And Plymouth Rock, we didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, Plymouth Rock landed on us,’” Lemon said.

The former anchor then turned his attention to President Donald Trump and the millions of Americans who supported him.

Rather than seriously considering their concerns about inflation, immigration, crime, cultural upheaval, or distrust of Washington, Lemon reduced their political choices to race.

“I could not tell people that this issue is a white people problem right now. This is not just rich against poor, because most people who voted for Donald Trump are not rich. These are white people, co-opted, poor, and working class white people who put this man in office,” Lemon claimed.

That argument treats a vast and diverse political coalition as little more than a racial problem requiring correction.

It also conveniently dismisses the economic and public safety concerns that drove working Americans away from Democrats and their media allies.

Lemon said such remarks would have brought accusations of race baiting during his CNN years.

“And if I had said that on corporate media, oh my gosh, you’re a race baiter, anchors shouldn’t be saying that. No, I say whatever I want and I tell the truth,” Lemon said. “And that’s how we got here and that’s why the Lemon Media Network, I believe, is growing.”

WATCH:

His version of unfiltered truth did not stop with racial attacks on Trump voters. Later in the interview, Lemon urged Democrats to use the courts against Republicans if the party retakes the White House in 2028.

“Go after them, sue them, tie them up in lawsuits, make sure that they’re held accountable,” he said. “I want my president to offend people, especially those people who believe in the wrong things.”

The remarks offer a revealing glimpse of the political warfare Lemon apparently wants from the next Democratic administration.

After years of liberals warning that Trump supposedly weaponized government, Lemon openly endorsed burying political opponents in litigation and praised deliberate presidential offensiveness.

Lemon has repeatedly relied on race centered attacks since CNN fired him in 2023.

During an appearance with Bill Maher on Club Random, he used a profane description to accuse Trump supporters of racism and argued that a person cannot be “Black and be a rational MAGA person.”

In October, Lemon also urged black and brown Americans to arm themselves against Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

That rhetoric came as federal officers faced intense hostility while carrying out immigration laws that Congress placed on the books.

Lemon now faces his own legal battle.

The Department of Justice charged him in January with conspiracy against the right of religious freedom and interfering with that right, allegations connected to a January 18 protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

His attorney, Abbe Lowell, defended Lemon by saying his work in Minneapolis “was no different than what he has always done.”

Given Lemon’s increasingly inflammatory record, that defense may not provide the reassurance his team intended.

Freedom from CNN has certainly revealed more of what Lemon thinks, although perhaps not in the flattering way he imagines.

The corporate filter is gone, and what remains is racial grievance, political vengeance, and a demand that Democrats use government power against people Lemon believes are wrong.

Kathy Hochul Boasts About Making New York a Far More Dangerous Place to Live [WATCH]
News

Kathy Hochul Boasts About Making New York a Far More Dangerous Place to Live [WATCH]

/

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is not merely defending a policy that blocks cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The Democrat is boasting about it, even as her decision leaves law enforcement with fewer tools to remove dangerous criminal aliens from communities across the state.

Hochul appeared on MS Now’s Morning Joe to celebrate her move prohibiting New York law enforcement agencies from participating in partnerships with federal immigration officials.

Apparently, refusing federal help to identify removable criminal aliens now qualifies as enlightened leadership in Albany.

The governor barred agencies within New York from entering agreements under the federal 287(g) program.

She portrayed that order as an effort to focus state resources on stopping “real crime,” while also complaining about the substantial budget provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

That argument becomes rather shaky once the program itself is examined.

ICE provides participating agencies with immigration law information, specialized training, and guidance on multicultural communications, all while teaching officers how to avoid racial profiling.

The federal government covers the costs associated with entering a 287(g) partnership.

WATCH:

In other words, Hochul rejected federally funded training and support that could help local authorities identify offenders who may be eligible for removal after entering the criminal justice system.

One option offered through the program is known as the Jail Enforcement Model.

It permits state and local authorities to “identify and process removable aliens currently in your jail or detention facility who have pending or active criminal charges while they’re in your custody.”

That is not a dragnet targeting random residents going about their daily lives.

The model focuses on individuals already held in a jail or detention facility who have criminal charges pending or active, which makes Hochul’s objections look more ideological than practical.

The program gives local authorities a direct channel for working with federal immigration officials while offenders remain in custody.

Without that cooperation, agencies can face additional barriers when determining whether a criminal suspect is removable under federal immigration law.

ICE says the partnerships allow authorities to “work together to deport removable aliens involved in gang activity, violent crimes, human smuggling, organized crime, sex offenses, drug smuggling, money laundering and many other crimes,” which sounds suspiciously like a list of real crimes.

Hochul, however, has decided that preventing New York agencies from joining such agreements is something worth advertising on national television.

Her administration seems more troubled by cooperation with ICE than by the serious offenses the program is designed to address.

The governor’s complaint about ICE funding also misses the point.

A federal agency having a large budget does not magically make local coordination unnecessary, particularly when Washington is offering to pay for the relevant training and provide valuable information.

The scale of participation across the country further weakens Hochul’s attempt to present these agreements as unreasonable.

As of August 28, ICE reported agreements with 2,411 agencies spanning 39 states and two territories.

Thousands of agencies evidently see value in coordinating with immigration authorities when criminal aliens enter local custody.

New York’s governor instead prefers a sweeping prohibition that prevents willing agencies from making their own public safety judgments.

There is also an obvious contradiction in claiming to prioritize serious crime while restricting a program aimed at gang members, violent offenders, smugglers, sex offenders, and money launderers.

Albany can dress that contradiction in progressive talking points, but families living with the consequences deserve better than political theater.

Hochul’s television victory lap reveals the priorities behind the policy.

Rather than giving law enforcement every lawful tool available, New York’s Democrat leadership is choosing resistance to immigration enforcement and expecting residents to applaud as public safety takes another needless hit.

Federal Judge Tosses 9/11 Confession as Victims Face Yet Another Agonizing Trial Delay [WATCH]
News

Federal Judge Tosses 9/11 Confession as Victims Face Yet Another Agonizing Trial Delay [WATCH]

/

A military judge has thrown out a confession made by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The decision adds another troubling complication to a case already defined by decades of delay.

Lt. Col. Michael Schrama ruled Friday that statements Mohammed gave investigators in 2007 were not made voluntarily, according to the New York Post.

Sources familiar with the decision told the newspaper that Schrama removed those statements from the prosecution’s case.

The ruling strips prosecutors of potentially significant evidence as they prepare for a trial that is still nearly two years away.

For families who have waited since 2001 for a courtroom reckoning, the machinery of justice continues to move at a maddening crawl.

Mohammed has been held at the United States military detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, since 2003.

He is accused of serving as the chief architect of the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people and changed the nation forever.

Earlier in the week, Schrama scheduled the trial to begin in June 2028.

Mohammed is expected to be tried alongside Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Atash, Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, and Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.

Military prosecutors had requested a January 2027 opening date, but Schrama rejected that proposed schedule.

He said it would not allow enough time for the “resolution of pretrial evidentiary and compliance motions.”

That leaves the victims’ families staring at yet another lengthy wait, even as the nation marks the twenty fifth anniversary of the attacks.

The legal process surrounding Mohammed has already stretched across presidential administrations, military proceedings, political disputes, and repeated courtroom setbacks.

The case has been burdened by postponements and unsuccessful attempts to settle it through plea agreements.

Rather than delivering a clear and timely accounting for the worst terrorist attack on American soil, the system has become a monument to delay and procedural paralysis.

WATCH:

In 2024, Mohammed, bin Attash, and al Hawsawi agreed to admit their roles in the attacks under a proposed plea agreement.

In exchange, they would receive life sentences and avoid the death penalty.

The agreement also required the defendants to answer questions submitted by the families of those killed.

That provision offered relatives a possible opportunity to obtain information about the planning and execution of the attacks after years of uncertainty.

Many families strongly criticized the arrangement because it removed the possibility of capital punishment.

Their outrage was hardly surprising, given the scale of the carnage and the long wait for those accused of planning it to face a full trial.

The Biden administration later withdrew the plea agreement amid the backlash, setting off another round of litigation.

Washington once again proved capable of turning a demand for basic justice into a procedural maze with no exit in sight.

Schrama’s decision to exclude Mohammed’s 2007 statements now threatens to complicate the prosecution further.

Questions surrounding interrogations, detention conditions, admissible evidence, and pretrial compliance have repeatedly consumed the military commission process.

Fox News Digital contacted military prosecutors regarding the ruling.

The advocacy organization 9/11 Families United declined to comment on the judge’s latest decision.

The case is now scheduled to reach trial almost twenty seven years after hijacked airplanes struck the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Americans were promised accountability, but the families have instead received delay after delay while lawyers and officials argue over process.

Mohammed and his co defendants remain at Guantánamo Bay as the legal battle continues.

Barring another postponement, June 2028 may finally bring the trial that victims’ relatives and the country have awaited for far too long.

Democrats Left Speechless on Trump’s Massive Oil Move: Is Cheap Gas a Bad Thing? [WATCH]
News

Democrats Left Speechless on Trump’s Massive Oil Move: Is Cheap Gas a Bad Thing? [WATCH]

/

Mehek Cooke criticized Democrats for their response to President Donald Trump securing majority U.S. control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil, arguing the move carries major economic and strategic benefits for the United States.

Cooke said she noticed a lack of positive reaction from Democrats while reviewing responses to the development on X.

“Are you guys seeing what I’m seeing on X? I mean, I’m scrolling, and there’s something strange going on. Are you tracking?” Cooke said.

She argued that Trump’s move involving Venezuelan oil should draw support from political leaders concerned about American families, domestic energy supplies and gas prices.

“President Trump secures a majority U.S. control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuelan oil, and guess what? Not a single Democrat managed to say this could be good for American families,” Cooke said. “Goes to show you, they don’t know what they stand for.”

Cooke contrasted the Democratic response with previous support for releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when a Democratic administration sought to address energy prices.

“But apparently gas prices aren’t good enough. It’s only when a Democrat releases, I don’t know, a few million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve,” Cooke said.

She argued that the scale of Trump’s move is substantially greater and said it could double America’s reserves while shifting energy influence away from foreign competitors and other major energy-producing regions.

“But when President Trump secures 65 billion barrels, doubles America’s reserves, and shifts energy power away from places like China, Iran, the Middle East, suddenly nobody says anything on the left,” Cooke said.

Cooke said the significance extends beyond the possibility of lower prices at the pump.

She argued that increasing the amount of oil under U.S. control could affect expectations surrounding future supplies and market pricing while providing opportunities for American businesses.

“This isn’t just about cheaper gas prices tomorrow, it’s about market price and future supply today,” Cooke said.

She also pointed to potential effects on refineries, investment and employment, framing the development as part of a broader strategy to increase American energy power in the Western Hemisphere.

“It’s about American refineries, private investment, thousands of jobs, and energy dominance here in our Western Hemisphere,” Cooke said.

Cooke’s comments also focused on the political timing of Trump’s action, with the midterm elections approaching.

She described the agreement as a significant achievement for the president and argued that Democrats were unwilling to acknowledge its potential benefits because of their opposition to Trump.

“It’s the biggest, baddest deal that President Trump could have made before the midterms,” Cooke said.

Cooke accused Democrats of suffering from what Trump supporters commonly call “TDS,” or Trump Derangement Syndrome, arguing that partisan opposition prevents Trump’s critics from recognizing policies she believes benefit the country.

“And Democrats are so afflicted, again, with TDS, they would rather pay $5 a gallon, continue to say boohoo, than admit that President Trump made a clutch move right before the midterms, not just for the American people temporarily, but for the next generation,” Cooke said.

WATCH:

Her argument centered on the distinction between short-term government efforts to influence fuel supplies and a longer-term strategy involving access to significant Venezuelan oil reserves.

Cooke maintained that Trump’s action should be viewed through the broader issues of energy security, domestic investment and competition with countries such as China and Iran rather than exclusively through immediate changes in gasoline prices.

She also argued that greater American influence over energy resources in the Western Hemisphere could strengthen the country’s strategic position for years to come.

For Cooke, Democrats’ response — or lack of one — demonstrated a political unwillingness to recognize what she described as a major energy achievement by Trump.

She maintained that the benefits could reach beyond the current political cycle and affect American energy supplies, businesses and workers well into the future.

Trump Orders Lake Ontario Renamed Lake America as Canada Trade Fight Erupts [WATCH]
News

Trump Orders Lake Ontario Renamed Lake America as Canada Trade Fight Erupts [WATCH]

/

President Donald Trump signed an executive order renaming Lake Ontario as Lake America, bringing a fresh dose of patriotic branding to an escalating trade dispute with Canada.

The move follows days of rising tensions after negotiations between Washington and Ottawa collapsed.

The order declares that “the United States is the greatest protector of the Great Lakes, including the body of water currently known as Lake Ontario.”

That language makes the administration’s case plain, America carries much of the responsibility, so America deserves recognition.

Trump directed the Department of the Interior to begin the formal renaming process within 30 days.

The secretary must work with the Board on Geographic Names and complete the administrative actions needed to place Lake America on federal maps and records.

“Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall, in coordination with the Board on Geographic Names and consistent with […] take all appropriate actions to rename as ‘Lake America’ the body of water currently named as Lake Ontario, bounded on the south and east by the State of New York, and on the north, west, and southwest by the Canadian province of Ontario,” the order states.

WATCH:

The geographic reality gives both countries a stake in the lake, but Trump clearly intends to remind Ottawa which nation provides the muscle behind continental security.

Canada may dislike the symbolism, yet symbolism tends to get attention when polite trade discussions go nowhere.

The renaming idea had circulated for several days as the trade relationship deteriorated.

Its arrival as an official presidential action shows Trump is prepared to use more than tariffs when confronting a neighboring government he believes has taken advantage of American generosity.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford had raised the possibility of restricting trade involving “critical minerals” needed by American industries.

He also suggested Ontario could take steps affecting the United States energy grid, an especially provocative message from a supposedly friendly trading partner.

Trump answered during an Oval Office signing ceremony, where he accused Canada of benefiting from an unfair relationship with the United States.

His remarks addressed trade, defense, and Ottawa’s long reliance on American protection.

“Canada has been ripping us off for a long time on trade , very sadly, even the military, you know, we defend Canada for nothing,” Trump said during an Oval Office signing ceremony.

The complaint reflects Trump’s broader demand that allies stop expecting American taxpayers to carry their burdens without meaningful reciprocity.

“And they want to be treated like a state, but they’re not a state,” he continued.

WATCH:

That blunt line captured the administration’s view that Canada wants privileged access to American markets without accepting the obligations or political realities that accompany such treatment.

Following the collapse of the trade agreement, tariffs of 50 percent took effect on certain Canadian goods.

Additional tariffs of 50 percent targeting the automobile sector are scheduled to begin in January, raising the economic pressure on Canadian manufacturers and political leaders.

Canada responded with similar tariffs, according to the New York Times.

Ottawa’s decision to match Trump’s measures risks deepening a confrontation with a much larger economy and exposing Canadian businesses to consequences their politicians may have underestimated.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called the American tariffs “unjustified” in a Tuesday post on X.

He praised Canadians for displaying resolve and said his government would protect the country’s workers, businesses, and families.

“In the face of unjustified American tariffs, Canadians have shown resolve, purpose, and strength,” Carney wrote.

His message presented Canada’s response as an act of national unity, though matching tariffs can also mean higher costs and fewer opportunities for the very citizens politicians claim to defend.

Trump’s order adds another pressure point while ensuring the dispute remains impossible for Ottawa to ignore.

Rather than allowing trade threats from provincial leaders to pass unanswered, the president turned Canada’s rhetoric into an international spectacle with the stroke of a pen.

Whether the Lake America name gains broad public use remains to be seen, but the political message is already unmistakable.

Trump is signaling that threats against American energy, industry, or trade will receive a loud response, not another sleepy diplomatic memo destined for a government filing cabinet.

WATCH:

Radical Dem N’Kiyla Thomas Unleashed a Bizarre Screaming Meltdown in Senate Campaign Video [WATCH]
News

Radical Dem N’Kiyla Thomas Unleashed a Bizarre Screaming Meltdown in Senate Campaign Video [WATCH]

/

Oklahoma voters just received an unusually revealing look at Democratic Socialists of America aligned Senate candidate N’Kiyla Jasmine Thomas.

Instead of presenting a serious case for federal office, Thomas posted a spectacle featuring screaming, frantic movement, a pink bedroom, and enough theatrical outrage to make even seasoned political observers cringe.

The original report sarcastically crowned Thomas the “winner of the week.”

That honor was not awarded for policy knowledge, disciplined campaigning, or a persuasive vision for Oklahoma, but for broadcasting an emotional explosion that looked more like an audition for reality television than a Senate campaign.

In the video, Thomas screams while running into a pink bedroom and launches into an angry rant against “ Christian nationalists!”

The performance is loud, chaotic, and apparently intended to demonstrate righteous political fury, though voters may reasonably see something considerably less flattering.

Thomas also cuts out a photograph of Markwayne Mullin and tapes it into what she calls her “Burn Book.”

WATCH:

It is a juvenile visual borrowed from popular culture, now repurposed by someone seeking one of the most powerful elected offices in the country.

Mullin, a former United States senator who now serves as Homeland Security secretary, is clearly not among Thomas’s favorite political figures.

Still, most candidates attempting to appear ready for the Senate usually criticize opponents through arguments, records, and policy differences rather than arts and crafts revenge rituals.

The obvious question is why Thomas believed releasing this material would help her campaign.

Political candidates typically spend enormous amounts of time and money trying to appear stable, thoughtful, and capable under pressure, yet Thomas voluntarily published footage that invites voters to question every one of those qualities.

The video was highlighted by the social media account Kentucky Girl, which brought wider attention to Thomas’s performance.

Once the footage began circulating, the candidate’s dramatic bedroom routine quickly became the kind of campaign moment that no polished advertisement or consultant approved talking point could easily erase.

Another video reportedly shows Thomas discussing chicken strips, adding yet another strange chapter to her public presentation.

WATCH:

Perhaps there is a policy agenda buried somewhere beneath the theatrics, but the candidate appears far more interested in creating social media moments than explaining how she would represent Oklahoma in Washington.

Thomas describes herself as a Black, White, and Native American woman with Chickasaw ancestry.

That biography may form an important part of her personal identity, but identity alone does not establish the judgment, temperament, or seriousness expected from someone seeking a seat in the United States Senate.

She also proudly displays her leanings toward the Democratic Socialists of America.

That affiliation places Thomas firmly within a far left political movement whose activists routinely push expansive government power, enormous spending programs, and ideological demands that remain deeply unpopular with many conservative Oklahoma voters.

The contrast in the race could hardly be clearer.

Thomas now faces Republican Kevin Hern in the November 3 election, giving voters a choice between a candidate associated with conservative governance and one whose campaign messaging includes screaming, bedroom theatrics, and a homemade book for political enemies.

WATCH:

Hern appears considerably more grounded in reality, which should not be a difficult standard in this contest.

Oklahoma voters generally expect their representatives to defend energy producers, protect constitutional rights, control federal spending, and resist the increasingly radical agenda promoted by socialist activists and their allies.

Thomas may believe her videos display authenticity, passion, or an unconventional campaign style.

What they actually reveal is a candidate willing to place personal agitation at the center of her campaign while asking voters to trust her with national power, serious legislation, and decisions affecting millions of Americans.

Campaigns often expose qualities that carefully written biographies and professional photographs are designed to conceal.

In this case, Thomas did the exposing herself, pressed the upload button, and allowed the public to witness exactly how she chose to present her political judgment.

The result is less a compelling campaign pitch than a warning delivered in bright colors and at maximum volume.

Kevin Hern may not need a complicated strategy when his opponent is busy turning her own Senate campaign into a viral argument against electing her.

‘Give These People the Finger’: PA Gov Shapiro Pushes Warrantless Entry Power Grab [WATCH]
News

‘Give These People the Finger’: PA Gov Shapiro Pushes Warrantless Entry Power Grab [WATCH]

/

Carl Higbie criticized Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro over proposed changes to state health regulations, arguing the 502-page proposal would give health officials sweeping authority over residents, schools, medical records and private property.

“Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro basically just said, The hell with the people, the hell with the laws, the hell with the state constitution. I’m just going to do whatever I want. Wait Wait till you hear this,” Higbie said.

Higbie said the proposal would expand the authority available to Pennsylvania health officials during disease investigations and enforcement actions.

“The governor is rewriting his Health Department’s policies to basically turn them into like this unrestrained force that would supersede people’s rights, laws, and even the state constitution,” Higbie said.

According to Higbie, the proposed changes could allow officials to enter homes without warrants, obtain personal medical records and impose statewide mask requirements in schools.

“This proposed change would allow health officials, at the governor’s sole direction, to enter homes without a warrant under the guise of health enforcement, could access and seize personal medical records without a warrant, also, you know, just doing whatever they want, and it could impose statewide school mask mandates,” Higbie said.

He then cited language he said came directly from the proposed regulation.

“The department or local health authority may enter an apartment, a building, a healthcare facility, a school, college, or university, or other location as necessary to conduct its investigation under this chapter if the representative presents documentation, which would be provided by the government, to establish that they are an authorized representative of the department or the local health authority.”

Higbie also claimed the proposed rules could provide authority for vaccine requirements when officials determine they are necessary for public safety.

“They could even mandate vaccines in this new proposed order, as long as they could justify that it was obviously in the name of public safety,” he said.

Higbie tied his objections to a constitutional amendment approved by Pennsylvania voters in May 2021 following disputes over emergency restrictions imposed during the COVID era.

“And this is in complete defiance of the constitutional amendment that Pennsylvania passed in May of 2021,” Higbie said. “Pennsylvanians were so fed up with the strict restrictions from COVID that they amended their own constitution to limit these exact unilateral emergency powers of the governor’s office.”

He argued that the amendment reflected voters’ demand for legislative involvement when government officials seek to impose broad restrictions.

“People said, No way. We’re not going to have this COVID BS again. You want to do that? You got to pass laws to do it,” Higbie said.

Higbie also connected the timing of the proposed regulations to a Pennsylvania Department of Health announcement involving two measles-associated deaths, which he said were the state’s first in 35 years.

“Like on cue, in like the same day this thing gets released, Josh Shapiro also holds a press conference about what they’re calling measles-associated deaths,” Higbie said. “The Pennsylvania Department of Health announced the first two measles-associated deaths in Pennsylvania in 35 years.”

Higbie questioned the amount of information released about the deaths, saying officials had not provided details about the individuals’ ages, backgrounds or other medical conditions.

“No specifics on age, nothing on background or comorbidities, and they won’t even say if these people died of measles, just that they had measles at the time they died,” Higbie said.

He further argued that available reporting from coroners did not establish measles as the cause of death.

“And doesn’t sound like they died of measles because there’s a law that the coroner has to report any communicable disease deaths, and as of today, they’re not reporting measles was the cause of death for these two people,” Higbie said.

Higbie accused state officials of attempting to create public fear around the announcement and compared the situation with government actions during the COVID period.

“But sure, let’s just hold a press conference and get people to panic. My, my, doesn’t that sound oddly familiar to six years ago?” he said.

Higbie concluded by urging Pennsylvania residents to remain skeptical of government efforts that could restrict individual choices and businesses in the name of public health.

“Mark my words: they’re going to do something stupid again to take away your rights,” Higbie said.

He also encouraged citizens to research health issues independently and resist a return to the restrictions imposed during the pandemic.

“It is your duty as a citizen to give these people the finger and do your own research. Never let them shut down your business again, never let them force you to get a vaccine that you don’t want or don’t think is right for you,” Higbie said.

Higbie ended his criticism with a warning about allowing government officials to accumulate additional authority.

“All this Kabuki theater that they tried last time, you give them an inch, Josh Shapiro will take 10 miles.”

WATCH:

Bill Gates Tries to Do More Epstein Damage Control: ‘He Was an Ex-Con Who Could Get Me Billions’ [WATCH]
News

Bill Gates Tries to Do More Epstein Damage Control: ‘He Was an Ex-Con Who Could Get Me Billions’ [WATCH]

/

Bill Gates is once again explaining why he spent time with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, this time arguing that Epstein exploited his enthusiasm for philanthropy.

The billionaire Microsoft cofounder insists the relationship focused on charitable ambitions rather than social activity or women.

In an interview with The Atlantic published Thursday, Gates acknowledged that meeting Epstein reflected poor judgment.

His latest explanation presents Epstein as a manipulator who recognized that promises of massive donations to global health programs could quickly command Gates’s attention.

“It just underscored how foolish I was not to have better judgment, even though my intent was philanthropic,” Gates said.

“There was never any social thing. I never went to the island,” Gates continued.

“I was never introduced to any women. But I’ve learned a lot from that.”

Gates said Epstein gained access by claiming he could convince wealthy associates to commit enormous amounts of money to international health causes.

For a man whose public identity has become closely tied to global philanthropy, the pitch apparently proved difficult to ignore.

“He definitely had connections with billionaires, a lot of them. And, you know, in a sense, you could say he found my weak point,” Gates added.

“That by saying he could get tens of billions or 100 billions that would be donated to global health causes, that raised my interest.”

That explanation places Gates in the role of an overly trusting philanthropist who was dazzled by the possibility of unlocking fortunes for charitable work.

Still, Epstein was hardly an unknown figure whose criminal history had been hidden from public view.

Gates admitted that he knew about Epstein’s sex crime conviction before their meetings.

He said he believed Epstein had completed his punishment and that the justice system had handled the case, comparing the situation to charitable efforts intended to help former prisoners return to employment.

WATCH:

The timeline remains the stubborn part of the story.

Gates reportedly began meeting Epstein around 2011, years after Epstein was convicted of soliciting prostitution from a minor, meaning the disturbing facts surrounding Epstein were not merely revelations that surfaced after Gates had already entered his orbit.

The two reportedly met several times to discuss possible global health ventures.

Gates also visited Epstein’s Manhattan residence and traveled aboard his private jet, details that have continued to fuel questions about why one of the world’s most powerful businessmen maintained the association.

Gates has repeatedly denied participating in Epstein’s crimes or having any involvement with women connected to him.

He has also insisted that he never visited Epstein’s island, one of the locations most closely associated with the disgraced financier’s predatory operation.

More recently, Gates has said Epstein discovered information about his extramarital affairs and later attempted to use it as leverage against him.

That claim adds another troubling dimension to a relationship Gates now portrays as a costly lesson in judgment and access.

Epstein was known for cultivating prominent politicians, academics, financiers, and celebrities, often using the appearance of influence to obtain even more influence.

Gates now suggests that the promise of billions for public health served as Epstein’s chosen key to open the door.

The charitable explanation may clarify what attracted Gates to the discussions, but it does not erase the obvious warning signs surrounding Epstein.

Even billionaires with armies of advisers are expected to recognize that a convicted sex offender promising mountains of money deserves scrutiny, not repeated meetings.

Gates says he learned from the episode, and he continues to reject any suggestion that the relationship extended beyond proposed philanthropic projects.

The public, however, is left with the familiar spectacle of an elite figure explaining that Epstein somehow slipped past the judgment of everyone in the room.


Scroll to Top