Author name: RVM News

News

Stephen A Smith Slams Clinton And Obama For Massive Fortunes While Americans Struggle [WATCH]

Stephen A Smith is not one to bite his tongue, and in a podcast episode that instantly caught traction across the political spectrum, the outspoken broadcaster turned his attention from sports to politics, as reported by Fox News.

On his show “Straight Shooter,” Smith openly questioned the enormous personal wealth of former Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and challenged the idea that public servants should become multi-millionaires while everyday Americans are barely making ends meet.

Smith’s comments centered around the simple idea that if the American people are doing well, political leaders getting rich might not be such a big deal.

But as he bluntly put it, that is definitely not the case right now. He made it clear that his concern is about fairness and honesty in leadership, not party loyalty.

“I don’t give a damn what money politicians slide into their own pockets from time to time,” Smith told his audience. “If the American people are prospering, get yours. It’s a capitalistic society.”

That was his olive branch before delivering a reality check that should have both Clintons and Obamas looking a little uncomfortable.

The commentator started with Bill Clinton’s meteoric rise in wealth after leaving office. Smith recalled Clinton’s humble Arkansas roots and law career, then questioned the math behind the hundreds of millions flowing through the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons’ growing fortune.

“Clinton was a lawyer in Arkansas. Grew up poor, relatively broke. How the hell him and the Clinton Foundation is worth hundreds of millions of dollars beat me,” Smith said.

He followed up by pointing a finger at Barack Obama’s finances. Smith noted that Obama began his career as a community organizer and worked as a public servant for years before becoming president.

“Barack Obama was a community organizer who became the president of the United States and, last time I checked, that salary ain’t over $450,000,” Smith said.

Then he asked what many Americans have likely wondered: “How the hell you depart from office worth over $200 million?”

Those questions hit a nerve because they cut through the political theater and reach right into the uncomfortable truth about how power seems to generate wealth, even when the system supposedly limits it. According to Forbes, Bill and Hillary Clinton have netted nearly $240 million since leaving the White House.

The report claims Bill Clinton alone collected $189 million from book deals and $106 million from paid speeches. Obama’s net worth also ballooned, reportedly climbing to about $70 million as of 2024 after serving as Senator and President.

When Fox News Digital reached out to both Obama and Clinton for comment, neither had an immediate response. Silence says plenty when questions like these start gaining serious public interest.

Smith’s point was not just about money but about credibility. He argued that it is hypocritical for politicians who champion the struggles of everyday Americans to cash in on their offices while insisting that voters tighten their belts.

For a commentator who has built his career challenging celebrities and athletes to be accountable, Smith’s willingness to direct that same intensity toward high-powered political figures feels refreshing.

He made sure to note that he has no problem with financial success if the country itself is thriving. But in his view, that is far from reality.

“I’m cool with it if the American people are prospering, but last time I checked, that’s not the case,” Smith said candidly. That statement ties neatly to what many conservative Americans already believe: Washington’s elite class keeps enriching itself while forgetting the citizens footing the bill.

What makes Smith’s commentary cut even deeper is that it comes from someone who cannot be easily dismissed as “right wing.”

He is a celebrity in mainstream media, not a figure of conservative talk radio.

Yet his disgust with the obvious disconnect between political rhetoric and personal enrichment mirrors a sentiment long echoed by grassroots conservatives who have watched career politicians grow rich on the taxpayer’s dime.

For years, the left has insisted that politicians like the Clintons and Obamas are “public servants” driven purely by compassion and patriotism.

Yet the millions they have amassed tell a different story, one more akin to celebrity branding than statesmanship.

The flow of wealth through speeches, foundations, and “post-presidential projects” has blurred the line between public service and personal gain.

Smith’s skeptical take landed hard because it voiced what ordinary Americans are already thinking.

While the media often celebrates former presidents striking lucrative book and Netflix deals, regular families are out here fighting for mortgages and scraping to afford groceries.

For someone of Smith’s stature to call out liberal icons like Clinton and Obama with such blunt honesty shows that even mainstream cultural voices are beginning to question the political double standards that conservatives have been shouting about for decades.

Smith’s rant may have started as podcast banter, but it touched a deeper nerve about integrity, leadership, and how detached the political elite have become from real life.

If the country’s top politicians continue to grow richer while the middle class fades, more voices like Smith’s will join the call for accountability.

Americans are tired of watching politicians build empires while the people they claim to represent struggle to stay afloat.

In the end, Smith’s words served as an uncomfortable reminder that prosperity should start with the public, not with presidents cashing in after their terms end.

The American dream was never meant to be exclusive to politicians who mastered the art of self-promotion. For a nation proud of its roots in freedom and hard work, it is becoming clearer by the day who is really cashing in on that dream.

News

Plea Deal Collapse Sends Alleged UnitedHealthcare Killer Back to Court as Jury Selection Fight Heats Up [WATCH]

Luigi Mangione, the man accused of assassinating UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, is back in court as the federal case against him heats up. His return follows the abrupt breakdown of reported plea deal talks, leaving prosecutors and defense attorneys on edge and the media circling, as reported by Fox News.

The Ivy League graduate, once thought to be exploring a plea agreement, is now preparing for jury selection in one of the most closely watched trials of the decade.

At only 28, Mangione stands accused of gunning down the respected CEO outside a Manhattan hotel last December.

Federal prosecutors argue that the crime was premeditated and politically motivated, while the defense continues to dance around strategies that could reduce his exposure.

The collapse of plea negotiations is a major blow to both sides, signaling a long and messy battle in court.

The Justice Department and Mangione’s legal team have spent months sparring over the jury questionnaire. The disagreements go far beyond procedural detail; both sides know that picking the right jury could define the outcome.

Prosecutors have complained about the defense’s proposed questions, calling some inappropriate and others repetitive.

The defense, meanwhile, insists they have a right to uncover potential bias in jurors who may have financial or emotional ties to UnitedHealthcare or even to the hotel where the shooting occurred.

Some of the defense’s proposed questions dig deeply into the personal lives of potential jurors. They want to know if jurors own or rent homes, whether they attend church regularly, and what kind of television they watch.

They even want to know if jurors have ever invested in UnitedHealthcare stock or stayed at the Hilton near Sixth Avenue, the scene of the killing. Prosecutors call it overreach.

The defense calls it necessary for fairness. It is the latest in a string of disputes that reveal just how volatile this case has become.

Reports surfaced last week claiming that Mangione’s lawyers and federal prosecutors had been close to a plea deal before talks fell apart.

While the details remain murky, his attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo fired back, accusing the government of deliberately leaking information to poison the jury pool.

“This is a troubling, deliberate pattern by prosecutors and law enforcement to prejudice Luigi,” she said in a statement to Fox News. It was another sharp exchange in a case already mired in speculation and media attention.

Prosecutors have remained tight-lipped, declining to confirm whether plea discussions were ever formal.

That silence may reflect internal debates about how best to proceed against a defendant who has already shown a willingness to change strategy at a moment’s notice.

Mangione’s team recently withdrew a psychiatric defense they had signaled just one day earlier in the separate state-level murder case. That quick reversal set off questions about what direction the defense will take next.

The abandoned psychiatric defense was based on a claim of “extreme emotional disturbance,” which under New York law can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter.

But using that defense would have required Mangione to admit that he shot Brian Thompson.

Experts suggested that a concession could have been disastrous for his federal case, which carries tougher penalties and lacks a similar legal escape hatch.

Legal analysts pointed out that such a defense might have been viewed as an admission of guilt across jurisdictions.

The state trial judge received only a one-sentence letter from Mangione’s attorneys announcing the sudden withdrawal.

It was a remarkable moment given that the emotional disturbance argument had already been publicly filed and discussed in open court.

Within twenty-four hours, it was gone, and the defense’s ever-shifting strategy once again dominated headlines.

Federal prosecutors paint a chilling picture of the crime.

They allege Mangione methodically planned the assassination, traveled across state lines to New York City, checked into a hostel using a fake name, and then ambushed Thompson outside a shareholder event.

When police caught him later at a McDonald’s restaurant in Altoona, Pennsylvania, he reportedly carried identification and other evidence connecting him to the crime.

For the family of Brian Thompson, the delays and legal maneuvering have only deepened frustration. The slain CEO left behind a wife and two children, along with colleagues and friends, who were shocked by the senseless attack.

Thompson had been on his way to an investor meeting when he was gunned down, an act that prosecutors say was politically motivated.

Federal investigators have hinted that they found writings by Mangione expressing anger toward corporate leadership and “healthcare corruption,” though his attorneys claim those statements are being taken out of context.

As both sides brace for trial, jury selection will be under a microscope. Defense attorneys want to probe jurors’ opinions about law enforcement and their views on corporate executives.

Federal prosecutors, however, view that as an attempt to seed bias in Mangione’s favor. Every word in that questionnaire will be fought over, another sign that this case is headed for a long legal slog.

For now, there is no sign of new plea discussions, no promise of a deal, and no clarity on which defense will eventually be presented in court.

What is clear is that Luigi Mangione has become a symbol of arrogance and calculation, a defendant who overturned his own lawyers and rejected a psychiatric excuse after reportedly wavering on a plea.

The Justice Department sees a cold and premeditated killer. His lawyers see an unstable man being railroaded by the system. And the rest of America is simply waiting to see who wins the fight inside that New York courtroom.

News

Former Ohio Gov. John Kasich Whines as President Trump Finally Ends the Haitian Invasion of Ohio [WATCH]

Former Ohio Gov. John Kasich is urging Congress to extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) protections for Haitian nationals after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration may move forward with ending the designation, as reported by Townhall.

Kasich commented on the issue in a post on X after the Court issued its decision, arguing that Congress should intervene to continue the humanitarian protections.

“The Supreme Court has allowed TPS for Haitians to end, putting families in Springfield and communities across the country at risk of being sent back to a country in chaos. Congress can and should extend these protections.”

The Supreme Court’s decision allows the Department of Homeland Security to proceed with terminating TPS protections for Haitian nationals after lower court orders blocking the action were overturned.

Temporary Protected Status is a humanitarian program established by Congress in 1990 that allows eligible nationals of designated countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to remain and work in the United States for limited periods.

Haiti first received the designation in January 2010 following a devastating earthquake.

James Percival, identified in the source as DHS General Counsel, also commented on the history of Haiti’s TPS designation in a post on X.

“This is how the Obama Administration sold Haiti TPS to the American people in 2010. It was controversial at the time because it rewarded people who came here illegally. Democrats’ promise of 18 months turned into 16 years.”

Although TPS is designed as a temporary form of humanitarian relief, successive administrations have repeatedly renewed Haiti’s designation.

According to figures cited in the source material, more than 300,000 Haitian nationals currently reside in the United States under Temporary Protected Status.

The discussion surrounding the ruling has also focused on Springfield, Ohio, where approximately 15,000 Haitian migrants are reported to be living. The source states that roughly 30 percent of those residents have obtained mortgages on homes in the community.

Andrew Kolvet shared comments on X highlighting the number of TPS recipients living in Springfield.

“So of the 350,000 Haitians in the United States with TPS, a little over 10,000, close to 15,000 live here in Springfield, the population of Springfield is about 58,000. So with this decision from the Supreme Court, 20% of this community in…”

The Supreme Court’s ruling has renewed debate over how long TPS protections should remain in place for countries that have received repeated extensions over many years.

Supporters of extending TPS argue that recipients have established lives and families in the United States and that conditions in Haiti remain unstable.

Those supporting the administration’s position argue that the program was created as a temporary humanitarian measure and should not become a permanent immigration status.

The Court’s decision does not immediately remove TPS recipients from the country. Current protections remain in effect until the Department of Homeland Security finalizes termination dates and implements the process established under federal law.

The ruling affects hundreds of thousands of Haitian nationals currently residing in the United States under TPS and marks another significant development in the ongoing national debate over immigration policy and the future of temporary humanitarian programs.

News

Jacob Frey Applauds Somali Community While Fraud Investigations Grip Minnesota [WATCH]

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey praised the city’s Somali community during a Somali Independence Day celebration over the weekend, describing its members as part of the city’s family while Minnesota continues to face scrutiny over several high-profile fraud investigations, as reported by Fox News.

Frey delivered the remarks on Saturday during a public event marking Somali Independence Day.

The speech came weeks after a Republican-led House Oversight Committee released a report alleging that the administration of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz failed to respond to repeated warnings about fraud involving state social services programs.

Addressing attendees, Frey spoke about the Somali community’s place in Minneapolis and referenced what he described as challenges the community has faced.

“Through the most difficult of times and through Operation Metro surge, we all saw that they tried to come for some of us,” Frey said. “And when that happens, we say that you’re coming for all of us.”

The mayor continued by emphasizing what he said was the city’s support for Somali residents.

“In Minneapolis, we loved our neighbors. In Minneapolis, we do not see you as immigrants. We see you as our family,” he said. “You are our brothers. You’re our sisters. You have done so much for this incredible city, and for that, we stand with you.”

Frey appeared to reference Operation Metro Surge, an immigration and public safety initiative carried out by the Trump administration in Minnesota.

The operation concluded in February after Border Czar Tom Homan announced that more than 4,000 people had been arrested in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Homan said the operation reduced public safety threats in the region.

Following the event, Frey shared a video of his remarks on X along with a message recognizing the holiday.

“Happy Somali Independence Day,” Frey wrote.

“Here in Minnesota, home to one of the largest Somali communities in the United States, we celebrate the resilience, culture, and leadership that continue to enrich our city and community,” he added.

The mayor’s comments came as Minnesota remains the subject of multiple fraud investigations involving state-funded programs.

Earlier this month, the Republican-led House Oversight Committee released a report alleging that the Walz administration repeatedly failed to act on warnings about fraud involving state social services programs, including the Feeding Our Future case.

According to the committee, more than 110 people have been charged in connection with various fraud schemes in Minnesota.

The report stated that many of the defendants were identified as members of Minnesota’s Somali immigrant community.

The committee further alleged that concerns over potential racial discrimination claims contributed to delays in addressing suspected fraud.

It is also estimated that approximately $300 million in federal child nutrition funds intended for pandemic-era meal programs was stolen.

The Feeding Our Future investigation has become one of the largest fraud cases connected to pandemic relief programs in the state.

Walz administration officials have disputed the findings and conclusions contained in the House Oversight Committee report.

The investigations remain ongoing, while state and federal officials continue to examine allegations involving Minnesota’s social services programs.

At the same time, Frey’s remarks highlighted his administration’s support for the Somali community during the annual Somali Independence Day celebration in Minneapolis.

News

Mamdani Tries to Sugarcoat Socialist Surge as a “Vision” for America [WATCH]

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani discussed the growing influence of socialist candidates within the Democratic Party during an interview with ABC News’ Jon Karl following several Democratic primary victories by candidates he endorsed, as reported by Red State.

The interview came after three candidates backed by Mamdani, including two who identify as socialists, won Democratic primary contests in New York City.

During the interview, Karl questioned Mamdani on a range of topics, including Israel, the direction of the Democratic Party, criminal justice, immigration, and the policy positions of candidates he has supported.

Karl first asked Mamdani about Israel’s identity as a Jewish state.

Karl: “Israel is a Jewish state. That’s in the charter. Do you support that?”

Mamdani responded, “I’ve said time and again that I support the state of Israel as a state with equal rights.”

Karl then asked, “As a Jewish state?”

Mamdani replied, “I believe that any state that privileges one religion over another is…”

The interview also focused on whether the recent success of socialist candidates represented a broader direction for the Democratic Party.

Mamdani said the candidates he supports are advancing a political agenda that extends beyond upcoming election cycles.

“What these candidates offer is a vision that extends beyond the midterms, that extends beyond 2028…”

Karl also asked Mamdani about comments made by New York City Democratic candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier, who has previously discussed abolishing prisons and borders and has opposed deportations.

When asked about those remarks, Mamdani replied:

“What I saw from Darializa was a focus on what she describes as a ‘politics of life.'”

Karl continued by questioning whether those positions would be broadly accepted by Democratic voters nationwide.

“ABC: Abolishing prisons, having open borders…most of Americans won’t go along with that.”

Mamdani responded, “We can have disagreements on policy positions.”

Karl then asked, “We can disagree on something as basic as we should have prisons?”

“There are prisons,” Mamdani replied.

The interview also revisited remarks Mamdani made in August 2020 regarding incarceration.

“Frankly, what purpose do they serve?”

Karl concluded by asking whether differing ideological factions could continue to coexist within the Democratic Party.

“Is there room in the party for both of these views?” Karl asked.

Mamdani answered, “Yes…I think what makes our party a beautiful party is the fact that it’s a big tent.”

The interview aired as Democratic leaders continue to debate the party’s ideological direction following recent primary elections.

The broader discussion has also included comments from Democratic congressional candidate Melat Kiros of Colorado, who advocated for expanding support for Medicare for All.

“The only way we get Medicare for all passed is by getting rid of the Democrats that are actively standing in that way.”

The interview and related reactions highlighted continuing debate within Democratic politics over issues including Israel, criminal justice, immigration, health care, and the party’s future direction following the recent primary contests.

News

Texas Sisters Mock Police With Grins After Allegedly Killing Mom Of Five [WATCH]

Three women have been charged with murder following the death of a 32-year-old Texas mother of five after an attack in Del Rio, according to local authorities, as reported by The New York Post.

The Del Rio Police Department said sisters Amaya “Cookie” Diaz, 19, and Kitty Mia Diaz, 21, along with 21-year-old Kyandra Renee Faz, were taken into custody Thursday in connection with the death of Caroline “Caro” Peña.

Police have not publicly disclosed a motive in the case.

The arrests came just hours after investigators say Peña was attacked in broad daylight in Del Rio, a city near the Texas-Mexico border with a population of approximately 35,000.

Video recorded outside the Diaz sisters’ residence showed officers escorting the suspects into patrol vehicles following their arrests.

In the footage, Kitty Diaz, who was barefoot and wearing black shorts and a black halter top, briefly smiled while officers walked her to a police cruiser. Her younger sister, Amaya Diaz, was also taken into custody outside the home.

Michael Elizondo, an independent journalist based in Del Rio, said he arrived at the residence after hearing reports of significant police activity in the neighborhood.

“I didn’t know what was going on, but I knew it must be serious” because of the number of police vehicles at the scene, Elizondo said.

He said he initially did not realize what the women had been arrested for.

“I saw the first girl going into the car, and I thought, ‘Whatever.’ … But the second one caught my eye.”

Elizondo described the demeanor of one of the suspects as officers completed the arrests.

“That girl was in a happy mood. … She was all smiling, goofing off like nothing happened,” he said.

He also recalled another moment after one of the suspects had been placed inside a patrol vehicle.

“All of the sudden I see the window go down, and the girl was sticking out her face, sticking out her tongue and goofing off,” Elizondo said.

According to Elizondo, a nearby resident later told him the sisters had been seen “driving recklessly” through the neighborhood earlier that day.

Authorities have not commented publicly on that account.

Investigators believe the attack occurred outside a Sonic Drive-In restaurant in Del Rio. Video reportedly captured Peña confronting three women before she was critically injured.

Peña was transported to a hospital in San Antonio, where she died at approximately 9 p.m.

Police said officers responding to the hospital traced the incident back to the Del Rio location, where the attack allegedly occurred.

Following their arrests, Amaya Diaz, Kitty Diaz, and Faz were each charged with murder and booked into a local jail, according to the Del Rio Police Department.

The department has not released additional information regarding the investigation and did not respond to media inquiries seeking further comment.

Peña’s death has drawn attention throughout the Del Rio community. She is survived by five children.

Social media posts attributed to Kitty Diaz indicate she is the mother of a young son. Earlier this month, she shared a TikTok video featuring the child and wrote, “My son is about to be 4 years old and still a only child.”

The murder investigation remains ongoing as authorities continue working to determine the circumstances surrounding the fatal attack.

Police have not announced any additional arrests or released further details about what led to the confrontation.

News

DHS Rolls Out New Self Deportation Plan After Landmark Supreme Court Decision [WATCH]

The Department of Homeland Security has announced a voluntary departure assistance program for Haitian and Syrian nationals affected by a recent Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump administration to move forward with ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for those countries, as reported by Trending Politics News.

The announcement follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 25 decision in Mullin v. Doe, in which the justices ruled 6-3 that the Temporary Protected Status statute generally prevents courts from reviewing decisions by the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate or terminate TPS for individual countries.

The ruling overturned lower court orders that had blocked the administration from ending TPS protections for Haitian and Syrian nationals.

Temporary Protected Status was established by Congress in 1990 as a humanitarian immigration program administered by the Department of Homeland Security.

The program allows eligible nationals of designated countries who are already present in the United States to remain in the country temporarily and receive work authorization for a specified period.

TPS designations are made when the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that conditions in a foreign country, including armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary and temporary circumstances, make it unsafe for nationals to return or prevent the country from adequately receiving returning citizens.

The protections are temporary and generally last between six and eighteen months before being reviewed for possible extension.

TPS protects recipients from deportation during the designated period but does not provide lawful permanent resident status or a direct path to U.S. citizenship.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated that the administration had offered a race-neutral explanation for ending the TPS designations and noted its consistent position regarding the program’s prior implementation.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin outlined a voluntary departure program for individuals whose TPS protections will be terminated.

During an appearance on CNN’s “State Of The Union,” Mullin encouraged affected individuals to pursue permanent legal status if they qualify or participate in the department’s voluntary return program.

“Either try to fill out the paperwork and be here underneath a permanent status or we’ll help you get back to your country. We’ll actually give you a plane ticket, plus roughly $2,100 to help you re-establish when you get there, but temporary protective status, according to the courts and in its name itself, is not permanent status,” he said.

According to DHS, the program includes a one-way airline ticket to the recipient’s home country along with approximately $2,100 in financial assistance per person to help with re-establishment after arrival.

Department officials said the assistance is available to individuals who voluntarily choose to depart the United States rather than remain after their TPS protections expire.

The Supreme Court’s ruling affects approximately 350,000 Haitian nationals and about 6,100 Syrian nationals who currently reside in the United States under Temporary Protected Status.

DHS said implementation of the program will proceed in accordance with the legal timeline established following the court’s decision. Current TPS protections remain in effect until the official termination dates are finalized and take effect.

Individuals who qualify for another form of immigration relief may still pursue those options independently of the voluntary departure program.

Those who neither obtain another lawful immigration status nor participate in voluntary departure could become subject to standard immigration enforcement proceedings after their TPS protections expire.

The Supreme Court’s decision represents a significant development in the administration’s broader immigration policy and restores the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to move forward with terminating TPS designations that had previously been blocked by lower court rulings.

News

Brandon Gill Exposes Democrat Plot to Transform Red States Through Migrant Influx [WATCH]

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, argued that the federal Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program has been used to relocate migrants into communities across the United States following a recent Supreme Court ruling that favored the Trump administration’s authority to remove TPS protections for certain groups, including Haitians and Syrians, as reported by PJ Media.

The Supreme Court decision prompted reactions from lawmakers and commentators on both sides of the immigration debate.

Supporters of the ruling argued it reinforces the executive branch’s authority to administer immigration programs, while critics expressed concern about the potential impact on individuals who have lived in the United States under TPS protections.

TPS is a humanitarian immigration program that allows nationals of designated countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary conditions to remain and work temporarily in the United States.

Haiti and Syria received TPS designations more than a decade ago following crises in their respective countries.

Following the ruling, Gill posted comments on X criticizing the expansion of the program during the Biden administration and arguing that many beneficiaries had not traveled directly from their home countries.

“By the way, many of the Haitians who were given TPS under Joe Biden did not come from Haiti. They were living in nations like Brazil and Chile and came here to take advantage of Biden’s open border. They were sent, not to Martha’s Vineyard or Sherman Oaks, but to blue-collar, midwestern towns like Springfield, Ohio. And the people there were called racist for objecting to the culture of the town they built being fundamentally changed overnight.”

Gill also argued that asylum and TPS programs are susceptible to fraud and questioned how the programs have been administered in recent years.

Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin responded to Gill’s post by citing his own reporting from the southern border during the 2021 migrant surge in Del Rio, Texas.

“When I was at the Del Rio, [Texas,] Haitian bridge camp in 2021, many of the Haitians told me they had been living in Chile & Brazil for years before coming to the US illegally for economic (not safety) reasons,” Melugin wrote.

“The Haitians were dumping & tearing up their Chilean documents at the river’s edge hide this fact from the US so it wouldn’t hurt their fraudulent asylum claims.”

Melugin added additional comments regarding migrants he encountered while covering the border.

“The idea that all these Haitians came directly from Haiti after an earthquake or assassination is false. Many of them were living happily and safely for years in South America until Biden’s open border policies became too attractive to pass up. Others also flew into the US via Biden’s CHNV [Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans] mass parole program, which was supposed to be for only 2-year humanitarian parole grants. Of course, most never left.”

The CHNV parole initiative allowed eligible nationals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela to apply for temporary humanitarian parole into the United States under specified conditions.

Gill’s comments also referenced broader debates over immigration policy and congressional representation.

He argued that counting all state residents during the U.S. Census, regardless of immigration status, could affect congressional apportionment and Electoral College representation.

Those issues have remained part of ongoing political and legal debates surrounding immigration enforcement, census methodology, and federal immigration policy.

Supporters of the Supreme Court ruling have said the decision restores greater authority to the executive branch to determine when temporary humanitarian protections should end.

Opponents have argued that ending TPS protections could disrupt the lives of individuals who have lived and worked in the United States for years.

The administration’s implementation of TPS and related immigration programs continues to face legal challenges as federal courts consider additional cases involving humanitarian protections and executive immigration authority.

News

Democrats Condemn Attack On Scott Wiener While Ignoring Radical Trans Militants And Antisemitism [WATCH]

California State Sen. Scott Wiener left San Francisco’s Trans March on June 26 after a confrontation with demonstrators over his views on Israel, prompting responses from Democratic officials and local leaders condemning the incident, as reported by The Post Millennial.

According to accounts of the event, Wiener was confronted while attending the Trans March at Dolores Park.

The gay, Jewish lawmaker, who is running to succeed former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the U.S. House of Representatives, has participated in the annual event for many years.

This year marked the first time since the Trans March began in 2004 that he did not complete the event.

Wiener has long been known as an advocate for LGBTQ issues in California. During the confrontation, demonstrators criticized him over his position on Israel, and witnesses reported that he was jeered and taunted before leaving the park.

Following the incident, the California Democratic Party issued a statement condemning what occurred.

“The harassment and violence shown from yesterday’s march in San Francisco towards Senator Scott Wiener is unacceptable and must be called out,” the statement said.

The party also referenced Wiener’s “16 years in service” and his advocacy “for the LGBTQ+ community.”

After the incident, Wiener said the conduct of those confronting him made it impossible for him to remain safely at the event.

“They were so physically and verbally aggressive that it was impossible” for him to “safely remain in the park,” Wiener said.

The senator also noted that it was the second time within one week that he had been confronted by activists over his views on Israel.

He said a man who confronted him earlier in the week during a televised FIFA World Cup match in San Francisco’s Mission District was the same individual who had confronted him in 2023 over what Wiener said was his “tainted bloodline.”

The confrontation comes after Wiener’s recent decisions regarding issues related to Israel.

He previously stepped down from the California Legislative Jewish Caucus following debate surrounding his position on whether Israel’s war against Hamas should be described as “genocide.”

California Congressman Kevin Mullin also responded to the incident, condemning what he described as “hate speech, harassment, and violence.”

San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie specifically addressed what he characterized as antisemitism directed at Wiener.

“As mayor,” Lurie said, “I can never accept hate directed at a member of our community. The language directed at Sen. Wiener yesterday was targeted, hateful, and antisemitic. In San Francisco, we welcome disagreement and respectful dialogue around issues many of us feel passionately about—but we cannot allow harassment and threats of violence.”

Lurie also encouraged residents celebrating Pride events to prioritize safety.

“If you’re out celebrating Pride this weekend, I want you to be able to do it safely. Let’s also look out for each other so we can all have a great weekend. We are at our best as a city when we celebrate each other, and I’m looking forward to doing that tomorrow.”

The incident also generated reactions from commentators on social media.

Kara Dansky argued that Wiener had not previously spoken out when activists targeted women advocating for women’s rights.

Andy Ngo wrote, “This is what you’ve empowered.”

Anthony Cabassa also commented on the incident, writing, “Not sorry that what you helped create is now coming for you for not being far left enough.

Now you can say the far left is a much bigger threat to you than the far right, which does not exist in CA legislation. Enjoy Senator. Mazel Tov.”

The confrontation occurred during San Francisco’s Pride weekend and drew attention from elected officials and commentators as discussions continued over political activism, public demonstrations, and safety at community events.

News

Deranged Killer Slaughters Grandmother Dollar General Worker Over Pennies Before Dying in Shootout [WATCH]

A Dollar General store manager in Georgia was killed while working after what authorities say began as a routine purchase of a pair of hamburger buns, and the suspect was later fatally shot by police following an armed confrontation that also left a police officer and a K-9 injured, as reported by The Gateway Pundit.

According to WKRC, 44-year-old Alexis Hill was working at a Dollar General store on June 23 at approximately 10 a.m. when a man approached the checkout counter to buy a package of hamburger buns.

The Muscogee County Coroner’s Office identified the suspect as 33-year-old Jerome Willis. Authorities said Willis handed Hill two crumpled one-dollar bills to pay for the purchase, which totaled $1.58.

As Hill began straightening the bills during the transaction, investigators say Willis stepped away from the counter, pulled out a handgun, and shot her.

Emergency responders arrived at the scene, but Hill was pronounced dead at approximately 10:45 a.m., according to the Muscogee County Coroner’s Office.

Following the shooting, Willis fled the store before law enforcement officers launched a search for the suspect.

Police located Willis roughly three hours after the shooting. Authorities said officers issued verbal commands after finding him, but the suspect did not comply.

According to the Daily Mail, officers then deployed a police K-9 in an effort to take Willis into custody.

“They gave him verbal demands, but when the suspect ‘did not comply’, officers released a K-9 officer to apprehend Willis.

“As they did so, Willis again pulled out a gun and shot at the K-9 officer and others. In response, police fired several shots back, killing the gunman.”

During the exchange of gunfire, a Columbus Police Department officer was injured and transported to a hospital for treatment. Authorities said the officer was later released.

The department’s K-9, Havoc, was also wounded during the confrontation. Officials transported the dog to a veterinary hospital before Havoc was airlifted to an emergency veterinary facility for additional treatment.

Authorities later said Havoc underwent surgery and has since been sent home to continue recovering.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has opened a review of the officer-involved shooting, which is standard procedure following incidents involving the use of deadly force by law enforcement officers.

Hill’s death has left her family mourning the loss of a mother and grandmother. She is survived by three children and two grandchildren.

Her brother, Johnathan Hill, remembered her while speaking about the family’s loss.

“She can’t be replaced,” he said. “It’s a loss that I’m going to have to deal with, and the family is going to have to deal with.”

The shooting occurred during what investigators say appeared to begin as an ordinary retail transaction before turning deadly. Authorities have not announced any additional suspects in the case.

The investigation into the initial shooting remains ongoing, while the Georgia Bureau of Investigation continues reviewing the circumstances surrounding the officer-involved shooting that resulted in Willis’ death.

Dollar General has not publicly commented in the information provided. Authorities have also not released additional details regarding a possible motive beyond the events described during the transaction.

Alexis Hill had been working as the store manager at the time of the shooting. Her death has drawn attention in Muscogee County as family members, coworkers, and members of the community remember a woman whose life was cut short while on the job.


Scroll to Top