Author name: RVM News

Trump Says ICE Has Begun Proceedings as Ilhan Omar Faces Deportation Firestorm [WATCH]
News

Trump Says ICE Has Begun Proceedings as Ilhan Omar Faces Deportation Firestorm [WATCH]

/

President Donald Trump said Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun proceedings involving Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., amid longstanding allegations of immigration fraud connected to the Minnesota congresswoman, as reported by Townhall.

The president’s comments have renewed attention to questions surrounding Omar’s immigration history and past allegations involving her marriage and business dealings.

While the outcome of any proceedings remains unclear, Trump indicated that federal immigration authorities have taken action.

“We’re going to circle back to this eventually, but for now, conservatives are celebrating: Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) could be deported. It’s Trump, and things change. They might not work out, but the president did confirm that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has begun proceedings against the Minnesota Democrat over allegations of fraud.”

Omar, who represents Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, has faced allegations for years concerning whether she committed immigration fraud.

Those allegations have centered in part on claims involving a previous marriage and questions about her immigration history.

The issue has periodically resurfaced in national political debates, particularly as Omar has become one of the most prominent members of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing.

Critics have argued that the allegations warrant additional scrutiny, while Omar and her supporters have previously rejected accusations of wrongdoing.

The latest development follows renewed discussion about other matters connected to the congresswoman, including a winery that had previously drawn attention.

The winery was alleged to have been improperly represented, adding another layer to the questions raised by critics about Omar’s business and financial affairs.

Trump’s statement that ICE has begun proceedings involving Omar has generated immediate interest among conservatives, many of whom have followed the allegations for years and questioned whether federal authorities would ever formally address them.

However, the existence of immigration proceedings does not by itself determine their outcome.

Any potential action involving a sitting member of Congress would involve legal and administrative processes, and it remains to be seen what specific allegations federal authorities are pursuing or whether the proceedings could ultimately lead to Omar being removed from the United States.

The situation also marks another escalation in the long-running political and legal controversy surrounding Omar.

Questions about her immigration history and previous marriage have been part of public debate since she first entered national politics, with critics repeatedly calling for a formal investigation.

Trump’s confirmation that ICE has begun proceedings has now placed those questions back at the center of the political conversation.

For now, significant questions remain about the nature of the proceedings, the evidence being reviewed, and what actions immigration authorities may ultimately take.

The process could develop further as additional information becomes available.

If ICE is actively pursuing allegations of fraud involving the Minnesota Democrat, the case could become one of the most closely watched immigration matters involving an elected federal official.

After years of allegations and political debate, the matter may now be moving beyond headlines and into a formal government process.

New York Times Reporter Admits DSA Aims to Destroy the Entire Constitutional System [WATCH]
News

New York Times Reporter Admits DSA Aims to Destroy the Entire Constitutional System [WATCH]

/

During an appearance on Bill Maher’s program, New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters offered a remarkably blunt description of the Democratic Socialists of America and its ambitions.

Peters said the organization is not merely trying to influence Democrats from within, but seeks to dismantle the constitutional framework itself.

That is quite an admission from a journalist at the nation’s most influential liberal newspaper.

For years, allies in politics and media have tried to market the DSA as a softer movement concerned mainly with health care, wages, and other familiar kitchen table issues.

The organization’s own agenda tells a much more radical story.

Its platform calls for eliminating foundational institutions including the Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court, which would amount to ripping apart the structure that limits political power and protects representative government.

The DSA also supports open borders and broad amnesty for illegal immigrants, along with defunding police departments and closing prisons.

Those are not modest reforms or harmless policy experiments, no matter how often polished media figures wrap them in pleasant slogans.

Peters made clear that many DSA candidates are not simply Democrats with a more progressive label.

He described them as members of a separate political project, one that views the Democratic Party as a temporary vehicle rather than a permanent political home.

PETERS: “They’re not running to be members of the Democratic Party. They’re running, many of them anyway, as Democratic Socialists. It’s a totally different political organization. And in fact, they want to take out the Democratic Party. I mean, that’s their stated goal. They not only want to take out the Democratic Party, they want to take out the entire constitutional system that the Democratic Party is allowed to participate in governance.”

The statement cut through the usual fog surrounding socialist activism in American politics. Peters was not warning about a hidden interpretation cooked up by conservative critics, but describing what he called the movement’s own stated goal.

Bill Maher responded even more directly, saying the movement’s preferred destination is communism. He argued that its advocates reveal their intentions openly when their own language is examined.

MAHER: “And they like communism. I proved it here a couple of weeks ago just by quoting them. They use the word a lot. They’re not actually trying to hide it, although if you ask them they will deny it.”

WATCH:

That exchange matters because Maher and Peters are hardly standard bearers for the conservative movement.

When prominent voices in liberal media begin acknowledging the revolutionary character of the DSA, the old public relations routine becomes much harder to maintain.

Democratic leaders have often treated socialist activists as an energetic part of their coalition, useful for campaigns and voter turnout.

Yet a faction that openly seeks to erase core constitutional institutions is not asking for a seat at the table, it is eyeing the demolition crew.

The Constitution divides authority for a reason, even when that arrangement frustrates politicians who want immediate control.

The Senate, presidency, and Supreme Court provide separate checks within the federal system, and abolishing them would concentrate power on a scale Americans should reject.

Calls to strip police funding and shutter prisons add another layer to the danger.

Communities already dealing with crime and disorder do not need ideologues treating public safety as an obstacle to revolution, while ordinary families are left to absorb the consequences.

The open borders and mass amnesty agenda follows the same pattern, dissolving boundaries that define national sovereignty while dismissing lawful citizens who expect immigration rules to mean something.

It is radical policy dressed up as compassion, with taxpayers again expected to cover the bill.

Peters’ comments suggest the political disguise is getting thinner.

If even a New York Times reporter can say plainly that the DSA wants to remove both the Democratic Party and the constitutional system, voters should take the warning seriously rather than accept another round of media spin.

The DSA is not simply offering a more generous government program or a louder version of liberalism.

By the account presented on Maher’s show, it is pursuing a fundamental break with America’s governing order, and the public deserves to know exactly what is being proposed.

Newsom Signs Explosive ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ as Critics Warn Investigations Could Be Muzzled [WATCH]
News

Newsom Signs Explosive ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ as Critics Warn Investigations Could Be Muzzled [WATCH]

/

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the controversial Assembly Bill 2624 into law Saturday, expanding privacy protections for nonprofit employees who assist people navigating the immigration system.

Critics warn the measure could make it harder for journalists and investigators to expose fraud, misconduct, and abuse involving publicly connected organizations.

Republicans have labeled the legislation the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” a name coined by Assemblyman Carl DeMaio of San Diego.

The nickname reflects concerns that the law is aimed less at preventing genuine threats and more at frustrating independent journalists who scrutinize immigration networks.

The measure expands California’s Safe at Home program, which gives substitute mailing addresses to people considered vulnerable to targeted attacks or violent threats.

The program already covers domestic violence survivors, elder abuse victims, and workers involved in reproductive and gender affirming health care.

Democratic Assemblywoman Mia Bonta introduced the bill in February following reports that immigration service providers had experienced increased threats and harassment.

Supporters argue that employees working with immigrant communities should not have their personal addresses exposed because of their professional activities.

“Our immigrant service providers are living in fear because of extremists looking to demonize the work that they do and the populations they serve,” Bonta said Saturday.

She has rejected claims that the law protects wrongdoing or treats aggressive journalism as the same thing as publishing private information.

Critics are not buying the explanation, especially given the broad political context surrounding the legislation.

They say the law could intimidate people “trying to shine light on bad behavior” by placing additional barriers around organizations receiving public attention and potentially benefiting from taxpayer support.

Shirley, an independent journalist and YouTuber, has built a large audience through videos examining alleged fraud within immigrant communities.

He has said AB 2624 emerged after he “exposed widespread fraud in immigrant communities” in California and Minnesota, a claim that quickly intensified the political battle.

The controversy grew after Shirley traveled to San Diego following the viral success of his reporting in Minnesota.

WATCH:

Newsom claimed in February that Somali daycare providers there were “under siege” after Shirley arrived, framing the journalist’s scrutiny as a threat rather than a response to serious public concerns.

Then California politics delivered one of those scenes that would be rejected from a satire script for being too ridiculous.

While Shirley conducted a sidewalk interview outside the state Capitol in Sacramento, Terry Schanz, chief of staff to Democratic Assemblywoman Tina McKinnor, allegedly interrupted the encounter.

Schanz appeared with a printed flyer and asked, “Did you guys hear that Nick Shirley has a small penis allegedly?”

The crude stunt came from a senior legislative employee earning $17,319 each month, amounting to $207,828 annually in taxpayer-funded compensation.

Multiple complaints were filed with the California Legislature’s human resources department after the incident, according to KCRA, and Schanz is expected to face consequences.

The spectacle created an embarrassing contradiction for Democrats promoting legislation supposedly intended to discourage harassment and personal attacks.

Schanz was already carrying political baggage before his sidewalk performance.

His name appeared in a 2025 wrongful termination lawsuit containing allegations of political bullying and a toxic workplace culture within senior Assembly leadership, raising further questions about professional conduct inside California’s Democratic machine.

His office also drew scrutiny in January over allegations that it pressured the nonprofit newsroom CalMatters to change footage involving McKinnor.

The dispute followed a reporter’s tough question about the assemblywoman’s expensive designer handbag, apparently another moment when California officials found basic scrutiny terribly inconvenient.

WATCH:

The fight over AB 2624 eventually reached the United States Senate, where Republican Sen. Ashley Moody of Florida called it the “Protect Fraudsters Act.”

Bonta insists the law distinguishes legitimate reporting from doxxing, but opponents remain concerned that privacy protections can become political cover.

Newsom’s signature now ensures those concerns will move from legislative debate into practical enforcement.

Californians will discover whether the law protects vulnerable workers from genuine danger or supplies powerful interests with another tool for making uncomfortable questions, persistent reporters, and embarrassing investigations disappear from view.

Democrat Launches Emergency Court Fight to Keep Trump Off the Kennedy Center [WATCH]
News

Democrat Launches Emergency Court Fight to Keep Trump Off the Kennedy Center [WATCH]

/

A Democratic member of Congress rushed into federal court Thursday night with an emergency motion aimed at keeping President Trump’s name off the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

The filing opens another legal front in the increasingly bitter fight over the Washington cultural institution.

Rep. Joyce Beatty of Ohio, an ex officio member of the center’s board of trustees, submitted the motion after the board approved a new plan honoring Trump.

Beatty wants the court to intervene before the latest naming decision can be carried out.

Trustees voted last week to rename the grounds surrounding the center the “President Donald J. Trump Plaza.”

They also approved restoring Trump’s name to the building’s facade after a federal judge previously ordered its removal.

Under the board’s plan, Trump’s name would appear beside the main entrance only if a renovation fund attracts $100 million in donations.

That condition ties the proposed recognition directly to the success of the ambitious fundraising campaign.

If the donation goal is reached, the building would carry the moniker “The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Restored and Renovated By President Donald J. Trump.”

That is quite a mouthful, but apparently Washington has never encountered a naming fight it could not turn into litigation.

The center had previously been called the “Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

That name was adopted shortly after Trump’s inauguration in January 2025, when the president moved to replace the institution’s leadership.

Trump installed a new board of trustees, and that board later selected him as chairman.

The leadership overhaul quickly transformed the center from a sleepy cultural bureaucracy into another battlefield in Washington’s endless political wars.

Legal pressure forced a change several months later.

WATCH:

Trump’s name was removed from the facade in June after District of Columbia United States District Judge Christopher Cooper issued an order against the naming arrangement.

Cooper also blocked a planned two year closure of the Kennedy Center for renovations.

That ruling placed significant limits on the board’s plans for both the building’s identity and its physical future.

The board disclosed its intention to restore Trump’s name in a status report filed earlier this week.

According to that filing, the name could return to the complex as soon as September 8 if the renovation fundraising requirement is satisfied.

Beatty responded with Thursday’s emergency filing, asking Cooper to stop the board before any lettering is installed.

Her motion seeks a temporary block while the judge considers whether the revised arrangement violates his May ruling.

The congresswoman argues that the board cannot escape Cooper’s order merely by changing the form of Trump’s recognition.

Her position is that only Congress has the authority to permit another person’s name on the Kennedy Center’s exterior.

The dispute rests heavily on legislation enacted more than six decades ago.

In 1964, Congress renamed the planned National Cultural Center along the Potomac River in honor of President John F. Kennedy, who had been assassinated the previous year.

That law explicitly bars the board from turning the Kennedy Center into a memorial for another individual.

It also prohibits trustees from placing another person’s name on the outside of the building, giving Beatty the central argument behind her emergency request.

The board’s latest plan appears designed to distinguish recognition for restoring and renovating the center from formally renaming the institution.

Beatty insists that distinction is legal window dressing and still conflicts with both the statute and Cooper’s order.

The $100 million donation requirement adds another wrinkle to the courtroom clash.

Trump’s name would not automatically appear, meaning the proposal remains dependent on private support for a major renovation effort.

Cooper must now decide whether the board’s revised language represents a genuine legal distinction or an attempt to sidestep his earlier ruling.

Until then, the Kennedy Center remains trapped in a very Washington drama involving Congress, presidential power, federal courts, and exceptionally expensive signage.

Tourist Plunges 120 Feet for Better View and Somehow Lives to Tell the Tale [WATCH]
News

Tourist Plunges 120 Feet for Better View and Somehow Lives to Tell the Tale [WATCH]

/

A family trip to one of America’s most breathtaking national parks nearly turned fatal when a tourist fell 120 feet while reaching for a better view.

In a result bordering on miraculous, he survived after a nearby stranger rushed into action and helped pull him from the water.

Ken Nurse, a 60 year old Montana native who now lives in North Carolina, was visiting Glacier National Park last Thursday with his wife, Renae, and other family members.

The outing changed in seconds near McDonald Falls, where steep terrain and rushing water created a deadly combination.

Nurse had already taken photographs of the falls but moved closer in hopes of capturing a better view of the water.

The ground beneath him suddenly gave way, sending him tumbling 120 feet down the cliff and into the creek below.

His wife was back at the family’s vehicle when the fall occurred, leaving others nearby to witness the terrifying scene.

WATCH:

Among them was Josh Seppelt, a Navy electrician from Pierz, Minnesota, who heard the commotion and responded without hesitation.

“The gentleman’s daughter said, ‘Dad, there’s somebody in the water.’ And the guy was able to pull Ken out by his foot and get into the shallows,” Renae told KTMF.

Seppelt managed to move Nurse into a shallower section of the creek, where he quickly realized the injured man was not breathing.

There was no time for second guessing or waiting around for somebody else to take responsibility.

“And he realized he wasn’t breathing, and he started CPR.

And it just so happened there was a ranger that was real close by, and he was able to radio in for an extraction,’” said the injured man’s wife.

Renae raced back from the vehicle as the emergency unfolded and soon learned just how serious the situation had become.

Her professional experience as a nurse made the news even more frightening because she understood exactly what CPR meant about her husband’s condition.

The good Samaritan “told me he gave CPR. And that’s when I really panicked,” she said.

“Because I’m a nurse by profession. So, I knew it was a really bad then.”

Search and rescue personnel airlifted Nurse to a nearby hospital, where doctors placed him on a ventilator for two days.

He suffered several cracked ribs, a compound elbow fracture, and fluid in his lungs from the brutal fall and time spent in the creek.

Despite those severe injuries, Nurse made enough progress to leave intensive care by Sunday.

He still expects to undergo additional surgery, but considering the distance he fell and the fact that he stopped breathing, leaving intensive care was an extraordinary step forward.

“I’m doing pretty good considering,” Nurse told KTMF.

“It’s just one step at a time, but I shouldn’t be here and I’m going to do whatever I can to deserve this.”

The ordeal delivered a sharp reminder that beautiful wilderness can turn dangerous without warning.

A perfect picture is never worth gambling with unstable ground, especially around cliffs and fast moving water where one misplaced step can become a fight for survival.

With Nurse safe and recovering, Renae has found room for a little humor about a place she still considers spectacular.

She said she loves the area because “it is so peaceful and it is so beautiful and it just takes your breath away every time. Here, it actually took my husband’s breath this time but they gave it back.”

Her gratitude remains focused on Seppelt, the stranger who acted when every second mattered.

She said he “courageously jumped in and saved Ken’s life.”

Seppelt’s response was the kind of ordinary American heroism that rarely comes with warning, preparation, or applause.

He heard trouble, moved toward it, and helped keep another man alive until professional rescuers could take over.

“I am beyond grateful that he [Ken] will be flying home with me tomorrow,” Renae said.

“I can’t imagine doing this life without him.”

Trump Deportation Deal Sends Venezuelans, Cubans and Colombians to Liberia [WATCH]
News

Trump Deportation Deal Sends Venezuelans, Cubans and Colombians to Liberia [WATCH]

/

President Donald Trump is pressing ahead with his immigration enforcement agenda, pairing strong support for ICE and law enforcement with a broader effort to remove illegal aliens from the United States.

During remarks in Las Vegas, Trump also highlighted local arrests and work led by Vice President JD Vance to remove illegal immigrants from welfare programs.

Liberian authorities received the first deportation flight from the United States on Thursday under a new agreement with Washington.

The West African country has agreed to accept as many as 1,200 foreign nationals during the next year, making the arrangement one of the largest of its kind in Africa.

Liberian Information Minister Jerolinmek Piah said the initial group included 20 people, most of them from Latin America.

The deportees included nationals from Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia, countries that have produced substantial migration flows toward the United States.

Many of those transferred to Liberia cannot immediately be returned to their home countries because judges determined they could face torture or other abuse.

The arrangement gives the Trump administration another destination for certain deportees while their protection claims and immigration cases move through legal channels.

Liberian officials said the migrants will be “free to depart the country” whenever they choose, or they may apply for formal asylum in Liberia.

They are also expected to receive services from the International Organization for Migration and the United Nations refugee agency.

Liberia has presented the agreement as consistent with its history of welcoming displaced people.

In a statement Tuesday, the government pointed to its record of accepting individuals “seeking refuge from political and other crises” while emphasizing that required legal procedures will be followed.

The Liberian government also promised that nobody transferred under the agreement would be sent home before pending protection claims receive a final decision.

That commitment addresses concerns involving deportees who say they could face mistreatment if returned to their countries of origin.

“The Government of the Republic of Liberia agrees not to return any person transferred to Liberia by the Government of the United States of America to their home country or country of former habitual residence until a final decision has been made regarding any pending protection claims,” officials said.

Liberian officials also stressed that the arriving migrants are not being treated as criminal defendants.

“The Government wants to emphasize that those being brought to Liberia are not criminals and are not being prosecuted in any manner under United States or Liberian law. They are being received as guests of the Republic of Liberia,” officials said.

The aircraft departed Louisiana before stopping in Senegal and continuing to Roberts International Airport near Monrovia.

It landed at approximately 12:45 p.m. local time, marking the first completed transfer under the new arrangement between Washington and Liberia.

WATCH:

Liberia said it is not demanding direct compensation for accepting the deportees, although American assistance will accompany the program.

Officials said the country will receive “support to help manage the program and strengthen its migration system more broadly.”

The United States awarded Liberia $5 million this year for “migration management activities.”

The funding is expected to help Liberian authorities handle arrivals, protection claims and related administrative responsibilities as additional deportation flights take place.

The agreement represents a significant piece of the Trump administration’s effort to expand deportation options beyond migrants’ home countries.

That strategy gives federal immigration authorities more flexibility when direct repatriation is blocked by legal rulings, diplomatic barriers or credible claims involving torture and abuse.

Washington has reportedly secured similar arrangements with the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon, Ghana and Sierra Leone.

The growing network shows that the administration is looking well beyond the usual diplomatic playbook to carry out immigration enforcement rather than accepting endless excuses for delay.

Trump has repeatedly argued that immigration laws mean little unless removal orders are actually enforced.

With border crossings falling sharply and deportation efforts expanding, the Liberia flight offers another sign that the administration intends to convert campaign promises into action, something Washington bureaucrats have managed to avoid for far too long.

Jill Biden Floats Drugging Theory as Stroke Questions Persist Over Debate Disaster [WATCH]
News

Jill Biden Floats Drugging Theory as Stroke Questions Persist Over Debate Disaster [WATCH]

/

Former first lady Jill Biden is reopening one of the ugliest questions from the 2024 presidential campaign, what exactly happened to Joe Biden during his disastrous debate against Donald Trump.

Her latest comments are hardly likely to calm Democrats who would prefer that night remain buried.

During an appearance Thursday on Jamie Kern Lima’s podcast, Jill Biden was pressed directly on whether doctors had ruled out a stroke.

She replied, “Well, they did.” She added that her concern at the time was simply whether her husband was all right.

The former first lady said she had not been around Joe Biden for much of the period leading into the debate.

She had spent two weeks traveling and said she saw him only about an hour before he walked onto the stage.

Jill Biden recalled that the president appeared tired and did not feel well that day.

Still, she said there was no definitive explanation she could identify, leaving room for speculation about an episode that millions of Americans watched unfold in real time.

Lima then took the questioning a dramatic step further, asking, “There’s no way anyone could have, God forbid, laced his drink or something?”

That question arrived after Jill Biden raised the possibility that her husband might have suffered a serious medical emergency during the debate.

She has also entertained broader theories about what could have caused the performance, rather than offering one clear explanation.

WATCH:

The June 2024 debate became a political earthquake.

Joe Biden stumbled over words, paused for long stretches, appeared confused and displayed facial expressions that alarmed even friendly commentators who had spent years defending his fitness for office.

Democrats who had brushed aside voter concerns suddenly broke ranks.

Party officials, liberal pundits and major donors began publicly demanding that Biden abandon his reelection campaign, proving that the obvious only became acceptable once it appeared on national television.

Jill Biden revisited the episode in her memoir, “View from the East Wing.”

She described her reaction bluntly: “I wasn’t horrified. I was frightened.” That fear, she said, came from seeing her husband behave in a way she had never witnessed before.

“I had never ever seen Joe like that before or since,” Jill Biden said during a May interview.

She also recalled thinking he was having a stroke as she watched the debate, adding, “It scared me to death.”

According to the former first lady, doctors were routinely around the president and assured her that Joe Biden was fine that night.

The couple then continued with additional events, even as the debate performance triggered a national discussion about his health, judgment, and capacity to remain president.

The renewed discussion is proving inconvenient for Democrats trying to move beyond their 2024 collapse.

Kamala Harris eventually became the party nominee, but she lost to Trump after inheriting a political mess that party leaders had insisted for years did not exist.

Andrew Bates, a former Biden spokesman, criticized the decision to revisit the episode publicly.

“I don’t see why that painful conversation for the party needed to be publicly reopened right now.”

Jill Biden responded with little patience for the complaint.

“I want to say to Andrew: Call me up, and say it to my face, buddy.”

Her answer captured the bitterness still surrounding the Democratic Party’s handling of Biden’s decline and the scramble that followed his exit from the race.

George Washington University professor Matt Dallek said many Democrats view the Bidens as focused on the past.

“Democrats seem to feel like they’re focused on the past, they’re focused on Trump coming back to power,” he told Fox News Digital.

Dallek also noted that affection for the Biden family remains within the party, but so does considerable pain over the final years of the administration.

That tension helps explain why every new interview generates fresh irritation among operatives eager to change the subject.

Joe Biden is expected to release his own book about his presidency in November, following the midterm elections.

If Jill Biden’s tour is any indication, Democrats may soon face another round of uncomfortable questions about what officials knew, when they knew it, and why voters were kept in the dark.

Schumer Squirms Over Campaigning with Socialist El-Sayed Who Vows to Reject His Leadership [WATCH]
News

Schumer Squirms Over Campaigning with Socialist El-Sayed Who Vows to Reject His Leadership [WATCH]

/

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is eager to brag about Democratic prospects in Michigan, but he suddenly gets slippery when asked whether he will campaign beside socialist Senate nominee Abdul El Sayed.

That hesitation speaks volumes about the political headache now confronting the Senate’s top Democrat.

Democrats need Michigan if they hope to seize control of the Senate, and Schumer insists the party remains positioned to win.

The awkward part is that El Sayed has already said he would not support Schumer as Democratic leader if voters send him to Washington.

Asked during a news conference whether he would campaign with El Sayed, Schumer simply rolled past the question.

The event was supposed to highlight favorable race rating changes for Democrats in Texas and Iowa, but Michigan quickly exposed the growing divide inside his party.

“I have one mission: Win the Senate. We are on the path to doing it. Look, the bottom line is that we will win Michigan,” Schumer said.

He then credited El Sayed with bringing new energy and talent into the Democratic Party and the Michigan contest.

That was plenty of praise, but it was not an answer about sharing a stage with the nominee.

Schumer appears happy to welcome the enthusiasm while keeping his campaign calendar conveniently vague, a familiar Washington maneuver when party unity exists mostly in press releases.

The Democratic leader also tried to explain the rise of progressive candidates in Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin, and elsewhere by calling his organization a “big tent party.”

That tent is getting crowded with socialists who seem increasingly interested in replacing the people currently running it.

“Not everyone has the same exact view on every single issue,” Schumer said.

“But if you look at the overall issues, the costs that people pay, the chaos in the Trump administration, you see it daily. And the corruption.”

Schumer’s pivot toward President Donald Trump did little to erase the central problem.

El Sayed has openly rejected the Democratic establishment during his campaign and said he would support Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen for Democratic leader instead of Schumer.

The two Democrats reportedly spoke after El Sayed won his primary earlier this month, with their conversation focused on attacking Trump ahead of November.

Asked to describe Schumer in a single word, El Sayed offered the carefully measured response, “Pragmatic.”

Republicans see an opening after a bruising Democratic primary involving El Sayed, Rep. Haley Stevens, and Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

The fight dragged ideological divisions into public view and gave the eventual nominee little time to repair relationships with voters outside the progressive base.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican nominee, has been portraying El Sayed as a radical socialist whose politics fall well outside Michigan’s mainstream.

Rogers narrowly lost to Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin in 2024, even as Trump carried Michigan against former Vice President Kamala Harris.

That result gives Republicans reason to believe Rogers can finish the job this time, especially against a nominee further to the left.

Rogers has also launched a coalition aimed at attracting Democratic voters who may be uneasy with El Sayed’s agenda and the party’s socialist turn.

Schumer, meanwhile, argued that Trump’s tariffs on Canada would damage Michigan and help Democrats in the race.

Michigan shares a border with Ontario, and the neighboring economies have long conducted billions of dollars in trade across the international boundary.

“Anyone who is halfway decent as president knows that the Michigan economy and the Canadian economy are totally intertwined,” Schumer said.

“He’s blowing it. We will win Michigan.”

WATCH:

Republicans remain confident they can flip the seat and strengthen their narrow Senate majority.

Democrats insist El Sayed has energized the party, but Schumer’s refusal to say whether he will campaign with him suggests that even the party leader understands the political risk.

Michigan may become the clearest test of whether Democrats can keep courting socialist activists without frightening ordinary voters.

For now, Schumer wants El Sayed’s energy, needs his Senate seat, and would apparently prefer not to answer whether he wants to be photographed standing next to him.

Maoist DSA Faction Torches AOC as Too Moderate While 2028 Buzz Explodes [WATCH]
News

Maoist DSA Faction Torches AOC as Too Moderate While 2028 Buzz Explodes [WATCH]

/

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may be a symbol of the socialist left to most Americans, but apparently she is not radical enough for some of the revolutionaries in her own political neighborhood.

A Maoist faction within the Democratic Socialists of America is rejecting her as presidential speculation builds around 2028.

The DSA Liberation Caucus accused the New York Democrat of a “continued retreat from socialist politics” and rejected efforts to promote her as a future presidential standard bearer.

For ordinary voters, the spectacle amounts to socialists arguing that one of Congress’s loudest progressives has become suspiciously moderate.

The caucus also branded Ocasio-Cortez an “opportunist” over her positions involving Israel and the bitter dispute surrounding Zionism.

Her willingness to support Israel’s right to exist and access defensive systems appears to have crossed a revolutionary red line.

“In short, it was determined that she had failed to meet conditions concerning Palestine solidarity,” the statement said.

The complaint followed the withdrawal of a conditional endorsement from the DSA in 2024, exposing a widening divide between Ocasio Cortez and activists demanding ideological obedience.

The National Political Committee also objected to Ocasio-Cortez hosting a public panel with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which the faction described as a Zionist organization.

She further angered the group by joining Democrats in supporting Israel’s defensive capabilities after voting against supplemental weapons funding.

The socialist broadside was not limited to foreign policy.

The Liberation Caucus also attacked Ocasio-Cortez for retreating from the movement to defund police and for poking fun at the excesses of progressive politics during 2020.

During an ABC interview, Ocasio-Cortez referred to that period as “Woke 1” and joked that it was “crazyyyyy.”

That attempt at political repositioning did not impress activists who still regard the unrest and anti police movement of 2020 as a historic uprising.

The statement accused her of using abolitionist language when it helped launch her congressional career, then abandoning it once it became politically inconvenient.

“This is the action of an opportunist dilettante, devoid of any principles whatsoever, not a socialist,” the faction declared.

The dispute arrives as the DSA promotes a program called “Workers Deserve More,” which seeks the complete elimination of the Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court.

Candidates must accept and promote that agenda to secure a formal endorsement, which is quite a litmus test even by the modern left’s increasingly theatrical standards.

“This is why the current rumblings for and prospects of an AOC presidential campaign should be met with a clear answer from the socialist left: No,” the group said. It added, “We will not endorse or give succor to a campaign to put a social democrat at the head of an empire, where she will make even more capitulations to the imperialists, and drag our organization into antagonistic contradiction after antagonistic contradiction.”

WATCH:

While the national organization has refused to endorse Ocasio-Cortez, its New York City chapter has repeatedly backed her campaigns.

The Liberation Caucus claims that the city chapter has even hinted at splitting from the broader organization over disputes that include support for the congresswoman.

“This is not the behavior of socialist cadres,” the caucus said.

Such language offers a revealing glimpse into a movement where congressional Democrats can be condemned as ideological traitors for failing to march in perfect formation with Maoist activists.

Ocasio-Cortez has not announced a campaign for president or Senate in 2028.

Still, persistent speculation has placed her near the front of the emerging Democratic field, with some surveys identifying her as a leading choice among the party’s voters.

The Liberation Caucus was formed in 2025 and openly identifies itself as a Marxist, Leninist and Maoist faction inside the DSA.

Its website includes material defending Maoism and characterizes concerns about the catastrophic starvation and disaster associated with Mao Zedong’s rule as a misconception.

That background makes the attack especially striking.

Ocasio-Cortez has spent years pushing Washington leftward, yet a faction defending Mao now views her as compromised, insufficiently committed and too willing to make peace with political reality.

Neither the Liberation Caucus nor Ocasio-Cortez’s office responded to requests for comment.

For Democrats hoping to present a reasonable face before 2028, the family feud provides another reminder that the socialist base is still demanding more radicalism, not less.

ISIS Plot Suspect Allegedly Eyed the White House and Times Square After Capitol Bomb Scheme [WATCH]
News

ISIS Plot Suspect Allegedly Eyed the White House and Times Square After Capitol Bomb Scheme [WATCH]

/

Federal authorities say a radicalized New York woman accused of plotting to bomb the state Capitol also discussed striking the White House and New Year’s Eve festivities in Times Square.

The chilling allegations reveal ambitions that stretched far beyond Albany, as reported by The New York Post.

Jessica Bowie, 35, was arrested Wednesday after the FBI disrupted what investigators described as an ISIS-inspired plot. Authorities say she wanted to attack the Capitol “on a day when the most senators are there.”

According to the federal complaint, Bowie planned to conceal an explosive device inside a DoorDash food delivery bag.

The ordinary packaging was allegedly intended to help the bomb blend into the surroundings while lawmakers and staff were inside the building.

Bowie, an Albany resident who converted to Islam about five years ago and used the Islamic name Aisha Saif, allegedly developed the scheme with FBI informants for approximately two weeks.

Law enforcement had reportedly monitored her for five weeks before making the arrest.

Investigators say Bowie had considered an escape route to Syria if the Capitol attack succeeded.

She also allegedly contemplated returning to the United States later to conduct additional large-scale acts of terrorism, apparently treating one mass casualty plot as merely the opening act.

During an August 5 meeting with two informants, Bowie allegedly said she could “come back in the future and do more.”

One possible target she discussed was “New Year’s Eve in Times Square,” where enormous crowds gather each year.

Times Square can attract as many as 1 million visitors for the annual celebration, making the location an obvious nightmare scenario for security officials.

The alleged interest in such a crowded event showed that maximizing carnage was apparently central to her thinking.

Bowie allegedly selected the New York State Capitol because it was “the biggest political building that I know of around that area.”

Yet she reportedly told an informant she would have preferred the “White House with the President,” while acknowledging “that’s an even harder job.”

“Maybe in the future we go back for that,” she allegedly said. Federal authorities also claim Bowie believed an attack in Albany could kill at least half of the roughly 200 people she expected might be inside the Capitol.

On the same day she discussed those possible targets, Bowie allegedly bought bomb materials at a Home Depot in Rensselaer while wearing a burqa.

First Assistant US Attorney John A. Sarcone III said authorities believe she was “radicalized online,” a familiar pipeline that officials still struggle to contain.

Before agents moved in, Bowie allegedly paid an informant $200 to assist a bombmaker with financing explosives for future operations.

According to the complaint, she said she “wishes she could fund a big operation,” another indication that the alleged Capitol scheme was not her only aspiration.

Following her arrest, Bowie appeared to offer investigators a partial confession about the trouble she faced.

“There’s no helping me, you guys know enough, there’s no helping me, I’m…going to prison for the rest of my life,” she allegedly told the FBI.

“Material support is up to 20 years in prison; I already Googled it before, I know I’m going to jail,” Bowie allegedly added.

Her comments suggest she had researched not only terrorist activity, but also at least some of the federal consequences that could follow.

The arrest came about one month after another radicalized upstate New York woman was charged in a separate terrorism case.

Catherine Beth Washburn, 37, allegedly donated $30,000 in cryptocurrency to Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, according to federal authorities.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul thanked the FBI and other law enforcement agencies for stopping the alleged Capitol attack.

“Earlier this year, amid a rise in political violence and threats against public officials, we took steps to strengthen security at the State Capitol and across state government,” she said.

“While there is no immediate threat at this time, we will continue working closely with our law enforcement partners to protect New Yorkers and keep our communities safe.”

The FBI intervention appears to have prevented a potentially catastrophic attack, but the broader threat from online radicalization remains stubbornly real.


Scroll to Top