News

Boston Mayor Wu Vows to Thwart Owners Leasing Private Parking to ICE [WATCH]
News

Boston Mayor Wu Vows to Thwart Owners Leasing Private Parking to ICE [WATCH]

/

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said the city will take steps to identify property owners who may lease parking spaces to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as the federal agency expands immigration enforcement operations, as reported by The Post Millennial.

Wu made the comments after reports indicated that ICE has been seeking to lease 250 parking spaces in Boston, a city that has declared itself a sanctuary city and has maintained policies limiting cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration officials.

During an interview with WCVB Channel 5’s “On the Record,” Wu, a Democrat, said Boston would submit Freedom of Information Act requests to obtain information about responses to ICE’s search for parking in the area.

Wu said the city would then use that information to identify property owners who could potentially provide parking to the federal agency.

“We, as a city, will be filing another FOIA request for any responses that have come in for the Boston area so that we know what information they may be sifting through,” said Mayor Wu.

Wu said the city opposes an expansion of federal immigration enforcement activity in Boston and indicated that officials would contact property owners.

“We strongly oppose any expansion of their efforts here,” she continued, asserting that her office would “be reaching out to property owners to try to make sure that they’re not adding to a surge of unlawful and dangerous activity.”

The Department of Homeland Security responded sharply to Wu’s comments, arguing that the federal government has the authority to use private property for lawful operations and accusing the city of attempting to pressure property owners.

“She knows she has NO authority to block us from using private property,” DHS wrote on X. “So she’s hunting down private property owners and threatening them for working with ICE — because she’s rather intimidate law-abiding Bostonians than get criminal illegal aliens OFF the street.”

The dispute reflects a broader conflict between the Trump administration and Boston over immigration enforcement.

Boston’s sanctuary-city policies limit the circumstances under which local law enforcement agencies can cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

The city’s approach has drawn criticism from the Trump administration, particularly over cases involving individuals who were released from local custody despite federal immigration interests.

President Donald Trump began his second term with an emphasis on expanding immigration enforcement and carrying out mass deportations.

ICE operations have subsequently become a major point of conflict between the federal government and jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

The administration has repeatedly criticized Boston over its handling of individuals described by federal officials as criminal illegal aliens.

Federal officials have argued that releasing such individuals can create additional public-safety risks when they subsequently face allegations of new criminal conduct.

Wu’s comments add another layer to the dispute by focusing on private property owners rather than local government cooperation alone.

Her proposed FOIA requests would seek information about property owners who have responded to ICE’s parking-space search, after which city officials could contact those owners.

Illegal Alien Fatally Shot After Trying to Run Over ICE Agent in Houston Showdown

The federal government, meanwhile, maintains that local officials do not have authority to prevent ICE from conducting lawful federal operations on private property.

The disagreement also raises questions about how far a sanctuary city’s policies can extend when federal agencies seek to conduct operations within municipal boundaries.

While Boston can establish rules governing its own employees and resources, DHS maintains that federal immigration authorities remain entitled to carry out federal responsibilities.

The parking dispute comes as immigration enforcement remains one of the most contentious issues between the Trump administration and Democratic-led cities.

Boston’s sanctuary policies have made the city a frequent target of criticism from federal officials who argue that local restrictions interfere with federal enforcement.

Wu’s administration has made clear that it intends to oppose what it views as an expansion of ICE activity in Boston. DHS has made an equally clear argument that the city cannot prevent federal authorities from using private property for lawful purposes.

The disagreement over 250 potential parking spaces is therefore part of a larger confrontation over immigration enforcement, federal authority, and the limits of local sanctuary policies.

Kamala Harris and James Talarico Progressive Summit Collapses Into Spectacular Empty Room Fiasco [WATCH]
News

Kamala Harris and James Talarico Progressive Summit Collapses Into Spectacular Empty Room Fiasco [WATCH]

/

A progressive political gathering in Austin, Texas, featuring several prominent Democratic figures drew attention Tuesday after social media footage appeared to show sparse attendance inside the venue, as reported by Townhall.

The DemocracySummit 2026 was scheduled as a youth-focused political event described by organizers as “a powerful day of organizing, learning, and civic renewal.”

The event featured a lineup that included former Vice President Kamala Harris, Sens. Mark Kelly and Chris Murphy, Texas Senate candidate James Talarico and Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin.

Despite the high-profile guest list, images and videos circulated online showing portions of the venue with substantial amounts of empty seating.

The event took place in Austin, a major Texas city and a Democratic stronghold in a state where Republicans have dominated statewide elections for years.

Talarico, a Democrat seeking a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, has emerged as one of the party’s more prominent figures in the state.

Footage posted to social media by Turning Point executive Tyler Bowyer showed an apparently lightly attended room during remarks by Kelly.

The Arizona senator has been discussed as a potential contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028.

Additional footage published by Current Revolt showed comedian Alex Stein appearing to attract a comparatively large audience following a debate with progressive streamer Destiney.

The clips circulated online as conservative commentators questioned whether the event’s turnout matched the prominence of its advertised speakers.

The attendance became a point of discussion because the summit was promoted as an opportunity for Democrats and progressive activists to organize and engage younger Americans.

Harris, who served as vice president under former President Joe Biden, was among the most prominent names attached to the gathering.

Kelly and Murphy are both sitting Democratic senators, while Martin leads the Democratic National Committee. Talarico has become increasingly visible nationally while campaigning for the Senate in Texas.

The event’s organizers have sought to build political participation and civic engagement among younger Americans.

The DemocracySummit 2026 was billed around organizing, education, and political involvement rather than as a conventional campaign rally.

However, the footage that emerged from the event raised questions about the level of in-person enthusiasm among attendees.

The turnout also carries political significance because Democrats are seeking to expand their presence in Texas.

Republicans have controlled statewide elected offices in Texas for decades, and the state remains an important part of the GOP’s electoral map.

Talarico’s campaign is particularly significant because of his effort to win statewide office in a traditionally Republican state.

His political profile has grown rapidly, making him one of the Democrats’ more closely watched candidates in Texas.

The summit’s sparse-looking crowd does not by itself establish broader trends among young Democratic voters or determine the outcome of future elections.

Attendance at a single political event can be influenced by numerous factors, including scheduling, venue capacity, competing events and the structure of the gathering.

Still, the images provided an unusual contrast between the national profile of the speakers and the apparent size of the audience visible in portions of the venue.

The event comes as both parties prepare for an increasingly active 2026 election cycle and begin positioning potential candidates for the 2028 presidential race.

Kelly’s presence was particularly notable given speculation surrounding his future political ambitions, while Harris remains one of the Democratic Party’s best-known national figures.

For Texas Democrats, the challenge extends beyond attracting attention from national political figures.

Candidates seeking statewide office must build support across a state where Republicans continue to hold a significant electoral advantage.

The DemocracySummit 2026 was intended to promote organizing and political participation.

The footage circulating afterward instead placed the event’s attendance under the spotlight, giving political observers another data point to consider as Democrats attempt to build their coalition in Texas and nationally.

Scandal Battered GOP Congressman Cory Mills Crushed in Florida Primary [WATCH]
News

Scandal Battered GOP Congressman Cory Mills Crushed in Florida Primary [WATCH]

/

Former television news anchor Ryan Elijah defeated incumbent U.S. Rep. Cory Mills in the Republican primary for Florida’s 7th Congressional District on Aug. 18, ending Mills’ bid for another term in the House, as reported by Trending Politics News.

Decision Desk HQ projected Elijah as the winner at approximately 7:53 p.m. Eastern Time, less than an hour after polls closed. Multiple news organizations subsequently reported Elijah’s victory.

At the time of the race call, with roughly 64% of the expected vote counted, Elijah had 18,726 votes, or 43.2%. Mills had 16,029 votes, or 37.0%.

Businesswoman Sarah Ulrich had 4,942 votes, or 11.4%, while Michael Don Johnson, a retired Department of Defense program manager and previous primary challenger, had 3,638 votes, or 8.4%.

The district includes all of Seminole County and portions of southern Volusia County. Mills was first elected to Congress in 2022 and won reelection in 2024 with 56.5% of the vote in the general election.

Mills had received an endorsement from President Donald Trump in February.

Trump described Mills at the time as a successful entrepreneur, U.S. Army combat veteran, and Bronze Star recipient with an understanding of the requirements involved in defending the country and supporting the military.

Mills prominently featured the endorsement in his campaign materials. Trump later did not include Mills in some public lists of endorsed candidates released before the primary. Recent reporting confirmed that Elijah ultimately defeated the Trump-backed incumbent.

Mills’ campaign also faced an ongoing investigation by the House Committee on Ethics. The committee established an investigative subcommittee in November 2025 to examine allegations involving Mills.

In a May 11, 2026 statement, the committee said the investigation had authorized more than 20 subpoenas, collected thousands of documents, and contacted dozens of witnesses.

The panel described the allegations as serious and complex and said it would conduct a full and thorough investigation.

The investigation includes allegations concerning Mills’ business interests and federal defense contracts, financial disclosures and campaign-finance matters.

The committee has also examined allegations involving personal relationships and a February 2025 incident in Washington, D.C., in which police responded to a report involving Mills and a woman with whom he had been in a relationship.

The Metropolitan Police Department did not charge Mills following that incident.

The House Ethics Committee emphasized in its May statement that the decision not to bring charges was not a finding of innocence or “no wrongdoing.”

The committee is also reviewing circumstances surrounding an October 2025 court-issued injunction involving Mills and another woman.

The order restricted certain forms of contact and prohibited Mills from going within 500 feet of the woman’s residence or workplace. Mills has denied wrongdoing involving the various allegations.

Elijah entered the congressional race in the spring after working as a co-anchor and host at WOFL Fox 35 in the Orlando area.

He received endorsements from Florida Republican Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and Mike Haridopolos, Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood, state Sen. Tom Wright, and other political figures.

Financial reports also gave Elijah an advantage during key periods of the primary campaign.

His campaign raised more money than Mills during several reporting periods and spent more during the final months before voters went to the polls.

Mills’ defeat ends his current tenure in Congress, which began in January 2023. He won the seat after defeating Democrat Stephanie Murphy in 2022.

Before entering Congress, Mills founded companies involved in security and munitions and participated in efforts connected to evacuations from Afghanistan.

Elijah will now represent the Republican Party in the November general election for the district.

The result adds Mills to the list of congressional incumbents who have lost their party primaries during the 2026 election cycle.

The outcome also places Elijah at the center of a closely watched Florida House race as Republicans prepare for the November general election.

Michigan Sheriff Drops Bombshell on Alleged Noncitizen Voter Registration Scheme [WATCH]
News

Michigan Sheriff Drops Bombshell on Alleged Noncitizen Voter Registration Scheme [WATCH]

/

Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf says a confidential source inside the Michigan Secretary of State’s office has provided information alleging that non-citizens can be automatically added to the state’s voter rolls when they update their addresses, as reported by The Gateway Pundit.

Leaf discussed the allegations on Aug. 18, 2026, saying the information came from a whistleblower who works for the Michigan Secretary of State’s office.

The claims center on the state’s customer and automotive records system and its connection to voter registration procedures.

Burka, Fake Names, and Eight Mystery Voters: O’Keefe Shreds Minnesota’s Vouching Scam [WATCH]

According to Leaf’s account, the whistleblower said non-citizens are automatically registered to vote when they change their address through the state system.

The system allegedly sends a message congratulating the individual and informing that person that they have been registered to vote.

The allegations have not been independently established in the material provided, and they concern the operation of Michigan’s voter-registration system rather than proof that any particular non-citizen actually cast a ballot.

Leaf said the whistleblower brought evidence to a supervisor. According to the sheriff, the supervisor responded that county clerks would identify and remove people who were ineligible to vote.

Leaf disputes that explanation. He said county clerks receive access to the Qualified Voter File, or QVF, only after the Secretary of State’s office has already registered an individual.

He further claimed that the QVF does not provide a citizenship-status flag that would allow clerks to easily identify non-citizens.

The sheriff also alleged that once someone is placed on the voter rolls, that individual can request a mail-in ballot or vote in person using an identification card. According to Leaf, polling locations do not independently verify citizenship status.

The allegations have prompted Leaf to refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice. He said his office is seeking an investigation into possible violations of federal law, including 18 U.S.C. § 611, which addresses voting by certain non-citizens.

Leaf also said the issue could extend beyond elections because Michigan’s voter-registration records are used in determining jury pools. He is asking the Michigan Legislature to examine the alleged registration process and take action.

The sheriff encouraged anyone with additional evidence concerning the allegations to contact his office or their local sheriff. He closed his appeal by saying:

“You know this is wrong, it’s time to act.”

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson is also a central figure in the dispute.

The allegations concern systems administered by the Secretary of State’s office, but the material provided does not establish that Benson personally directed the alleged registration activity or that she was aware of the whistleblower’s claims.

Leaf has previously been involved in Michigan election-related investigations and disputes. His latest allegations add another issue to the continuing debate over voter-list maintenance, citizenship verification and election administration in the state.

The controversy also comes as national lawmakers continue debating whether voters should be required to provide proof of citizenship when registering or voting.

Supporters of such requirements argue that election officials should have clear procedures for confirming voter eligibility. Opponents have raised concerns about administrative burdens and access to the ballot.

For now, the allegations described by Leaf remain allegations awaiting investigation.

His referral to the Justice Department could provide an opportunity for federal authorities to examine the claims, review the relevant state systems, and determine whether any laws were violated.

The matter also puts renewed attention on a basic election-administration question: how Michigan identifies eligible voters and ensures that people who do not meet the legal requirements are not placed on the rolls or used in jury selection.

Those questions are likely to remain in the spotlight as state officials, lawmakers, and federal investigators consider the claims raised by the Barry County sheriff.

Dan Bongino vs. Joe Kent: The “Blocked Investigation” Narrative Just Got Exposed [WATCH]
News

Dan Bongino vs. Joe Kent: The “Blocked Investigation” Narrative Just Got Exposed [WATCH]

/

Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino pushed back against claims that the FBI prevented former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent from investigating alleged foreign connections to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, arguing that the dispute reflects a misunderstanding of the National Counterterrorism Center’s legal authority.

During a recent broadcast, Bongino referenced social media posts claiming the FBI blocked Kent from pursuing foreign leads after the case was transferred to state authorities.

“I saw this X post this morning, and I thought to myself, How many suckers are going to continue to believe this?”

He then quoted the online claims.

“Investigation into foreign involvement in Charlie Kirk’s assassination blocked by the FBI.”

Bongino continued by reading allegations that FBI Director Kash Patel prevented Kent from pursuing the matter.

“Kash Patel blocked Joe Kent, former director of counterterrorism, from investigating the foreign leads into Charlie’s assassination.”

He also referenced the source of those claims.

“I trust Joe Kent. That’s really great. Why would the FBI block this? Joe Kent tells Jimmy Dore.”

Bongino then summarized the allegation.

“Jimmy Dore, here we go. Isn’t he like a comedian? It’s like a comedian, right? That he was at NCTC, Joe, and he was blocked from investigating Charlie Kirk’s killing after the FBI said it had everything it needed, the case would be transferred to state authorities.”

According to Bongino, the issue centers on the legal responsibilities assigned to the National Counterterrorism Center.

“Okay. Folks, I’m going to make this really simple for you.”

He argued that the discussion comes down to a straightforward factual question.

“So again, this is that point of the show where we’re reaching a truth red line. If you’re not interested in the truth, please stop now, because this is going to be really painful.”

Bongino compared the issue to a simple mathematical fact.

“There’s nothing you can say to dispute the fact that 3 + 3 = 6, no matter how hard you try, okay?”

He maintained that Kent is describing investigative powers that the National Counterterrorism Center does not possess.

“Joe Kent is continuing to insist he was blocked from doing something he’s not authorized to do.”

According to Bongino, the central question is whether Kent had any legal investigative authority while serving at the NCTC.

“I can’t think of a simpler example.”

Bongino said he asked an artificial intelligence program to summarize the distinction between the FBI and the NCTC.

“I’ll get to the I just put it in ChatGPT to make it really easy in case you think like I’m making this up.”

He then explained the legal authority he believes would exist if Kent had actually been serving as an investigator on the case.

“So if Joe was an investigator into the case that was authorized to investigate the case, then he should have subpoena power or something, correct?”

According to Bongino, that authority does not exist within the National Counterterrorism Center.

“But because NCTC is not an investigative body, I just put this simple question in to help you guys.”

He summarized the explanation he received.

“ChatGPT’s like, in case you’re stupid, it doesn’t say that, but like, here in shorthand: FBI is the investigative agency with compulsory legal authorities. NCTC is there for intelligence fusion and interagency counterterrorism coordination.”

Bongino argued that distinction resolves the controversy.

“Can we put flags in the chat? Just put them in in advance, because this is the most red flaggy red flag ever.”

He concluded by saying he believes the facts support his position.

“You want to start a fight with us, we always win. The numbers don’t work for you, and they never will. Either do the facts.”

Bongino finished by reiterating his confidence in his interpretation of the agencies’ respective legal authorities.

“So we’re up two to nothing. Facts in our favor, numbers in our favor. You want to keep messing around, we’re going to keep making you look stupid.”

WATCH:

Treasury Yields Reach Generational Highs as National Debt Races Toward 40 Trillion [WATCH]
News

Treasury Yields Reach Generational Highs as National Debt Races Toward 40 Trillion [WATCH]

/

U.S. Treasury yields have climbed to multi-decade highs as investors weigh the nation’s rapidly expanding debt, persistent inflation concerns, and large federal budget deficits, as reported by Fox Business.

The U.S. national debt is approaching $40 trillion, increasing pressure on financial markets as the federal government continues borrowing to cover the gap between spending and revenue.

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan federal agency, projects the government will run a budget deficit of roughly $2.1 trillion during the current fiscal year.

Recent Treasury auctions highlighted the changing environment for government borrowing. A sale of 10-year Treasury notes last week cleared at a high yield of 4.683%, the highest level reached in 19 years.

A separate auction of 30-year Treasury bonds produced a yield of 5.216%, marking a 25-year high.

Despite those elevated yields, investor demand for Treasurys has remained relatively steady.

Markets have been watching for signs that investors might demand substantially higher compensation to hold U.S. government debt because of concerns about federal spending, inflation and the nation’s long-term fiscal position.

Analysts said recent auctions did not show evidence of an abrupt deterioration in demand from either domestic or foreign buyers.

There also has not been a clear indication that so-called bond vigilantes are aggressively selling Treasurys.

The term generally refers to investors who respond to concerns about fiscal policy or inflation by selling government bonds and demanding higher yields.

One reason U.S. debt continues to attract buyers is that Treasury yields remain comparatively attractive against government debt issued by other developed nations, including Japan.

Jim Barnes, director of fixed income at Bryn Mawr Trust in Pennsylvania, said in a Reuters report that the “appetite for Treasurys is still there and it’s just a matter of – at what yield,” adding that the “10-year at close to 5% and the 30-year at multi-decade highs will attract more buyers for risk-free Treasurys.”

Treasuries are generally viewed as “risk-free” because investors consider the possibility of a formal U.S. government default to be extremely low.

The federal government has taxing authority and controls the nation’s money supply through the Federal Reserve. That does not eliminate other investment risks, however, including the effects of changing inflation and interest rates.

Higher Treasury yields can also affect Americans outside the bond market.

The 10-year Treasury yield is an important benchmark for mortgage rates, which generally move in the same direction.

Higher mortgage rates can increase monthly payments for prospective homebuyers and may discourage homeowners with lower-rate existing mortgages from selling. Higher borrowing costs can also weigh on construction activity.

Other consumer loans, including auto loans and fixed-rate borrowing, can become more expensive as market rates rise, although the effect does not always occur immediately or move in lockstep.

Credit card rates are more closely tied to banks’ prime rates, which generally follow Federal Reserve policy.

The government’s own borrowing costs are also affected. When Treasury yields rise, the federal government generally pays more to service its outstanding debt, potentially adding to future deficits and creating another challenge for a country already carrying an enormous balance.

The Congressional Budget Office projected earlier this year that net interest costs on the federal debt will exceed $1 trillion in fiscal year 2026.

Those costs are expected to equal about 3.3% of gross domestic product and nearly 14% of total federal spending this year.

The pressure is projected to increase over the coming decade. According to the CBO’s 10-year budget and economic outlook, annual federal interest costs could reach $2.1 trillion by fiscal year 2036.

At that point, interest payments would equal approximately 4.6% of GDP and account for about 19% of federal spending.

For investors, the recent Treasury auctions underscore a straightforward reality: Washington’s borrowing needs remain enormous, but the market continues to demand a price for financing them.

With deficits measured in the trillions and interest costs moving higher, the government’s debt burden is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Byron Donalds’ Florida Victory Leaves Democrats With a Tough Story to Explain [WATCH]
News

Byron Donalds’ Florida Victory Leaves Democrats With a Tough Story to Explain [WATCH]

/

Commentator Jeffery Mead argued that Rep. Byron Donalds’ victory in Florida’s Republican gubernatorial primary challenges longstanding claims that the Republican Party is inherently hostile toward Black Americans, contending that the election demonstrates Republican voters prioritize shared political beliefs over race.

Following Donalds’ primary victory, the Florida congressman thanked supporters for their efforts throughout the campaign.

“We’ve been crisscrossing Florida. We’ve been knocking hundreds of thousands of doors, taking our message to all Floridians, and tonight, because of your sweat, because of your hard work, we have won a massive victory.”

Mead used Donalds’ nomination as the starting point for a broader discussion about race and partisan politics in the United States.

“Okay, so if you don’t know who that is, that’s Byron Donalds, and the Republicans in Florida just nominated him to be the governor of Florida. He’s the Republican choice for governor.”

According to Mead, the result conflicts with accusations he says have been made about the Republican Party for years.

“And here’s what I find interesting about this: We’ve spent years hearing that Republicans are racist and hate Black people due to the color of their skin.”

He argued that this message has been repeatedly directed toward Black voters.

“You know they don’t like you, right? You know they’re not for you, right?”

Mead then pointed to President Donald Trump’s endorsement of Donalds during the primary campaign.

“Let’s just think about this. Donald Trump endorsed a Black man to run the state that he lives in.”

He also noted that Florida is widely viewed as a Republican-leaning state.

“He also endorsed that Black man to essentially run a GOP stronghold at this point.”

According to Mead, Republican primary voters reinforced that endorsement by choosing Donalds as their nominee.

“Republicans then also agreed that they wanted him to run their state—a Black man.”

Mead argued that the outcome undermines the narrative he believes Democrats have promoted.

“And it absolutely destroys the narrative of Republicans hate Black people.”

He continued by saying that, in his view, widespread racial hostility within the Republican Party would have made Donalds’ victory impossible.

“If Republicans truly hated Black people, there is no way in hell Byron Donalds would have just won the Republican primary for a GOP stronghold.”

Addressing Black voters directly, Mead argued that they should reconsider that perception.

“So if you’re Black and you’re watching this, that whole they don’t like you cause you’re Black doesn’t hold up.”

He added:

“It’s a bunch of crap.”

Mead acknowledged that some Black Americans genuinely believe Republicans are hostile toward them but argued that Democratic politicians reinforce those beliefs for political purposes.

“There’s a couple of things. A bunch of Black people are ignorant and truly believe that Republicans hate Black people, but Democrats also lean into that ignorance and manipulate Black people into staying with Democrats by tricking them into thinking or helping them continue to believe that Republicans are against them.”

According to Mead, the Republican Party itself should not be defined as racist.

“The reality is, the Republican Party is not racist.”

He acknowledged that individual Republicans may hold racist views but distinguished those individuals from the party as a whole.

“Are there racist Republican individuals? Yes, absolutely. But the Republican Party as a whole is not racist.”

Mead encouraged more Black Americans to reconsider what he described as outdated assumptions.

“More Black people need to wake up to this reality.”

Returning to Donalds’ primary victory, Mead argued that the election serves as evidence for his position.

“Again, truly, if the Republican Party was racist, there is no way Byron Donalds would have just won that election.”

He pointed to the number of Republican voters who supported Donalds.

“Hundreds of thousands of white Republicans went out and voted for him.”

According to Mead, Republican voters are more interested in shared values than racial identity.

“This just shows what I’ve known all along. The vast majority of Republicans are not worried about your skin color; they’re worried about your thought process, what your beliefs are, what your values are, who you align yourself with. That’s more what they care about.”

He argued that the belief Republicans oppose Black Americans because of race no longer reflects reality.

“It’s an outdated mindset to sit here and continue to think that they’re obsessed with race and they don’t like Black people because Black people are Black. Not the case.”

Mead also referenced his own online audience before returning to Donalds’ victory.

“If that was the case, I wouldn’t have millions of followers across different platforms, but that pales in comparison to the result we’ve seen here with Byron Donalds.”

He concluded by arguing that the Florida primary result contradicts accusations that the Republican Party is institutionally racist.

“This makes it abundantly clear that Republicans are not just a racist party who hates Black people. That is a lie that Democrats need Black people to continue to believe to help Democrats continue to get Black votes.”

WATCH:

Outrageous Idaho Café Owner Boots Pro Life Conservatives and Compares Them to KKK [WATCH]
News

Outrageous Idaho Café Owner Boots Pro Life Conservatives and Compares Them to KKK [WATCH]

/

A radical left café owner in Driggs, Idaho, is facing fierce criticism after throwing pro life conservatives out of his business and comparing their activism to the Ku Klux Klan.

The confrontation was captured on video and quickly drew outrage online.

Pro life activist Kristan Hawkins was visiting Wydaho Roasters Coffee House on Monday with her son, Bear, and members of Campaign for Abortion Free Cities.

The group had purchased food and was gathering inside the establishment when owner Jim Sheehan approached.

Bear founded the local group as part of an effort to defeat a late term abortion referendum scheduled to appear before Idaho voters on November 3.

Their peaceful presence apparently proved too much for the supposedly tolerant café owner.

Sheehan, an outspoken abortion supporter, demanded that Hawkins and the others leave his business.

Hawkins objected, noting that the group had already purchased food and had previously visited the café without such an ugly confrontation.

The owner insisted that the gathering was unwelcome because he and his wife disagreed with its mission.

In other words, diversity of thought was not on the menu at this particular Idaho coffee shop.

SHEEHAN: “I said everybody here is welcome, but I don’t want this group meeting here.”

HAWKINS: “Sir, we’re just meeting for the first meeting…”

SHEEHAN: “I don’t care. Go to the public library! This is my place of business!”

Hawkins explained that the group regularly visited the café and had already paid for its purchases.

Sheehan responded, “I have made it very clear that I did not want you here.”

Sheehan then revealed his personal involvement in the political fight surrounding the proposed abortion amendment.

He said, “I did a lot of work to get people on the ballot so women would have the right to choose in the state of Idaho, and this is something I do not support, nor does my wife, and it’s our business, so we have that choice.”

Hawkins pressed him to confirm whether he was actually expelling her, Bear, and the rest of the group.

Rather than lower the temperature, Sheehan reached for one of the left’s favorite tactics, smearing political opponents with the most inflammatory comparison available.

“It’s like, if the KKK asked to meet here, I would say no,” Sheehan declared.

Hawkins, visibly stunned, asked, “So you think pro lifers are like the KKK?”

“In my world, it’s the same sort of concept,” Sheehan replied.

That answer made clear that the comparison was not a slip of the tongue or a poorly worded moment of frustration.

Hawkins fired back that those defending the dignity of human life, including children in the womb, were nothing like a racist terror organization.

Sheehan refused to reconsider and said, “I’ve made my point clear. I asked you guys not to meet here.”

WATCH:

The café owner’s standard appears highly selective.

While pro life Christians were shown the door, the establishment has reportedly been willing to host an event called Queer Coffee Hour, making the ideological double standard rather difficult to miss.

Apparently, politically approved activism receives the welcome mat, while conservative customers who have already spent money receive a lecture and an outrageous historical smear.

That is a curious version of inclusion, though it is increasingly familiar wherever leftist politics takes priority over ordinary decency.

After the incident, Hawkins wrote on X that Sheehan’s decision should settle another long running dispute involving religious business owners.

If café owners may refuse gatherings based on deeply held beliefs, Christians should not be forced to create expressive products celebrating ceremonies that violate their faith.

Her comment appeared to reference the 2018 Supreme Court ruling involving Colorado baker Jack Phillips.

In that case, the justices ruled 7 to 2 for Phillips after he declined to design a wedding cake for a same sex couple because doing so conflicted with his religious convictions.

The contrast is glaring.

The left routinely celebrates private business choices when conservatives are excluded, yet cries discrimination when Christian owners seek narrow protections for conscience and religious expression.

Sheehan may have the power to decide what happens inside his café, but customers also have the power to decide where their money goes.

Comparing peaceful pro life activists to the KKK tells Idaho residents plenty about the contempt lurking behind the left’s endless sermons about tolerance.

Trump Administration Readies 1,000 Poll Monitors to Guard Crucial Midterms [WATCH]
News

Trump Administration Readies 1,000 Poll Monitors to Guard Crucial Midterms [WATCH]

/

The Trump administration is preparing to deploy approximately 1,000 poll monitors for the closely watched November midterm elections, making election integrity a central priority as voters decide control of Congress.

The monitors will observe polling operations, promote fair treatment, and follow up when suspicious activity demands investigation.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said the Justice Department is training officials using material employed by previous administrations.

Their responsibilities will include watching for possible election fraud, reviewing complaints, and helping ensure federal election laws are properly followed across the country.

Dhillon confirmed that the department already tested its monitoring operation during primary contests. “We just did it in the primary,” she said.

“We will do it to the tune of approximately 1,000 election monitors in the November election. This is something that DOJ does.”

The planned operation comes as Republicans continue pressing Congress to strengthen voter identification and citizenship requirements.

For conservative voters who have spent years hearing that basic ballot safeguards are somehow controversial, the administration is sending a welcome message that election rules still matter.

A recent Tea Party Patriots Action survey found that most general election voters support the SAVE America Act.

The legislation would require proof of citizenship when registering for federal elections and identification before a voter casts a ballot.

Tea Party Patriots Action Chairman Jenny Beth Martin said the proposal belongs near the top of President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda.

She also pointed to support among Democratic voters, a detail that makes the usual liberal panic over voter identification look even more disconnected from ordinary Americans.

Trump has repeatedly urged lawmakers to approve the measure, arguing that secure elections should not be a partisan demand.

Requiring citizens to prove eligibility and identity is hardly radical, despite the theatrical outrage routinely produced by Democrats and their allies whenever election safeguards reach Capitol Hill.

During a recent White House address about election vulnerabilities, Trump said opponents would reject the measure only if “you want to cheat, because your policies are so bad and your candidates are so pathetic that you can’t get away or can’t get elected any other way.”

Trump said the legislation “requires that all voters must show photo voter ID” and later insisted, “All voters must provide proof of citizenship.”

His argument is straightforward, and that simplicity may explain why opponents prefer slogans about suppression rather than answering the actual policy.

Dhillon has framed the monitoring effort as a way to strengthen public confidence before ballots are counted and winners are announced.

“Elections that all Americans can feel confident in is a high priority of this White House,” she said during a recent interview.

“We really want every American to get out there and vote, and feel confident in the outcome. That’s an important part of it, is not just vote, but also feel like you can accept the outcome of the elections,” she said.

WATCH:

That emphasis matters because confidence cannot simply be demanded after Election Day.

It must be earned through transparent procedures, lawful voter rolls, consistent enforcement, meaningful observation, and prompt investigations when credible allegations surface.

Republican leaders are also sounding increasingly optimistic about the political landscape.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota recently said the congressional map gives his party a strong opportunity heading into the midterms.

“I like our chances. The map has never been better,” Emmer said.

The coming election will test whether Republican enthusiasm can overcome the usual media noise, Democratic resistance to election reforms, and the hard realities of congressional campaigns.

With 1,000 monitors preparing to observe the process, the Trump administration is making clear that ballot security will not be treated as an afterthought.

Seattle Shootout Exposes Socialist Mayor Katie Wilson’s Reckless Surveillance Camera Shutdown [WATCH]
News

Seattle Shootout Exposes Socialist Mayor Katie Wilson’s Reckless Surveillance Camera Shutdown [WATCH]

/

A shootout erupted in Seattle within view of city surveillance cameras, the very equipment residents would expect to help police identify suspects and reconstruct the violence.

There was one major problem: Mayor Katie Wilson had turned the cameras off.

The alarming episode places Seattle’s public safety leadership under fresh scrutiny. Cameras positioned to monitor a dangerous public area could not provide useful footage when gunfire broke out, raising obvious questions about why the system was disabled.

Surveillance cameras do not replace police officers, witnesses, or competent investigations.

They can, however, preserve crucial evidence, document movements, identify vehicles, confirm witness accounts, and give detectives an objective record after bullets start flying.

When those cameras are deliberately shut down, investigators lose a potentially valuable tool before a crime even occurs.

Criminals receive the benefit of fewer electronic witnesses, while residents are left wondering why city officials made their streets harder to police.

The public response has been direct: “Seattle residents are clear about their priorities: turn the cameras on now, increase visible police presence now, and provide a comprehensive, action-driven public safety plan in the next 100 days.”

That demand is hardly extreme, no matter how city hall activists might try to portray it.

Residents want working cameras, visible officers, and an administration capable of producing measurable results rather than another stack of carefully polished talking points.

The mayor’s office may offer policy explanations for disabling the surveillance network, but explanations will not produce missing footage.

Once violence erupts, officials cannot travel backward in time and reactivate cameras that should have been operating from the start.

Turning off cameras can also make the jobs of police officers more difficult.

Detectives must then rely more heavily on witnesses, private recordings, physical evidence, and fragmented accounts that may be incomplete or altered by confusion.

The episode also illustrates the gap between ideological governing and street level reality.

Privacy debates deserve serious attention, but public officials must balance those concerns against the practical need to investigate shootings and protect law abiding residents.

Seattle’s leadership now has to explain who authorized the shutdown, what justification was offered, and whether public safety officials warned about the consequences.

Taxpayers also deserve to know why they funded equipment that was unavailable during an apparent moment of urgent need.

WATCH:

For years, progressive city governments have treated basic law enforcement tools as politically suspicious while asking residents to accept disorder as some unavoidable feature of urban life.

That posture becomes much harder to defend when gunfire erupts and the nearest city cameras are dark.

Residents asking for a stronger police presence are not demanding authoritarian rule.

They are asking local government to perform one of its oldest and most basic duties, maintaining public order so ordinary people can live, work, travel, and raise families safely.

A transparent explanation should include when the cameras were disabled, how many were affected, and whether police requested that they remain active.

Anything less would look like another attempt to bury a preventable government failure beneath bureaucratic language.

The administration should also disclose its plan for restoring surveillance capability and protecting access to recorded material.

Clear rules governing retention, access, and investigative use could address legitimate concerns without simply blinding the city’s own public safety infrastructure.

Visible police patrols must remain part of the response because cameras cannot intervene during violence or arrest a suspect.

Still, refusing to use available technology while officers face dangerous conditions is not reform, it is self imposed blindness.

The limited information accompanying the report does not identify casualties, arrests, suspects, or a detailed timeline of the shooting.

Those facts will matter, but their absence does not erase the central policy failure exposed by the incident.

What remains plain is that Seattle residents want action, not another ideological seminar from city hall.

Mayor Wilson can turn the cameras back on, strengthen police visibility, and present a credible public safety strategy, or explain why criminals should continue enjoying the darkness.


Scroll to Top