Random

    Featured

    Home Featured
    Featured posts

    Sir Elton John Reveals ‘Hilarious’ Trump Joke

      By
      Madeleine Jackson
      -
      1
      Elton John performs at the opening ceremony of the Stonewall National Monument Visitor Center, Friday, June 28, 2024, in New York City. (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott)

      Singer Elton John reacted during a recent interview to Donald Trump nicknaming Kim Jong Un “little rocket man” in reference to one of his hit songs.

      During an interview with Variety at the Toronto Film Festival, the British music icon thought Trump’s nickname for the North Korean dictator was “hilarious” and “brilliant” adding that it made him laugh.

      In 2017, Trump insulted Kim following a recent blitz of high-profile weapons tests. Trump claimed that if North Korea continued to threaten the U.S. then he would rain “fire and fury” down on the country.

      The former president ended his threats towards Kim by labeling him as “Little Rocket Man.” John as a popular song released in 1972 called “Rocket Man” as well as a biographical 2019 film about his life under the same name.

      “I laughed, I thought that was brilliant,” John told Variety. “I just thought, ‘Good on you, Donald.’ … Donald’s always been a fan of mine, and he’s been to my concerts many, many times.”

      John also revealed that he “always been friendly toward” Trump because the former president has “always been a fan.”

      The singer added, “So, I mean, I’ve always been friendly toward him, and I thank him for his support. When he did that, I just thought it was hilarious. It made me laugh.”

      Don Lemon says CNN was ‘Never Liberal,’ the Host Can’t Contain His Disbelief

        By
        Madeleine Jackson
        -
        4
        Don Lemon via Wikimedia Commons

        CNN host Don Lemon left “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert visibly stunned when he said he never believed the network is “liberal.”

        Despite the network commonly being regarded as a major left-of-center network, especially throughout the Trump administration, Lemon says CNN is just practicing “good journalism.”

        “Word on the street is that you guys aren’t allowed to be liberal anymore. Is that the case?” Colbert asked. 

        “I don’t think we ever were liberal,” Lemon responded. 

        “Well listen, I think what Chris is saying is that he wants Republicans – sensible Republicans, he wants us to hold people to account, but he wants people to come on and feel comfortable with coming on and talking on CNN and appearing on CNN,” Lemon said. “So if you invite someone to your house, you want to make them comfortable but also by the nature of what we do, we have to hold people to account.” 

        “And so that doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going liberal or conservative or whatever, it just means that we are doing what we do and that’s good journalism,” Lemon added. 

        “So accountable but not confrontational,” Colbert said. 

        “I think sometimes one must be confrontational,” the CNN host pushed back. “Look, I don’t think that a conversation on television should be any different than a conversation in person. Listen, I have confrontational conversations with people I love and I have unconformable conversations with people I love and I think it’s necessary. And I think it’s also necessary to do that on television, on CNN, but you can do that without being vitriolic. I think not being vitriolic is maybe a better way of putting it, but you can do that and not have vitriol. As people say, you can disagree without being disagreeable. And so I think that’s what our mission is.”

        Since taking the reigns from disgraced ex-CNN president Jeff Zucker, Christ Licht has made it his mission to re-vamp the network.

        Supreme Court Declines to Revive Texas Student’s MAGA Suit

          By
          Madeleine Jackson
          -
          1
          Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

          The Supreme Court rejected a request to revive a Texas student’s lawsuit claiming he was bullied for supporting President Trump and for being white. 

          Brooks Warden, called B.W. in the initial suit because it was filed when he was a minor, claimed that a “years-long campaign of bullying and harassment” ensued after he wore a Make America Great Again (MAGA) hat on a school field trip.

          He said he was made a target because of his race and political views, as a white male whose former school district is predominantly Hispanic.

          “When his teachers and classmates at his predominantly Hispanic school found out that he was not only a white male but also a Trump supporter, it was open season,” the petition reads.  

          He had asked the justices to let his 2020 lawsuit against Austin Independent School District, which he claimed failed to stop the alleged abuse, move forward after a divided federal appeals court affirmed a lower court’s ruling throwing out the suit.

          The question at hand was whether racial harassment lawsuits can be filed even when the “primary impetus” for the harassment was the challenger’s political views.

          After a federal judge dismissed the case, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that decision. However, after the full 5th Circuit court heard Warden’s case, it split 9-9 over whether to revive the lawsuit. As a result, the dismissal was affirmed. 

          In a fiery dissent, 5th Circuit Judge James Ho wrote that “being white was absolutely one” of the reasons that Warden was bullied.  

          “It’s racist to characterize whites as racist,” Ho wrote. “Because it’s racist to attach any negative trait to a group of people based on their race.” 

          The Austin school district wrote in its opposition to the petition that it “does not condone harassment or bullying of any kind” and regrets Brooks’s experience — but rejected the student’s claims as political bluster.  

          AOC Wants To Impeach Trump! Tell Us What You Think HERE!

          Former Trump Adviser Sued by Biden’s Justice Department

          By
          admin
          -
          1
          [Photo Cred: Office of the President of the United States, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons]

          President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro.

          The lawsuit alleges Navarro used personal email accounts to conduct official White House business, “constituting presidential records.” The DOJ also accused the former Trump adviser of violating federal record-keeping laws when he didn’t copy the emails into an official government account or respond to the National Archives requests for the messages.

          “Mr. Navarro is wrongfully retaining Presidential records that are the property of the United States, and which constitute part of the permanent historical record of the prior administration,” the lawsuit states. “Mr. Navarro’s wrongful retention of Presidential records violates District of Columbia law, federal common law, and the [Presidential Records Act].”

          The Justice Department said officials initially approached Navarro about handing over the missing emails, but he refused “absent a grant of immunity for the act of returning such documents.”

          Navarro’s attorneys, John Irving and John Rowley denied withholding the messages.

          “As detailed in our recent letter to the Archives, Mr. Navarro instructed his lawyers to preserve all such records, and he expects the government to follow standard processes in good faith to allow him to produce records,” Navarro’s lawyers told POLITICO. “Instead, the government chose to file its lawsuit today.”

          The civil lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton.

          The lawsuit marks the latest in a string of public battles between the former Trump adviser and the U.S. government. In June, Navarro was charged with contempt of Congress after he refused to comply with the January 6th panel’s subpoena requests.

          Democrats Attempt To Label Trump’s Venezuela Operation ‘Impeachable Offense’

          By
          Madeleine Jackson
          -
          5

          Democrats and Republicans have split sharply over President Donald Trump’s decision to carry out strikes in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, with a growing number of Democratic lawmakers calling the operation unconstitutional and some openly urging impeachment.

          Progressive Democrats have led the backlash, accusing the administration of launching an illegal military action without congressional authorization. Several lawmakers argue that the operation amounts to an invasion of a sovereign nation and violates both the Constitution and the War Powers Act.

          “Many Americans woke up to a sick sense of déjà vu,” Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) a member of the House’s progressive “Squad,” wrote on X over the weekend. “Under the guise of liberty, an administration of warmongers has lied to justify an invasion and is dragging us into an illegal, endless war so they can extract resources and expand their wealth.”

          Ramirez called for Congress to pass a War Powers Resolution introduced by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., aimed at blocking further military action against Venezuela, and said Trump “must be impeached.”

          Omar’s resolution seeks to reassert Congress’ constitutional authority over war-making and would require the administration to halt hostilities unless lawmakers explicitly approve them.

          Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) echoed those concerns, criticizing Trump for bypassing Congress to launch what he described as a war with Venezuela. Goldman said the administration failed to provide lawmakers with “any satisfactory explanation” for the strikes.

          “This violation of the United States Constitution is an impeachable offense,” Goldman said in a statement. “I urge my Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives to finally join Democrats in reasserting congressional authority by holding this president accountable.”

          Other Democrats struck a more cautious tone. Rep. April McClain Delaney (D-Md.) stopped short of naming Trump but wrote on X that “invading and running another country without a congressional declaration of war is an impeachable offense,” while also questioning whether impeachment is the most effective strategy. “Whether it makes sense to pursue impeachment as the best strategy to end this lawlessness is a tactical judgment that our Caucus needs to seriously deliberate,” she wrote.

          In California, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) a gubernatorial hopeful, said he would not rule out supporting impeachment when asked by reporters, according to the Pleasanton Weekly.

          Progressive candidates running for office also weighed in. Kat Abughazaleh, a Democrat seeking an open House seat in Illinois, called Trump a “war criminal” in a post on Bluesky and demanded Congress “halt this conflict and impeach” the president.

          Still, Democrats are not unified in their opposition. A number of more centrist lawmakers have either defended the administration’s actions or argued that the removal of Maduro serves U.S. national security interests. Some Democrats have described the operation as a targeted effort to remove a destabilizing authoritarian leader rather than the start of a broader war, while others have said the administration should now work with Congress to define limits and next steps.

          Republicans, for their part, have largely rallied behind Trump. GOP leaders characterized the operation as a decisive blow against a longtime adversary of the United States and a win for regional stability.

          Senior Republicans have also pushed back on claims that the administration violated the Constitution, arguing that the action was a limited law enforcement or counterterrorism operation rather than a traditional military engagement requiring prior congressional approval.

          While impeachment calls are growing among progressives, Democratic leadership has so far stopped short of endorsing that approach

          Democrats just filed articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth — and he could be removed if we don’t act. Hegseth is a God-fearing, America First patriot who made our country safer under President Trump — and that’s exactly why the Left wants him gone. We’re demanding 1,000,000 signatures before MIDNIGHT to show Pete he is NOT alone. STAND WITH PETE. ADD YOUR NAME NOW.

          Here’s What’s Inside The Senate’s Version Of Trump’s Bill

            By
            Madeleine Jackson
            -
            2

            In a major victory for the America First agenda, Senate Republicans united early Tuesday morning to pass President Donald Trump’s monumental “big, beautiful bill.” This sweeping legislation is designed to supercharge the economy, empower hardworking Americans, and invest in national security and border integrity — delivering on promises that put American citizens first.

            Lower Taxes for Workers and Families

            At the heart of this landmark bill is an extension of President Trump’s historic 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. By preventing a looming 22% tax hike, this measure protects working families and preserves the economic momentum that has already lifted millions out of hardship.

            The bill includes powerful new deductions targeted directly at middle- and working-class Americans. Waitstaff and service workers will now be able to deduct taxes on up to $25,000 of their tipped wages — a major relief for everyday heroes in the hospitality sector. Additionally, up to $12,500 in overtime pay will be deductible, rewarding Americans who go the extra mile.

            Seniors, too, receive long-overdue recognition, with an additional $6,000 tax deduction to help them keep more of their hard-earned retirement savings. And for all Americans who rely on their vehicles to work and live, a new deduction for car loan interest will help ease the burden of rising costs.

            Relief for High-Tax States

            Responding to Republican leaders from high-cost states, the bill temporarily raises the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions to $40,000 for five years. This move is a win for taxpayers in places like New York and California who have long been punished by state-level tax-and-spend policies.

            This provision empowers conservative representatives from blue states to continue fighting for their constituents while advancing America First priorities.

            Restoring Responsibility to Medicaid

            True to conservative values, the bill restores accountability to Medicaid by introducing commonsense work requirements. Able-bodied adults without children, aged 18 to 64, will need to work at least 80 hours a month, pursue education, or participate in community service to continue receiving benefits.

            These reforms aim to encourage independence and self-reliance while protecting resources for the truly vulnerable.

            Acknowledging rural healthcare challenges, the bill doubles a critical stabilization fund to $50 billion, ensuring that rural hospitals stay open and continue serving their communities.

            Strengthening SNAP and Combating Dependency

            The bill also tightens rules for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), requiring work or community engagement for able-bodied adults without dependents. This move reflects a deeply held belief that government aid should be a temporary safety net, not a way of life, and encourages recipients to return to the workforce.

            House Democrat Files Revenge Bill Following Trump Airport Proposal

              By
              Madeleine Jackson
              -
              3
              Image via Pixabay

              On Sunday, Virginia Rep. Gerry Connolly defended his proposal saying he thinks it’s “only fitting” to name a federal prison after former President Trump

              “Well, there’s a nice federal penitentiary right near Mar-a-Lago. And I just thought for a guy who’s now got 88 criminal indictments pending, criminal — plus two major civil penalty trials that have already been resolved, costing him about a half a billion dollars,” Connolly told MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart.

              “I think it’s only fitting that if Republicans really want to honor Donald Trump, the most appropriate way to do that is to name a federal prison he might be visiting soon, after Donald J. Trump,” Connolly added.

              Connolly was one of three Democrats to introduce a bill Friday to change the name of the Miami Federal Correctional Institution in Florida to “Donald J. Trump Federal Correctional Institution.” 

              Connolly was joined by Reps. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) and John Garamendi (D-Calif.).

              The proposal came in response to a Republican push to rename Washington Dulles International Airport after Trump.

              President Biden Issues First Veto Over Influence from ‘MAGA Republicans’

                By
                Madeleine Jackson
                -
                10
                The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

                On Monday, President Joe Biden vetoed a bill for the first time in his presidency on Monday, arguing the legislation was overly influenced by “MAGA Republicans.”

                The Republican-led legislation prevented Biden’s administration from taking environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) issues into account when making investment decisions. GOP lawmakers argue ESG is a measure of a corporation’s loyalty to “woke” cultural movements and should not be taken into account.

                “I just vetoed my first bill. This bill would risk your retirement savings by making it illegal to consider risk factors MAGA House Republicans don’t like. Your plan manager should be able to protect your hard-earned savings — whether Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene likes it or not,” Biden announced in a Monday tweet

                House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R) responded to the President’s veto, accusing him of prioritizing woke corporations over workers.

                According to Fox News, under the rule fiduciaries who make investment decisions for the retirement plans of more than 150 million people would be explicitly permitted under federal guidelines to consider companies’ approach to climate change and other social issues, instead of focusing on only profitability and return on investment for retirees.

                Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) blasted Biden for the veto on Monday, saying Biden was placing “radical” social agendas over the American people.

                “This Administration continues to prioritize their radical policy agenda over the economic, energy and national security needs of our country, and it is absolutely infuriating,” Manchin wrote in a statement. “West Virginians are under increasing stress as we continue to recover from a once in a generation pandemic, pay the bills amid record inflation, and face the largest land war in Europe since World War II. The Administration’s unrelenting campaign to advance a radical social and environmental agenda is only exacerbating these challenges.”

                “President Biden is choosing to put his Administration’s progressive agenda above the well-being of the American people,” he added.

                Amanda Head: Leftists Target Muslim Parents

                  By
                  Amanda Head
                  -
                  0

                  Muslim parents in Dearborn, Michigan are being canceled and fired for being concerned parents and engaging in their child’s education.

                  Watch Amanda break it down below:

                  Trump To Pardon Pro-Life Activists Prosecuted Under FACE Act

                    By
                    Patrick Houck
                    -
                    0
                    Washington D.C., USA - January 22, 2015; A Pro-Life woman clashes with a group of Pro-Choice demonstrators at the U.S. Supreme Court.

                    President Donald Trump has signaled that he plans to pardon pro-life activists who were convicted under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act during the Biden administration, according to a report from The Daily Wire. The move is expected to provide immediate relief to individuals who have faced significant prison sentences for their involvement in anti-abortion protests.

                    Understanding the FACE Act

                    Enacted in 1994, the FACE Act is a federal law designed to protect access to reproductive health services, including abortions. It prohibits the use of force, threats or physical obstruction to interfere with individuals seeking or providing such services.

                    Violations of the FACE Act carry severe penalties, ranging from fines to imprisonment, depending on the circumstances and whether the offender has a prior record. While the law’s primary intent is to safeguard access to clinics, it has also been applied to prosecute pro-life activists accused of obstructing clinic entrances or engaging in threatening behavior.

                    Controversial Applications and High-Profile Cases

                    Over the years, the FACE Act has sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing that it disproportionately targets pro-life advocates. They claim the law infringes on First Amendment rights, penalizing peaceful protests rooted in religious or ideological beliefs.

                    – Advertisement –

                    One high-profile example involved Mark Houck, a Catholic pro-life advocate charged under the FACE Act in 2022. Houck’s case stemmed from an altercation with a Planned Parenthood volunteer, which he passionately argued was an act of self-defense. A jury later acquitted him, but the case became a rallying point for pro-life groups, who argued it exemplified federal overreach and selective enforcement.

                    Critics of the FACE Act also highlight what they perceive as inconsistent enforcement. While the law has been rigorously applied to defend the pro-choice movement, pro-life advocates claim that incidents involving vandalism or harassment at pregnancy resource centers and churches are often overlooked.

                    Who Is Being Pardoned?

                    If the pardons move forward, several pro-life activists currently in prison will see immediate relief. Among those expected to be pardoned are:

                    -Lauren Handy: 57 months

                    -John Hinshaw: 21 months

                    – Advertisement –

                    -Jonathan Darnell: 34 months

                    -Herb Geraghty: 27 months

                    -Jean Marshall: 24 months

                    -Joan Bell: 27 months

                    – Advertisement –

                    -Paulette Harlow: 24 months

                    -Bevelyn Williams: 41 months

                    -Heather Idoni: 24 months

                    -Calvin Zastro: 6 months

                    These individuals were convicted for participating in demonstrations at abortion clinics in Tennessee, Washington, D.C. and New York, which prosecutors argued constituted violations of the FACE Act:

                    The D.C. protest involved a group of pro-life protesters singing songs, praying, locking arms in front of the facility’s staff entrance, and attaching themselves with ropes and chains to block doors inside the infamous Surgi-Clinic in October 2020, a late term abortion facility. In Tennessee, a group of pro-life Christians gathered in a hall outside the Carafem Health Center in Mt. Juliet where they sang hymns, prayed, and urged women not to get abortion in March 2021.

                    Many of the defendants have already been imprisoned for over a year with many more months yet to serve.

                    “I would love to be home with my family,” 59-year-old Heather Idoni said in September. “I would love to hold my new grandson.”

                    Idoni was sentenced to two years in prison over the D.C. protest and was given another eight months to serve concurrently from the Nashville protest.

                    Broader Implications

                    Trump’s decision to pardon these activists underscores a sharp divide in how federal laws like the FACE Act are interpreted and enforced. For pro-life advocates, the move represents a correction to what they view as unjust and politically motivated prosecutions. For others, it raises questions about the balance between protecting access to health care and safeguarding free speech rights.

                    123...94Page 1 of 94
                    © Great America News Desk 2022