Random

    Politics

    Home Politics

    Latino District Flips To Trump As Democrats Confess ‘Massive Shift’ On Border Policy

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3

    Some Democrats are finally acknowledging they need to course correct on their immigration stance.

    A new report from The New York Times revealed some leading Democrat lawmakers have admitted that open borders and immigration are costing the party and

    “When you have the most Latino district in the country outside of Puerto Rico vote for Trump, that should be a wake-up call for the Democratic Party,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas).

    The report highlighted that Gonzalez witnessed President Donald Trump “win every county in his district along the border with Mexico.” Gonzalez’s 34th district in Texas has swung dramatically from voting heavily Democratic in recent presidential elections to going in favor of Trump in 2024.

    “This is a Democratic district that’s been blue for over a century,” Gonzalez told the Times.

    Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) said the Democrat Party “got led astray by the 2016 and the 2020 elections, and we just never moved back.” 

    “We looked feckless, we weren’t decisive, we weren’t listening to voters, and the voters decided that we weren’t in the right when it comes to what was happening with the border,” Gallego told the Times. 

    In May, Gallego released a border security plan that would speed up asylum seekers’ claims and make other countries do their “fair share” in receiving asylum seekers, as well as take action against cartel violence.

    The New York Times reported that various Democrats “are pushing for a course correction they see as overdue,” noting a new proposal from the Democratic policy shop and left-wing think tank Center for American Progress. The organization is calling for expanding legal immigration but also for ramping up border security and clamping down on abuse of the nation’s asylum system, the latter two of which are longtime Republican priorities.

    Neera Tanden, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, admitted to the Times that Democrats will have to adopt some level of border security policy.

    “I’m happy to argue with Stephen Miller or anyone else about why they are wrong,” Tanden told the New York Times. “But the way we’re going to be able to do that is to also honestly assess that the border has been too insecure, that it allowed too many people to come through and that we need to fix that.”

    The Trump administration has ramped up efforts to deport illegal immigrants as well as increase security at the U.S. border. The administration’s efforts have been criticized by progressives and violent anti-ICE protests recently prompted Trump to deploy the National Guard to California.

    This is About More Than Politics. Mike Huckabee Stands With Trump And Israel. Do You?

    California GOP Sues Over Democrat-Drawn Congressional Map

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    3

    The Dhillon Law Group has filed a major lawsuit on behalf of the California Republican Party, state Rep. David Tangipa, and 18 California voters, arguing that Proposition 50 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit, led by attorneys from the prominent conservative firm, comes amid growing concerns that Democrats are manipulating redistricting nationwide to entrench their political power.

    Dhillon Law Group Takes Aim at Racially Driven Redistricting

    The legal challenge was filed shortly after voters approved Proposition 50 with 64% support on Tuesday. The measure, crafted and championed by California Democrats, was designed to redraw congressional districts under the claim of improving representation for Latino voters. But Republicans argue that the move is a blatant racial gerrymander that violates the 14th and 15th Amendments.

    “This violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, and the right under the 15th Amendment to not have one’s vote abridged on account of race,” said Dhillon Law Group partner Mike Columbo at a press conference. “When drawing the Proposition 50 map, the chief consultant who drew the map has stated that the first thing that he did was to increase the power of Latino voters.”

    “Additionally, the state legislature has announced that the maps increase the power of Latino voters,” Columbo added.

    Expanding Democratic Power Through the Ballot Box

    The measure’s approval followed the Democratic-led legislature’s redistricting initiative that added five new congressional seats likely to favor Democrats — mirroring similar partisan efforts in states like New York, Illinois, and Maryland, where Democratic majorities have aggressively redrawn lines to lock in electoral advantages.

    California Democrats justified the move by pointing to redistricting in Texas, where Republicans are expected to gain five seats under their new map. But GOP leaders argue that Proposition 50 goes far beyond a political counterpunch — instead crossing into unconstitutional racial engineering.

    President Donald Trump weighed in on Tuesday, calling Prop 50 a “giant scam.” He added, “All ‘Mail-In’ Ballots, where the Republicans in that State are ‘Shut Out,’ is under very serious legal and criminal review.” While it’s unclear whether Trump’s remarks referred directly to the lawsuit filed the next day, they reflect widespread frustration among conservatives about what they view as systemic manipulation of elections by Democrats.

    Legal Challenge: Prop 50 Fails the Supreme Court’s “Gingles Test”

    According to the complaint, Proposition 50 expands the number of districts where Hispanic voters are likely to play a decisive role — from 14 to 16 out of California’s 52 congressional districts. The lawsuit points to the 1986 Supreme Court decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, which established a three-part test allowing states to draw minority opportunity districts under limited conditions.

    Dhillon Law Group attorney Mark Meuser, who ran as the GOP Senate candidate in 2022, said California’s new map fails that test.

    “We believe that the Supreme Court Gingles Test cannot be satisfied by the state, as such under the 14th and 15th Amendments, the maps drawn by Prop 50 will be considered unconstitutional,” Meuser said.

    The lawsuit argues that Hispanics, now the largest ethnic group in California, cannot be considered a racial minority in the sense contemplated by the Gingles ruling — making Proposition 50’s race-based districting unjustifiable under federal law.

    Rep. Tangipa: “Voices Are Being Diminished to Benefit Others”

    Republican state Rep. David Tangipa, one of the plaintiffs, blasted the measure as a cynical ploy by Democrats to reshape the electorate in their favor.

    “As the first Polynesian elected ever to the state legislature, I understand the diversity and the beauty that this state has,” Tangipa said. “And what we have seen with Prop 50, these maps, they are completely diminishing the voices of [some] groups to benefit other groups.”

    A National Pattern of Democratic Redistricting Power Plays

    The fight over California’s Proposition 50 is part of a broader national battle over redistricting, where Democrats have used state legislatures and ballot initiatives to secure long-term electoral advantages. In New York, Democrats are redrawing congressional lines to overturn a previous court-ordered map that favored Republicans. In Illinois, gerrymandering has been used to eliminate multiple GOP-leaning districts. And in Maryland, courts have repeatedly intervened to stop maps that heavily favored Democrats.

    Republicans argue that Proposition 50 is the latest example of Democrats weaponizing race and redistricting to tilt elections.

    The House GOP is conducting the largest voter verification process in our party’s history. If we don’t get full participation our House Majority will be in jeopardy! Click HERE to verify your profile.

    Majority Of Pennsylvania County Sheriffs ‘Wholeheartedly Endorse’ Trump For President

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2

    The majority of county sheriffs in battleground state Pennsylvania endorsed former President Trump on Thursday.

    Fox News Digital obtained a letter signed by 49 of the 67 county sheriffs in the state, who said Trump is the best candidate to support law enforcement and secure the border.

    “As elected law enforcement officers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we consistently hear two messages from our constituents and neighbors: that they want safe communities for their families and children, and that they oppose radical defund-the-police agendas by career politicians,” they wrote. 

    “That is why we are proudly standing with President Donald J. Trump and wholeheartedly endorse his candidacy for President of the United States.” 

    The county sheriffs said that “even before” Trump was a candidate for office, he “stood shoulder-to-shoulder with police and law enforcement.”

    “He is the only candidate who has supported and continues to support law and order, law enforcement, and our duty to serve our communities and keep them safe,” they wrote. “This is most evident with our Southern Borde

    The county sheriffs pointed to the Trump administration, where they said the U.S. had “a secure border and proper enforcement of our immigration laws.” 

    “World leaders respected President Trump, and border crossings fell,” they wrote. “Without his strong leadership, our border has been swung open – open to thousands of border crossers each day and unimaginable quantities of lethal drugs such as fentanyl and methamphetamine that are pouring right into Pennsylvania communities, bringing crime and devastation to countless families.” 

    The counties represented by the sheriffs endorsing Trump include Adams, Armstrong, Beaver, Bedford, Berks, Blair, Bradford, Bucks, Butler, Cambria, Cameron, Carbon, Clarion, Clearfield, Crawford, Cumberland, Dauphin, Elk, Fayette, Forest, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntingdon, Indiana, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lycoming, McKean, Mercer, Mifflin, Montour, Northumerland, Perry, Potter, Snyder, Somerset, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, Union, Venango, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Westmoreland and York.

    Take Action Now: Support the Fight to Protect Wrongly Accused Officers!

    New York Governor’s Race Shifts Toward Republicans

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    0
    Photo via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Election forecasters have shifted another gubernatorial race towards Republicans with less than one month to go until Election Day.

    On Saturday, RealClearPolitics shifted the New York gubernatorial race from “leans Democrat” to “toss up” as Republican candidate Rep. Lee Zeldin continues to close the gap between himself and New York Gove, Kathy Hochul.

    The latest change comes just a week after the polling data aggregator shifted the race from “likely Democratic” to “leans Democratic.” In August Gov/ Hochul led Zeldin by as many as 24 points but another poll in September showed the governor up by 17. However new data suggest the Republican candidate has remarkably made it a competitive race in deep blue New York, according to The Daily Wire.

    New York’s move to “toss-up” comes a week after a Trafalgar Group poll indicated that the race is neck-and-neck. One of the biggest reasons Hochul appears to be lagging among her own party and Zeldin is surging is the growing problem of crime in the state. Trafalgar Group chief pollster Robert Cahaly told The Daily Wire last week that crime is overwhelmingly the top issue for New York voters. “It’s the only state we’ve seen crime exceed the economy,” he said.

    As Zeldin mentioned in his tweet, the Hochul campaign has not agreed to more than one debate that the governor wants to hold just two weeks before the election. In return, Zeldin refused to debate Hochul at all if she would not agree to more than one, meaning New Yorkers might not see the two gubernatorial candidates on stage together at all before the election.

    “I am rejecting Kathy Hochul’s offer to one single debate at the very end of October,” Zeldin said during a virtual press conference, according to the New York Daily News. “I believe that it’s important for Kathy Hochul to come back with an offer to do multiple debates in multiple parts of this state.”

    “I am not playing along with her games, I am not going to be playing along with this strategy that is an insult, disrespecting the voter of New York,” he added.

    Zeldin’s surge in the polls follows a recent shooting in front of his home. The Republican Congressman has made the issue of rising crime a cornerstone of his campaign.

    House Holds Highly Anticipated Vote for Speaker’s Gavel

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    7

    On Monday, the U.S. House of Representatives held its vote to determine the next Speaker- the prestigious and coveted position which is third in the line of presidential succession.

    Kevin McCarthy, R- Calif., Andy Biggs D- Ariz., and Hakeen Jeffries D- N.Y. were nominated for the position but ultimately the vote ended in a stalemate as the California Republican failed to reach the 218 vote threshold. No nominee reached the required number of votes meaning House lawmakers now will engage in round after round of voting until a Speaker is elected.

    According to The Hill, in the event of multiple ballots, the House will not necessarily continue late into the night. The last time there were multiple ballots, the House adjourned until the following day after four failed ballots. Adjourning also allows members time to negotiate and strike deals.

    Dire circumstances could lead to unusual procedures. Twice before, in 1849 and 1856, the House agreed to a resolution that allowed a Speaker to be elected by a plurality. That move was something of a last resort, though, and came after 59 and 129 failed ballots. A majority of the whole House would need to agree to that resolution.

    McCarthy’s failure to secure the Speaker’s gavel during Tuesday’s vote marks the first time in a century the U.S. House of Representatives has gone to multiple votes for the office.

    Hours before the 118th Congress began its leadership deliberations the influential conservative organization Club for Growth urged lawmakers to oppose McCarthy for Speaker unless he makes a number of concessions.

    “I just voted for Jim Jordan to be Speaker of the House.” Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R) tweeted during the vote.

    The highly anticipated result came after a contentious campaign battle for the position as disappointing midterm results spurred animosity amongst Republican lawmakers. McCarthy was initially named the sole Republican contender for the position but some blamed the California Republican for the lackluster midterm results leading them to declare their early opposition to his bid for Speaker.

    On Sunday, according to The Hill, Rep. McCarthy offered a number of concessions including allowing a move to “vacate the chair” that would force a vote on ousting the Speaker with the approval of five Republican members, rather than a threshold of at least half of the House GOP Conference that Republicans adopted in an internal rule in November. 

    The chamber is also scheduled to create a House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the “Weaponization of the Federal Government,” a recognition of a request to increase scrutiny on the Biden administration and intelligence agencies.

    In a letter to GOP colleagues, McCarthy — speaking as “Speaker-Designate” — also addressed a request from conservatives to have more representation on committees.

    “I will use my selections on key panels to ensure they more closely reflect the ideological makeup of our conference, and will advocate for the same when it comes to the membership of standing committees. This will facilitate greater scrutiny of bills from the start so they stand a greater chance of passing in the end,” the letter from McCarthy said.

    However, despite McCarthy’s best attempts to re-attract hardline Republican lawmakers back to his side, some conservatives said after a Sunday conference call that McCarthy is still coming up short.

    According to The Washington Examiner:

    During the course of the call, multiple members “said they won’t vote for it [the rules package] if Kevin is not Speaker,” one lawmaker told The Examiner. Another member said moderates expressed grievances with the changes to the motion to vacate despite pro-McCarthy lawmakers attempting to sell the package to defectors in hopes it would shift critics’ support toward the California Republican.

    “They started [the call] with this new rules package that we’re all about to see and are obviously saying the rules package – it’s great, everyone worked so hard, we got all these great things and they’re gonna be historic. And then [Gaetz] got on there and said, ‘Well, if everyone wants the rules package, we should accept it no matter who the speaker is because if these are good rules are good rules, right?’” the lawmaker said. “But then the mods piled on and said actually, we hate the rules package.”

    Following the call, a group of conservatives released a letter saying the California Republican’s changes had come up short of what was needed to secure support.

    “Regrettably, however, despite some progress achieved, Mr. McCarthy’s statement comes almost impossibly late to address continued deficiencies ahead of the opening of the 118th Congress on January 3rd. At this stage, it cannot be a surprise that expressions of vague hopes reflected in far too many of the crucial points still under debate are insufficient,” they wrote.

    “This is especially true with respect to Mr. McCarthy’s candidacy for Speaker because the times call for radical departure from the status quo — not a continuation of past, and ongoing, Republican failures. For someone with a 14-year presence in senior House Republican leadership, Mr. McCarthy bears squarely the burden to correct the dysfunction he now explicitly admits across that long tenure.”

    House Freedom Caucus chairman Scott Perry told The Hill on Sunday, “I think what he’s trying to do is the bare minimum that he needs to try and get to where he can get the votes. And that’s not indicative of somebody that really wants to embrace new ideas, reject the status quo and unify all members in the conference.”

    BBC Chiefs Quit After Accusations Of Deep-Rooted Bias

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    1
    The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

    LONDON — The BBC’s top two executives are stepping down amid mounting pressure over editorial credibility, shaking confidence in the U.K.’s national broadcaster just as it faces critical decisions on funding and governance.

    On Sunday, BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News chief Deborah Turness announced their resignations. The dual departure follows weeks of mounting backlash over allegations of systemic bias in the network’s coverage — from President Donald Trump and the war in Gaza to debates over transgender rights.

    Pressure Built After Leaked Memo

    The tipping point came with a leaked internal memo from former BBC adviser Michael Prescott. The memo accused the broadcaster of “serious and systemic bias” across a range of politically charged topics.

    Chief among them: an episode of Panorama that aired selectively edited footage of Trump’s Jan. 6, 2021, speech. Critics said the edits gave the false impression that Trump directly called on supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol. The full version of the speech did not support that claim.

    Controversy also surrounded the BBC’s coverage of the Gaza conflict. Accusations included overreliance on anti-Israel voices, sourcing from extremists on its Arabic service, and distorted portrayals of children and wartime suffering.

    In a separate thread of concern, BBC staff raised red flags over the network’s handling of trans-related issues, arguing its reporting often lacked balance and downplayed the contested nature of the debates.

    Davie and Turness Respond

    In a message to BBC staff, Davie acknowledged the broadcaster’s imperfections.

    “Like all public organisations, the BBC is not perfect,” he wrote. “While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision.”

    Turness, while taking responsibility for the news division, rejected claims of structural bias.

    “While mistakes have been made,” she wrote, “I want to be absolutely clear: recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.”

    BBC Chairman Samir Shah called it a “sad day,” affirming the board’s support for Davie but conceding the strain he had been under.

    A Deeper Governance Crisis

    The BBC, funded by the public through license fees, is required by charter to deliver impartial journalism. The resignations expose a deeper institutional crisis at a time when the broadcaster’s mandate and funding model are under review.

    The current Royal Charter is set to expire in 2027. Debates about the future of the license fee, the role of public media, and political interference are already in motion. The timing of this leadership vacuum could have significant downstream effects.

    What Comes Next

    The BBC board now faces the task of finding replacements for two of its most senior posts. The outcome will shape the editorial tone and strategic direction of the broadcaster for years to come.

    Internal reviews are expected, especially around how the Panorama episode was handled and whether internal warnings were ignored. Broader investigations may follow, probing the extent of bias across the BBC’s output.

    In the near term, the corporation faces reputational damage. With over 100 BBC employees and 200 industry professionals having signed an open letter last year criticizing Gaza coverage, pressure is mounting not just from the public but also from within.

    Regulators and government officials may push for increased oversight, new editorial controls, or funding reforms as part of the charter renewal debate.

    Looking Ahead

    Davie, who took over in 2020, exits during one of the BBC’s most fraught moments in recent history. His successor will inherit a broadcaster under siege — from all sides — and with a shrinking window to restore public trust before the next charter review begins in earnest.

    What happens next at the BBC won’t just shape a news organization — it will help define the future of public broadcasting in a divided media landscape.

    Calling all patriots! President Trump is fighting for America’s future but he NEEDS your help! Democrats want to erode the GOP but we are standing strong. [Chip in TODAY]

    Fox News Host Mark Levin Skewers Trump Middle East Visit

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    1

    Fox News host Mark Levin had a lot to say about President Trump’s current visit to the Middle East…

    Without mentioning President Trump by name, Levin was remarkably critical of the commander-in-chief, taking to social media to blast Saudi Arabia for playing a “significant role on the 9/11 slaughter of our people.” He also condemned Qatar for having “protected the leader of the 9/11 attack from the FBI, before he was able to launch his war on America that killed our people.”

    Levin posted on X:

    Saudi Arabia played a significant role on the 9/11 slaughter of our people. I didn’t hear their Crown Prince even apologize once yesterday for what they did to us. And I know the 9/11 families are reeling from this.

    And Qatar protected the leader of the 9/11 attack from the FBI, before he was able to launch his war on America that killed our people. The debate about whether the plane is a legal gift is beside the point. Qatar is a terrorist regime that has murdered Americans.

    I cannot let bygones be bygones and those Americans who suffered the consequences of what these monarchies did cannot either. I can’t stop thinking about all the innocent people who went to work that day, and were on those planes, and all the firefighters and police officers who died horrible deaths.

    As for Iran, if they get a nuclear weapon that’s on our generation. And our country will suffer the horrible consequences. These are terrorists. They don’t think like us and they don’t love life like us. We must have the guts and wisdom to protect ourselves.

    In a separate post, Levin praised Trump, but not without dinging him for using “lines used by the Soros-Koch isolationist crowd about neocons and interventionists” in his speech to the Saudis. Levin linked to a Jewish Insider article about the speech and noted via X:

    Isolationism or globalism? Or both?

    Actually, POTUS’s speech included some of the lines used by the Soros-Koch isolationist crowd about neocons and interventionists, but the irony is that it was given in the context of a globalist outreach effort to make economic and military deals with and between Middle East monarchies/dictatorships and the biggest of America’s globalists/internationalists/corporatists. We don’t know the details but if they’re great deals for we, the people, that’s wonderful. I truly believe the President is THE best at making GREAT deals. Nonetheless, this looks like globalism wrapped in isolationist language.

    Levin’s comments come as President Trump faces scrutiny over his decision to accept Qatar’s gift of a luxurious $400 million “flying palace” to serve as Air Force One. (RELATED: Trump Announces Plan To Drop Sanctions On Syria)

    The prospect has drawn bipartisan pushback, which Trump has met with indifference. 

    “[The Qataris] said to me, ‘we would like to, in effect, we would like to make a gift. You’ve done so many things. and we’d like to make you a gift to the Defense Department,’ which is where it’s going. and I said, ‘Well, that’s nice.’ Now, some people say, ‘Oh, you shouldn’t accept gifts for the country.’ My attitude is, why wouldn’t I accept the gift? We’re giving to everybody else, why wouldn’t I accept a gift?” Trump explained to Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesdsay. 

    U.S. relations with Doha have come a long way since 2017, when Trump accused Qatar of harboring terrorism: “The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level,” Trump said at the time. 

    From there, Qatar became a major non-NATO ally to the U.S. in 2022 under President Biden and is home to Al Udeid Air Base, one of the U.S.’ largest Middle East bases and a key hub for U.S. Central Command operations. 

    “Qatar is not, in my opinion, a great ally. I mean, they support Hamas. So what I’m worried about is the safety of the president,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) told reporters on Tuesday.

    The Constitution states that accepting a gift from an overseas power requires congressional approval. However, Trump has not requested permission to receive the plane, an offering made months after his family business agreed to develop a multi-billion dollar golf course in the Middle Eastern country. 

    John Cusack Compares Trump To ‘Killers Of Christ’ In Easter Post, Sparks Backlash

    By
    Patrick Houck
    -
    5
    Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

    Actor John Cusack, once a household name in American cinema, used Easter Sunday to compare President Donald Trump to those who killed Jesus Christ. The post, shared on his X (formerly Twitter) account, quickly stirred controversy and prompted withering criticism from users across the platform.

    Cusack, who achieved A-list status in the late ’80s and ’90s with films like “Say Anything,” “High Fidelity” and “Grosse Pointe Blank,” has become better known in recent years for his political commentary than his acting work. He’s been a persistent critic of both Hollywood’s corporate culture and right-leaning political figures, often using sweeping, inflammatory language to make his points.

    Breitbart’s Warner Todd Huston provides further information and corrects the actor’s historical narrative:

    Of course, Cusack’s simple-minded framing of the death of Jesus Christ is not entirely correct. Jesus was not crucified merely for “politics.” The Jewish leaders who conspired to eliminate Jesus were incensed that he had called himself the Son of God and, therefore, a divine figure. They felt he was engaging in blasphemy. And the Romans prosecuted him for claiming to be “King of the Jews.” That was a crime in their eyes because only Caesar could be king. The question of Christ’s divinity was not as incidental as Cusack wants to make it seem.

    Certainly, Jesus also threatened the political power of the Jewish leaders. But the Romans were somewhat indifferent and did not feel he was all that much of a political threat to them. So, obviously there was a political aspect to the whole thing, but to say it was all just a “political calculation” is an oversimplification. There was also deep religious context to it all.

    The Say Anything star is a constant presence on social media where he often engages in wild-eyed, hate-filled attacks on Donald Trump and anyone else who opposes Cusack’s extremist opinions.

    Last month, for instance, Cusack once again broke out his tired “Nazi” epithets by calling Tesla chief Elon Musk a “Nazi” who is “literally killing people” for heading up Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and looking for ways to cut the bloated and out-of-control federal budget.

    Reactions on Social Media

    The reaction to Cusack’s Easter post was swift. Many users mocked the statement, calling it “unhinged” and labeling the actor a “nut job.” Others accused him of being out of touch with everyday Americans and using religion as a tool for political attacks.

    While Cusack has long aligned himself with progressive causes and anti-establishment rhetoric, critics argue that these kinds of extreme comparisons do more to alienate than persuade. Some pointed out the irony of invoking a religious holiday to make a hyperbolic political statement, particularly one that equates a democratically-elected president to biblical villains.

    A Career Shifted from Blockbusters to Activism

    Once a reliable lead in major Hollywood films, Cusack’s presence on screen has waned over the past two decades. Though he maintains a devoted fan base and occasional roles in direct-to-video flicks, his voice is now more commonly heard online, where he frequently engages in political debates and ad hominem attacks on his political opponents.

    His legacy as a cultural figure from the ’80s and ’90s remains intact, but his recent public statements continue to polarize. Whether this latest post was an attempt to spark discussion or simply another instance of performative outrage, it’s clear Cusack remains committed to using his platform, even if it means drawing fire in the process.

    READ NEXT: White House Responds To Report It’s Seeking New Top Cabinet Official

    Report: Alleged Trump Bomber Charged

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2

    Political threats are on the rise…

    On Monday, A man pleaded not guilty after he allegedly drove past a security checkpoint and claimed to have an explosive device at a rally for former President Donald Trump in Michigan, last week.

    Steven William Nauta was arrested after police say he drove around barricades set up for Trump’s rally and told police that he had a C4 explosive, WOOD TV 8 reported. According to a court document, Nauta “held up a bottle to police and stated that it was ‘C4’ explosive and that it was the ‘real deal.’” After being told to stop by officers, Nauta allegedly “sped off” before stopping and throwing bags of fertilizer on the ground.

    The Daily Wire reports:

    “When (Nauta) finally stopped, he removed bags of fertilizer from his vehicle and threw them on the ground to make it appear that they were explosives while disobeying officers’ commands,” the court document states. The 65-year-old was eventually detained by police, and the man allegedly told officers that he intended to make them believe that he had explosives. Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker said there was no active bomb in Nauta’s vehicle.

    Nauta’s virtual court appearance from a jail cell was a bizarre scene as the man took his shirt off at one point and made profane hand gestures, according to WOOD TV 8. Nauta was charged with one felony count each of a false report or threat of terrorism, possession of bombs with unlawful intent, third-degree fleeing a police officer, and resulting, resisting or obstructing a police officer.

    Kent County, Michigan, District Court Judge Nicholas Christensen set the man’s bond at $1 million, and Nauta replied, “Well, your honor, given my situation, I think I’m better off just staying in here. Very cruel world out there. Probably a lot better off here.”

    The judge told Nauta, “It’s not lost on this court here today that your alleged actions were directed to stopping or hindering a fundamental aspect of this country’s democratic process: a political rally.”

    The Michigan man’s alleged bomb threat came just two weeks after Secret Service agents apprehended an alleged suspect with a gun near Trump’s golf course. Ryan Routh pleaded not guilty in court on Monday.

    The Republican nominee said on Monday that he has requested more Secret Service agents, but alleged that Democrats are “not giving us the proper number of people within Secret Service that are necessary for Security.”

    “We need more Secret Service, and we need them NOW,” Trump wrote. “It is ELECTION INTERFERENCE that we have to turn away thousands of people from arenas and venues because it is not being provided to us.”

    NYC Mayor ‘Welcomes’ Possible Trump Support After Corruption Indictment

    By
    Madeleine Jackson
    -
    2

    New York City Mayor Eric Adams is looking for support anywhere he can get it.

    Adams said he would “welcome support from every American” in response to a question from the Washington Examiner about whether he would accept former President Donald Trump’s favor.

    Trump recently said he had predicted Adams would be “indicted within a year” as the mayor called for federal government funds to deal with the city’s migrant crisis.

    “Listen, I welcome support from every American,” Adams said Tuesday at a press conference. “No matter where they are and who they are, I welcome support from every American. Those who know me and know how I am, and those who are just reading up on this. So every American in this great country, I welcome support from.”

    Trump’s comments last week suggested that he sympathized with the mayor.

    “I watched about a year ago when he talked about how the illegal migrants are hurting our city, and the federal government should pay us, and we shouldn’t have to take them,” the former president said. “And I said, ‘You know what? He’ll be indicted within a year,’ and I was exactly right.”

    Watch:

    An Adams spokesman believes press coverage of Adams’s remarks has been misguided.

    “This is a distortion of what the mayor said today,” Fabien Levy, Adams’s deputy mayor for communications, said in a social media post. “He never said he was looking for Trump’s support. Mayor Adams has said multiple times that he supports Kamala Harris for president. In fact, the mayor traveled to Chicago to support her historic nomination in August.”

    Adams was recently indicted on five corruption charges, including bribery and wire fraud, for his actions allegedly soliciting benefits from foreign nationals, namely Turkish government officials, in exchange for favors.

    New York City Mayor Eric Adams could be facing a bevy of new charges after being indicted last week in a federal corruption case. On Wednesday, prosecutors said that further counts are “quite likely” and that more defendants may be implicated.

    I Am Donald J. Trump. FEAR NOT! There are those who will do whatever it takes to stop us, but I will never stop fighting for you. I will never surrender! Your support means everything to me. Together, through our UNITY, we will Make America Great Again!
    123...54Page 1 of 54
    © Great America News Desk 2022