The Senate voted 51-45 to block the passage of legislation that would fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Every Democrat except for Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) voted against the measure. The bill required 60 votes to pass. BREAKING: US Senate REJECTS effort to reopen the Department of Homeland Security in a 51-45 vote, despite an ACTIVE threat of terrorist sleeper cells amid conflict with Iran John Fetterman joined Republicans voting YEA Chuck Schumer and the Democrats are TRAITORS and must… pic.twitter.com/g6lEnSyXeJ — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 5, 2026 The Hill explained further: Republicans had pointed to the conflict with Iran to push Democrats to fund DHS, arguing the strikes had increased threats to the homeland. But even centrist Democrats appeared unmoved by the argument. “No, I don’t. … [Republicans] gave DHS plenty of money in the ‘big, beautiful bill.’ They have plenty of money. So we’re not going to suddenly say, ‘Oh, well, let’s give up our request for necessary reforms,’” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) told The Hill earlier this week. The latest failed vote ensures the shutdown will last into a fourth week as lawmakers make little headway toward a deal. Despite nearly every Democrat voting against the legislation, the House passed the measure in a 221-209 vote. “Let the record show: nearly every House Democrat just voted AGAINST funding the Department of Homeland Security. When it mattered most, they chose to protect criminal aliens over YOU, the American citizen. A complete rejection of our security and sovereignty. Remember that,” Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) commented. Let the record show: nearly every House Democrat just voted AGAINST funding the Department of Homeland Security. When it mattered most, they chose to protect criminal aliens over YOU, the American citizen. A complete rejection of our security and sovereignty. Remember that. pic.twitter.com/LNDKmOt8oe — Rep. Mary Miller (@RepMaryMiller) March 5, 2026 CBS News has more: GOP leaders have called on their colleagues across the aisle to support a bipartisan agreement that appropriators reached earlier this year to fund DHS through September. But that deal was reached before a second fatal shooting by federal agents in Minneapolis in January, which prompted Democrats to oppose any funding for the department without reforms to immigration enforcement. President Trump announced shortly before the Senate vote that he was replacing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, adding a new twist to negotiations. Some Democrats indicated the move could help lead to a compromise. Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said earlier that “it might be easier for us to negotiate” on DHS funding if Noem was fired. Republicans have argued that ending the impasse has grown more urgent since the beginning of the war with Iran. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said this week that “there are always threats to the homeland that have to be addressed,” but the stakes are higher now. “It shouldn’t need saying that it’s always a terrible idea to use the Department of Homeland Security as a political pawn,” Thune said. “But above all right now, with enhanced terror threat from Iran and Iran-funded terrorist groups, it is vital that we ensure the Department of Homeland Security is fully funded and fully functioning.” House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said in a statement Tuesday that “military action in Iran makes it all the more urgent and crucial to have a fully staffed, fully funded Department of Homeland Security across all departments.”

Ever since SpaceX started shooting rockets up into space, we suddenly started getting these very strange videos. They’re called jellyfish clouds because it looks exactly like a jellyfish swimming in the sky as the rocket flies into space. See here: We’ve been sending things into space for 80 years, but jellyfish clouds have only existed for 10 years and nobody finds that strange? pic.twitter.com/n58uoloCeP — Rue (@RueAlar) March 4, 2026 Another here: They’re gonna flood the realm. They probably have done this many times. It’s not God, it’s not cyclical. It’s them.pic.twitter.com/QBNeVn0dSe — DemonstrableReality (@flatsmackin) March 4, 2026 If you ask me, it sure does look like a rocket trying to fly through “waters above” or perhaps even hitting a firmament….but that would be crazy. Of course, the Bible speaks about “waters above” in Genesis: Genesis 1:6–8 (KJV)And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And you might say sure that was in Genesis, but there are not still waters above up there later on….and you might be right. Some people believe the “waters above” were poured out on the Earth during Noah’s flood. The only problem with all of that is when David writes the Psalms many centuries AFTER Noah’s Flood and long after Genesis, David still seems to think the “waters above” are still there: Psalm 148:4 (KJV)Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Psalm 104:2–3 (KJV)Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters: who maketh the clouds his chariot: who walketh upon the wings of the wind. But anyway, I digress…. What is really going on and why do I not recall ever seeing this before SpaceX started launching rockets? Seriously, think back to NASA sending the Space Shuttle up into Space….do you ever remember seeing this? I don’t! But don’t worry, I have the official answer for you direct from Grok. The reason why you never remember seeing this before is because many more people today have phones/cameras and also because NASA always launched its rockets in the daytime. So there you go: That’s a fair observation—the dramatic, glowing “space jellyfish” plumes we see so often now with SpaceX launches weren’t something that popped up frequently (or memorably) in media coverage or public memory during the Space Shuttle era (which actually ran from 1981 to 2011, not 1965–1975; the Shuttle program started well after the Apollo/Saturn days). The effect itself did occur during some Shuttle launches under the right conditions, but it was much rarer and less prominently documented or photographed for a few key reasons: Why it seemed less common or noticeable back then Launch schedule and timing — The Space Shuttle program had only about 135 total flights over 30 years (roughly 4–5 per year at peak). Many launches were scheduled during daylight hours for safety, payload requirements (e.g., precise orbital insertions), or mission constraints. Twilight windows (pre-dawn or post-sunset) were hit far less often than today. Launch cadence — SpaceX now averages 80–100+ Falcon 9 launches per year, with many deliberately timed for Starlink deployments in dawn/dusk windows to optimize visibility and coverage. This massively increases the odds of catching twilight plumes. In contrast, Shuttle launches were infrequent, so even if a few hit twilight, they didn’t create the same “flood” of sightings. Fuel and plume differences — The Shuttle used solid rocket boosters (SRBs) for the first ~2 minutes, producing dense, smoky exhaust from ammonium perchlorate/aluminum. The main engines burned liquid hydrogen/oxygen, creating a cleaner, mostly water-vapor plume higher up. While the upper plume could still scatter sunlight and form glowing clouds, the overall visual was often more streaky or diffuse compared to the very distinct, bulbous “jellyfish” from Falcon 9’s kerosene/LOX second stage (RP-1 produces more particles/ice nuclei that enhance the freezing and scattering for a brighter, more structured look). Photography and social media — In the 1980s–2000s, high-quality digital cameras, smartphones, and instant sharing didn’t exist. Most people relied on TV news or newspapers, which rarely highlighted these as “wow” moments unless dramatic. Today, thousands capture and post twilight launches instantly, amplifying visibility. Historical examples and documentation The phenomenon (also called “twilight phenomenon” or “rocket exhaust noctilucent clouds”) has been known since at least the 1960s–1970s with various rockets. For the Shuttle specifically: Some launches did produce illuminated high-altitude plumes during twilight, visible as glowing clouds or aurora-like effects from the ground (especially in Florida or along the East Coast). Wikipedia and atmospheric science sources note similar sightings during Shuttle twilight ascents, though not always the classic dangling-tentacles jellyfish shape. Pre-2000 examples exist from other rockets (e.g., Soviet Kosmos launches in the 1970s–1980s caused famous “jellyfish” or U-shaped plumes mistaken for UFOs, like the 1977 Petrozavodsk phenomenon). In short, you likely didn’t recall seeing them because they happened infrequently during the Shuttle years, weren’t captured/shared as widely, and the plumes sometimes looked different due to the vehicle’s design. The effect is the same physics—sunlit exhaust in twilight—but SpaceX’s high launch rate and optimal timing have made it a regular spectacle now. If you’re curious, older Shuttle launch videos (especially any rare dawn/dusk ones) occasionally show glowing upper plumes, though usually less “jellyfish-y” than modern Falcon 9 examples.

Iranian and Iraqi Kurdish groups are watching closely for an opportunity to strike the Islamic Republic, multiple outlets report. “The Kurds are one of the biggest ethnic groups in the world without their own nation,” The Guardian stated. “Numbering between 30 and 40 million worldwide, most live amid the peaks and valleys straddling the borders of Armenia, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey,” it added. According to Fox News, President Trump signaled support for Kurdish fighters if they launched an offensive against Iran. “I think it’s wonderful that they want to do that — I’d be all for it,” Trump said, according to the outlet. When asked if the United States would provide air cover for a Kurdish operation, Trump refused to provide details. “I can’t tell you that,” he said, the outlet noted. BREAKING: Trump asked the Kurdish factions to help US and Israel – Axios President Trump spoke to the leaders of Iraq's two main Kurdish factions, Masoud Barzani and Bafel Talabani, to discuss the war and ways the Kurds could assist against Iran. The calls follow… pic.twitter.com/DSagF3bfxj — Megatron (@Megatron_ron) March 3, 2026 Axios explained further: The Kurds have thousands of soldiers along the Iran-Iraq border and control strategic areas that could be significant as the war develops. Iraq’s Kurds also have close ties to Iran’s Kurdish minority. Trump spoke to leaders from the two main Kurdish factions in Iraq — Masoud Barzani and Bafel Talabani — a day after the Saturday bombing campaign began, two of the sources said. A source with knowledge of the calls said they were “sensitive” and declined to give details on their content. The calls were the culmination of months of behind-the-scenes lobbying by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, another source said. Israel has had close security, military and intelligence ties with the Kurds in Syria, Iraq and Iran for decades. “It is the general view, and certainly Netanyahu’s view, that the Kurds are going to come out of the woodwork … that they’re going to rise up,” one official said. Talabani, the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), confirmed on Tuesday that he spoke to Trump about the war with Iran. According to a PUK statement Talabani, said in a party meeting on Tuesday that Trump “clarified the objectives of the U.S. in the current war.” Netanyahu, who “has been relentless” in urging strikes on and regime change in Iran, first advocated for the Kurds in a White House meeting with Trump. Kako Aliyar, a member of the leadership committee of the Kurdish opposition party Komala, told Fox News Digital that the Kurdish groups are ready to act if conditions allow. Aliyar added that Kurdish groups cannot yet move because the Iranian regime still has the ability to launch missile and drone attacks. Kurdish dissident groups say they are preparing to join the fight against Iran with US support https://t.co/yrIykOF0gB — The Independent (@Independent) March 5, 2026 Fox News shared more: Aliyar said Kurdish groups remain under pressure from Iran and continue to face attacks on their bases across the border in Iraq’s Kurdistan region. “Our camps, the Kurdish political parties, are still under attack by the Iranian regime, and we can’t go into detail,” he said. Still, he indicated that if the opportunity arises, Kurdish fighters would attempt to return to Iranian territory. “If we get an opportunity to go back to our own country, we will use it,” he said. The comments come as Iranian Kurdish opposition groups attempt to present a united front against Iran. In February, several factions formed the Coalition of Political Forces of Iranian Kurdistan, bringing together parties including Komala, the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI), PJAK and the Kurdistan Freedom Party. Aliyar said the coalition is still organizing itself but carries an important political message. “Politically, it’s a huge message for the Kurdish people inside the country and the international community that Kurds are united,” he said. “We are working together, and we are trying to reach our goals together.” Kurdish groups have long fought the Iranian government. Armed clashes between Kurdish militants and Iranian forces date back to the years following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when Kurdish factions sought autonomy and were violently suppressed by Tehran. Today, many Kurdish opposition groups operate from neighboring Iraqi Kurdistan, where they maintain political offices and limited military forces. More below:

All credit to Christopher Greene on this one, reporting live from Maui and looking up at the sky to find….UFOs. Multiple UFOs. Look, I’m not here to tell you these are Alien UFOs filled with little green men, but I am here to tell you this is 2+ minutes of some of the clearest UFO footage I have ever seen. And the way these are moving and rolling it is clear they are not planes, they’re not drones, they’re not satellites, and they’re not weather balloons. What are they? I of course don’t know for sure and couldn’t know for sure, but I know these don’t move and fly like anything we know about. Watch here and see for yourself: BREAKING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UFO’s Spotted !!!!!!!!!!! NEVER BEFORE SEEN FOOTAGE !!!!!!!!!!!!! pic.twitter.com/f3Jkp3zjXu — Christopher Greene (@amtvmedia) March 5, 2026 Backup here if needed — X may censor this video: A little bit more right here for context:

The House of Representatives rejected a bill proposed by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) that would make public all reports on file related to investigations into members of Congress for allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment. The legislative chamber rejected the bill in a 357-65 vote. House votes 357-65 to block release of congressional sexual misconduct and harassment reportshttps://t.co/nbHkUxIxN0 — Ken Klippenstein (NSPM-7 Compliant) (@kenklippenstein) March 4, 2026 “The loudest voices screaming ‘Release the Epstein Files’ just voted to BURY the sexual harassment files of Members of Congress. Get it now?” Mace said. The loudest voices screaming "Release the Epstein Files" just voted to BURY the sexual harassment files of Members of Congress. Get it now? https://t.co/xUlQKyXcA2 — Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) March 5, 2026 “These are the Members of Congress who voted to bury sexual harassment records of Members of Congress and keep you in the dark,” Mace wrote. These are the Members of Congress who voted to bury sexual harassment records of Members of Congress and keep you in the dark: https://t.co/uFR2JcHEOi — Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) March 4, 2026 Full list published by Mace below: Adams Aderholt Aguilar Alford Allen Amo Amodei Ansari Arrington Auchincloss Babin Bacon Balderson Balint Barr Barragán Baumgartner Beatty Begich Bell Bentz Bera Beyer Bice Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Bishop Bost Boyle Brecheen Bresnahan Brown Brownley Buchanan Budzinski Bynum Calvert Carbajal Carey Carson Carter (GA) Carter (LA) Carter (TX) Casar Case Casten Castor Castro Cherfilus-McCormick Chu Ciscomani Cisneros Clark Clarke Cleaver Cline Cloud Clyburn Clyde Cohen Cole Collins Conaway Costa Courtney Craig Crank Crockett Crow Cuellar Davids Davidson Davis De La Cruz Dean DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier DesJarlais Dexter Diaz-Balart Dingell Doggett Dunn Edwards Elfreth Ellzey Emmer Espaillat Estes Evans (CO) Evans (PA) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fields Figures Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fleischmann Fletcher Flood Fong Foster Foushee Foxx Frankel Franklin Friedman Frost Fry Fulcher Garamendi Garbarino Garcia (CA) García (IL) Gillen Gimenez Goldman (NY) Goldman (TX) Gonzales Gooden Goodlander Gosar Gottheimer Graves Gray Green Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh Harder Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hayes Hern Higgins Hill Himes Hinson Horsford Houchin Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle Hudson Huffman Huizenga Hunt Hurd Issa Ivey Jack Jackson Jacobs Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (LA) Johnson (SD) Johnson (TX) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (NY) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans Kiley Kim Kustoff LaHood LaLota Landsman Larsen Larson Latimer Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Letlow Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Loudermilk Lucas Luttrell Lynch Magaziner Malliotakis Maloy Mann Mannion Mast Matsui McBath McCaul McClain McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McCormick McDonald Rivet McDowell McGarvey McIver Meeks Menefee Menendez Meng Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Moore (WI) Moran Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Moulton Mullin Murphy Nadler Neal Nehls Newhouse Norcross Nunn Obernolte Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Owens Pallone Palmer Panetta Pappas Patronis Pelosi Peters Pfluger Pingree Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Reschenthaler Rivas Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Ross Rouzer Ruiz Rulli Rutherford Salazar Sánchez Scalise Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Scholten Scott (VA) Scott, Austin Scott, David Self Sessions Sewell Sherman Shreve Simon Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Soto Stansbury Stanton Stauber Steil Steube Stevens Strickland Strong Stutzman Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Taylor Tenney Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Turner Underwood Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velázquez Wagner Walberg Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Weber Webster Westerman Whitesides Wied Williams (GA) Williams (TX) Wilson Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke “Today, only 65 of us voted to release names of congressmen who have used the sexual harassment slush fund to pay off claims against them. 357 members voted to ‘refer it to committee’ knowing that resolution ain’t ever making it out of committee,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said. “Congress has secretly paid out more than $17 million of your money to quietly settle charges of harassment (sexual and other forms) in Congressional offices. Don’t you think we should release the names of the Representatives? I do,” Massie said in December 2024. Today, only 65 of us voted to release names of congressmen who have used the sexual harassment slush fund to pay off claims against them. 357 members voted to “refer it to committee” knowing that resolution ain’t ever making it out of committee. Roll call:https://t.co/p1ZoTsILgh https://t.co/3fwuE5Msqv — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) March 5, 2026 The Hill shared further: In a 357-65-1 vote, the chamber moved to refer the matter to the House Ethics Committee — a move that essentially kills the effort. Thirty-eight Republicans and 27 Democrats voted against referring the resolution to the panel. Members who voted with Mace included members who have faced scrutiny over their own conduct, such as Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.). The resolution directs the Ethics Committee to make public, within 60 days after adoption, “all reports, including any conclusions, draft reports, recommendations, attachments, exhibits, and accompanying materials, with the personally identifiable information of victims or alleged victims redacted, related to the Committee’s investigations into violations” regarding alleged sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. Mace, who has made her personal stories of sexual assault and dating violence central to her political identity, had filed and moved to force action on her resolution in wake of Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) facing increasing scrutiny over allegations that he had an affair with one of his congressional staffers who later died in September 2025 after setting herself on fire. “Congress has been sweeping this under the rug for far too long. Tony Gonzales may be the latest example, but he’s not the only one,” Mace said in a statement on Tuesday after she moved to force action on the resolution. “Staff deserve to come to work without being harassed by their bosses. Women deserve to be safe. And the American people deserve to know when their so-called ‘representative’ is abusing power instead of serving their constituents. No more hiding. No more excuses. It’s time to end the cover-up and drag the truth into the light.” “Where is all the outrage from the Left now? Where are all the ‘activists’ flocking to social media to condemn our government now? Congress literally voted to cover up sexual harassment and misconduct and no one seems to care. Notice how it’s crickets when it can’t be pinned on President Trump,” Mace wrote. Where is all the outrage from the Left now? Where are all the "activists" flocking to social media to condemn our government now? Congress literally voted to cover up sexual harassment and misconduct and no one seems to care. Notice how it’s crickets when it can't be pinned on… — Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) March 5, 2026 “Yesterday, 357 members of Congress voted to block the release of sexual misconduct reports and the taxpayer slush fund used to pay off victims. In Oversight committee, @RepNancyMace made the motion to subpoena the records and after we fought for it, it passed. This list will now be made public for the American people to see for themselves. We did this because you deserve to know the truth,” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) commented. Yesterday, 357 members of Congress voted to block the release of sexual misconduct reports and the taxpayer slush fund used to pay off victims. In Oversight committee, @RepNancyMace made the motion to subpoena the records and after we fought for it, it passed. This list will now… — Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) March 5, 2026 NBC News has more: The Ethics Committee had encouraged members to vote to refer the resolution. In a joint statement, the Republican and Democratic leaders of the committee argued it “could chill victim cooperation and witness participation in ongoing and future investigations” and would make it harder for the committee “to investigate and eliminate sexual misconduct in the House.” “Here and elsewhere, perpetrators of sexual misconduct should never be shielded from responsibility for their misdeeds,” Chairman Michael Guest, R-Miss., and ranking member Mark DeSaulnier, D-Calif., said. But, they added, “victims may be retraumatized by public disclosures of interim work product, excerpts of interview transcripts, and certain exhibits. And witnesses, who often only speak to the Committee confidentially or on condition of future anonymity, could fear retaliation if their cooperation is made public.” Mace has spoken openly about her own experiences as a sexual assault survivor, and she’s been at the center of the fight over releasing the government’s Jeffrey Epstein files. She was one of just four House Republicans who teamed with Democrats on a discharge petition last fall that circumvented her own GOP leadership and eventually led to the Justice Department’s release of the Epstein files. Read the roll call HERE.