A single Minneapolis store manager’s political refusal to serve Border Patrol has now put 7-Eleven’s access to a major federal payment program on the chopping block. Story Snapshot U.S. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino and federal agents were denied service at a Minneapolis-area Speedway store owned by 7-Eleven. A viral video captured a manager saying, “I don’t support ICE, and nobody here does,” as the agents left without buying fuel or store items. The Trump administration’s GSA sent a Feb. 5 letter demanding answers from 7-Eleven leadership and warning the incident could jeopardize SmartPay fleet-card acceptance. As of early February reporting, 7-Eleven had not publicly responded, and GSA’s review remained open-ended. What Happened at the Minneapolis Speedway—and Why It Matters On January 21, 2026, a confrontation at a Speedway gas station in Minneapolis quickly escalated from a routine stop into a national flashpoint. Reporting says Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino and federal agents were denied service, and the group left without purchasing fuel or items. The moment spread after conservative activist Cam Higby posted video showing a manager making an overt political statement opposing ICE. The key issue is not a private citizen expressing an opinion; it is a business location allegedly refusing ordinary service to federal law enforcement while those agents are performing official duties. If the account is accurate, it raises practical questions about whether federal personnel can reliably obtain basic support—fuel, food, and lodging—when operating in hostile political environments. That reliability becomes even more important when federal vehicles must use designated payment systems. GSA’s Pressure Point: SmartPay Fleet Cards and Federal Access The General Services Administration is treating the incident as more than a local HR problem. In a Feb. 5 letter to 7-Eleven COO Doug Rosencrans, GSA Deputy Administrator Michael Lynch asked for details about any internal investigation, employee training, and company policy—especially policies that affect the use of GSA SmartPay fleet cards. The letter warned that 7-Eleven’s participation could be at risk if the situation is not addressed. SmartPay is a core part of how the federal government buys everyday operational necessities, including fuel for non-tactical vehicles. The reporting frames the potential consequence as a threat to 7-Eleven’s continued ability to accept SmartPay fleet cards used by agencies including the Department of Homeland Security. For taxpayers, the point is straightforward: if vendors want access to federal payment channels, the government expects consistent, nondiscriminatory service tied to mission needs. Minneapolis as a Pattern: Prior Business Refusals and Corporate Cleanups The Minneapolis episode is also being reported as part of a broader local pattern of anti-ICE activity that has spilled into commerce. Prior examples cited include a Hampton Inn in Lakeville removed from GSA’s approved lodging list after reportedly denying ICE stays, and a McDonald’s that displayed “ICE/CBP not welcome” signage before corporate intervention ordered it removed. These cases suggest corporate headquarters often steps in only after public exposure. That history matters because it explains why GSA is asking for more than a press statement. The federal government is looking for compliance mechanisms: training, written policy, investigation results, and clarity on whether political activism at the store level can block service to federal users. Without documented controls, “this was just one employee” becomes hard to verify, especially when multiple incidents in the same metro area are cited by the same outlets. What’s Confirmed, What’s Not, and Where the Story Stands Multiple reports align on the basic timeline: the late-January denial incident, the viral video posting on January 21, and the Feb. 5 GSA letter demanding answers. They also align on the central quote captured on video. What remains unresolved is how 7-Eleven’s corporate leadership will respond publicly, what GSA will determine after reviewing the company’s actions, and whether any national change in policy or training will be announced. There is also a verification limitation that matters for careful readers: outside of the reporting and the circulated video, there is no primary, independently published statement in the provided materials from GSA or 7-Eleven that closes the loop with final findings. Until that happens, the story remains an active compliance dispute—one with real stakes for federal operations and for a major retailer’s relationship with the government’s fleet purchasing system. Why Conservatives Are Watching: Rule of Law vs. Political Gatekeeping The immediate takeaway is institutional: when a business reportedly refuses service to federal immigration agents based on politics, the federal government has limited tools to respond besides contract and procurement leverage. GSA’s letter represents that leverage. Supporters of limited government still expect basic rule-of-law functions—like enforcing immigration statutes passed by Congress—to be carried out without being sabotaged by ad hoc “woke” gatekeeping at the cash register. Trump Admin Threatens to Pull MASSIVE Federal Contract From 7-Eleven After Radical Leftist Employee Denies Service to US Border Patrol | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim HᴏftStop threatening to do things! Do it! https://t.co/MNCumjsg88 — Johnny B (@JohnnyAmerica52) February 13, 2026 For 7-Eleven, the path forward is likely procedural: show documented training, clarify nondiscrimination rules for serving lawful customers, and confirm fleet-card acceptance policies across the chain. For the Trump administration, the broader question is consistency—whether federal procurement standards will be enforced in a way that ensures agencies can operate in Democrat-led cities where political opposition to immigration enforcement is intense. As of the latest reporting, the ball remains in 7-Eleven’s court. Sources: Trump administration threatens 7-Eleven partnership after federal agents denied service at Minneapolis store 7-Eleven to Pay Record $4.5 Million Penalty to Settle FTC Antitrust Order Violation Case Trump administration warns 7-Eleven after Border Patrol’s Gregory Bovino refused service Shifting Gears: Trump Administration Launches High-Profile Worksite Enforcement Operations

Texas veterans who shed blood for America but lack a 100% disability rating may finally receive the property tax relief they deserve, as advocates push lawmakers to honor Purple Heart recipients with full exemptions regardless of bureaucratic paperwork. Honoring Sacrifice Over Bureaucracy Texas veterans advocacy groups are pushing state lawmakers to expand property tax exemptions to all Purple Heart recipients, regardless of their Veterans Affairs disability rating. Currently, only veterans with 100% VA disability ratings qualify for full property tax exemptions, leaving combat-wounded heroes who lack the paperwork without this crucial financial relief. Military Order of Purple Heart 598 is leading the charge, conducting surveys of veterans and civilians to demonstrate widespread support before submitting results to the Texas legislature. This initiative follows the failure of House Bill 1591, which sought broader exemptions for disabled veterans but did not advance. Financial Relief for Combat-Wounded Heroes The proposed exemption would save qualifying Purple Heart recipients thousands of dollars annually. Texas homeowners face a median property tax burden of $4,274, creating significant financial strain for veterans on fixed incomes. While Texas already offers partial exemptions for veterans with lower disability ratings and full exemptions for those rated 100% disabled, many Purple Heart recipients fall through the cracks. These are Americans who took enemy fire and came home wounded but whose injuries don’t meet the threshold for maximum disability compensation. Advocates argue this bureaucratic distinction ignores the fundamental sacrifice symbolized by the Purple Heart, awarded since 1782 for wounds received in combat. Economic Benefits Beyond Fairness Supporting veterans through property tax relief makes economic sense for Texas. Veterans in top states like Texas inject approximately $30 billion annually into local economies through disability compensation spending alone. This money circulates through communities, generating sales tax revenue and supporting jobs while veterans contribute to their local tax bases through everyday purchases. Real estate expert Alan Chang endorsed the proposal, stating he hopes it passes as “the least [government] can do” for wounded warriors. Texas’s existing veteran tax relief framework is already considered robust, but expanding it to all Purple Heart recipients would strengthen the state’s position as a veteran-friendly destination while acknowledging combat sacrifice over administrative ratings. Setting National Precedent for Veteran Support Texas’s proposed expansion could set a powerful precedent for other states with large veteran populations, including California and Florida. The advocacy emphasizes that Purple Heart recipients “shed blood” for their country and deserve recognition beyond paperwork-defined disability percentages. This common-sense approach prioritizes tangible sacrifice over bureaucratic thresholds, aligning with conservative principles of honoring military service and limiting government red tape. As the Military Order of Purple Heart 598 prepares to present survey data to lawmakers, the proposal represents more than tax relief—it’s about ensuring those who bore the visible scars of combat receive the respect and support they earned, regardless of how the VA categorizes their injuries administratively. Sources: Over 1 Million Veterans Get New Tax Benefit – Newsweek

A top advisor to NYC’s socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani has been exposed for deleted social media posts attacking “white civility” and “white politeness” after a confrontation on a commuter train, adding to a growing pattern of radical rhetoric from administration officials. Story Snapshot Drashti Brahmbhatt, advisor to NYC Mayor Mamdani, posted deleted tweets rejecting “white standards of politeness” after a 2021 train confrontation Brahmbhatt claimed an older white woman gave her “death glares” during a phone call, prompting her racially-charged response Mayor Mamdani has remained silent on the controversy despite defending other aides with similar radical posts The incident adds to a troubling pattern of Mamdani administration officials promoting divisive, anti-white rhetoric Another Radical Aide Exposed Drashti Brahmbhatt, an advisor to New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, authored inflammatory tweets in November 2021 describing a confrontation with an “older white woman” on a Metro-North Railroad train. Brahmbhatt claimed the woman gave her “death glares” during a 40-minute phone call, though she insisted she spoke softly. The advisor then confronted the woman and proceeded to reject what she called “white standards of politeness” and “white civility” in posts that have since been deleted. These tweets surfaced on February 10, 2026, as Brahmbhatt served in Mamdani’s administration. “I don’t need to follow white standards of ‘politeness,’” Brahmbhatt insisted. https://t.co/YaBME2A26n — The National Pulse (@TheNatPulse) February 11, 2026 Pattern of Defending Extremist Views Brahmbhatt’s comments fit a disturbing pattern within Mamdani’s Democratic Socialists of America-aligned administration. The mayor previously defended other aides who made inflammatory statements, including one calling to “Impoverish the white middle class” and tenant official Cea Weaver, who tweeted that “homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy.” Mamdani’s platform included punitive taxes on “whiter neighborhoods,” and he has filled his administration with DSA supporters advocating police abolition and anti-Israel positions. His willingness to retain officials with such divisive views raises serious questions about his judgment and commitment to representing all New Yorkers. Silence Speaks Volumes Unlike previous controversies where Mamdani publicly defended his aides’ radical statements, the mayor has remained notably silent on Brahmbhatt’s resurfaced posts. This absence of comment occurs as his administration faces multiple scandals, including an aide linked to a fraud-accused law firm and the appointment of a former Rikers inmate as Corrections head. The mayor’s selective defense of controversial staffers suggests political calculations rather than principled leadership. His administration’s pattern of hiring individuals with extreme ideological views and racially divisive rhetoric demonstrates a prioritization of socialist loyalty over competence and unity. NEW from me Digging into more of the now-deleted X posts of top officials around Zohran Mamdani This is Drashti Brahmbhatt — a top advisor, who relayed this incredible story in November 2021 about "how terrible white women are" pic.twitter.com/7jsBxfwVw9 — Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) February 9, 2026 Erosion of Common Decency The incident highlights how identity politics and grievance culture corrode basic social norms that hold communities together. Brahmbhatt’s rejection of basic courtesy as “white standards” promotes a dangerous worldview that judges behavior through a racial lens rather than universal principles of respect. This divisive ideology, endorsed through Mamdani’s hiring practices and public defenses of similar rhetoric, threatens to fracture New York City along racial lines. The administration’s embrace of officials who openly express disdain for white Americans undermines the mayor’s ability to govern effectively for all residents, regardless of race or background, and represents government-sanctioned racial hostility that would be universally condemned if directed at any other group. Sources: Another Mamdani Aide Found Trashing ‘White Civility,’ ‘White Politeness,’ and ‘White Women Behavior’ Online Mamdani outraged after New York City Council employee detained by ICE Hochul and Mamdani hug it out over permitting reform NYC Mayor Mamdani calls for release of city employee detained by ICE Mamdani tenant tsar said home ownership is a tool of white supremacy in resurfaced tweet

A federal court picked a U.S. attorney for upstate New York—then the Trump Justice Department fired him within hours, igniting a fresh constitutional tug-of-war over who really controls federal prosecutions. Judges Appoint Kinsella, DOJ Fires Him Within Hours Federal judges appointed Donald Kinsella to run the U.S. attorney’s office in the Northern District of New York, a step courts can take when an interim appointment expires, and the Senate-confirmed slot remains vacant. Within hours, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Kinsella’s removal in a public social media statement, arguing that judges do not choose U.S. attorneys and that the Constitution assigns that authority to the president. The rapid reversal left the office’s leadership status unclear. The public nature of the dismissal added fuel to an already tense separation-of-powers fight. The administration’s position, as stated by Blanche, frames this as a straightforward Article II issue: prosecutors who represent the United States should be selected through the executive branch’s appointment power. Critics in the judiciary, however, have pointed to Congress’s vacancy statutes and limits on repeated “acting” appointments, saying those rules exist to prevent end-runs around Senate confirmation and to protect the legitimacy of prosecutions. The Sarcone Disqualification and the Letitia James Subpoenas The Kinsella episode sits atop an earlier controversy involving John Sarcone III, the Trump-aligned interim U.S. attorney who preceded him. A federal judge disqualified Sarcone after concluding the administration used a procedural approach to keep him in the role beyond the typical 120-day limit for interim service. That ruling also quashed subpoenas issued to New York Attorney General Letitia James that Sarcone had signed, a significant development because it created immediate legal risk for investigative steps taken under a disputed appointment. Judge Lorna Schofield’s written opinion captured the core judicial concern: when the executive branch “skirts restraints put in place by Congress” and then uses that power in politically sensitive investigations, it risks acting without lawful authority. The Justice Department has appealed Schofield’s decision, meaning the underlying dispute is not settled. For voters who care about constitutional structure, the key point is less about personalities and more about whether prosecutions—and subpoenas—can be undermined later if a court finds the appointing authority was invalid. A Wider Pattern: New Jersey and Virginia Rulings Raise the Stakes New York is not the only battleground. In New Jersey, an appeals court upheld the disqualification of Alina Habba after a dispute over extending an interim appointment. In the Eastern District of Virginia, a judge found Lindsey Halligan’s interim appointment unlawful under the Appointments Clause, then tossed indictments she obtained against former FBI Director James Comey and Attorney General Letitia James. Other districts, including Nevada and California, have experienced similar friction over interim leadership and the length of time “acting” officials can remain in place. What This Means for Accountability, Due Process, and Constitutional Limits The practical consequence of these clashes is instability—both inside U.S. attorney offices and for the public expecting consistent enforcement of federal law. When courts question a prosecutor’s legal authority, defendants can challenge indictments, targets can contest subpoenas, and cases can be delayed or dismissed. From a conservative, rule-of-law perspective, that is a serious problem: strong enforcement depends on a clean constitutional process. The administration’s appeals may clarify the lines, but until then, uncertainty can weaken public confidence and complicate legitimate investigations. US attorney in New York appointed by judges is quickly fired by White House | Just The News https://t.co/iPjJC38T4E — Angie (@angie_anson) February 12, 2026 The political overlay is impossible to ignore because some disputed actions have involved high-profile figures like Letitia James. Still, the research available here does not establish motive beyond what courts and officials have stated; it chiefly shows an institutional conflict over appointment authority and statutory limits. If the executive branch wants maximum control without legal risk, the durable path is Senate-confirmed U.S. attorneys. If courts keep finding appointment violations, future prosecutions could face continuing challenges—exactly the kind of procedural chaos that frustrates citizens who want equal justice applied consistently. Sources: US attorney appointed by federal judges in New York abruptly fired by the Trump administration. DOJ Fires Acting US Attorney in NY Who Judges appointees Battle over US attorneys continues after DOJ fires new prosecutor appointed by judges

Rep. Ilhan Omar sparked outrage among conservatives after posting a tweet that many interpreted as a veiled call for President Trump’s execution, escalating tensions over Minnesota fraud investigations and reigniting concerns about dangerous political rhetoric targeting the Commander-in-Chief. Omar’s Inflammatory Response to Trump’s Fraud Comments Rep. Ilhan Omar posted on X, calling President Trump the “leader of the Ped*phile Protection Party” and declaring, “At least in Somalia they execute ped*philes, not elect them.” The tweet came directly after Trump appeared on Fox Business with Larry Kudlow, where he discussed Somali immigrant involvement in Minnesota’s $9 billion fraud crisis and referred to Omar as a “fake congresswoman.” Omar’s provocative language immediately drew fire from conservatives who viewed the statement as advocating violence against the President, particularly given her reference to execution practices in her native Somalia. Conservative Outcry and Demands for Accountability Conservative media outlets and commentators rapidly amplified Omar’s tweet on February 11, characterizing it as a direct threat requiring federal investigation. Fox News columnist David Marcus and outlets like RedState labeled the post as “flatly advocating assassination,” while social media users demanded the Secret Service and FBI take action. House conservatives are pushing for formal censure or expulsion proceedings, arguing that suggesting the execution of a sitting president crosses constitutional lines that protect free speech while prohibiting threats against federal officials. The controversy intensifies existing scrutiny of Omar’s wealth accumulation and her district’s role in massive fraud schemes that have drained taxpayer resources. Context of Minnesota Fraud Crisis and Immigration Enforcement Trump’s February 10 comments addressed a documented epidemic of fraud in Minnesota linked to Somali immigrant communities, with investigations revealing over $9 billion in losses. The President’s administration has escalated immigration enforcement in Minneapolis, conducting deportations and clashing with local officials, including Gov. Tim Walz, who have resisted federal cooperation. Omar represents Minnesota’s 5th district, which contains a large Somali population, positioning her as a vocal defender of her constituents against what she characterizes as discriminatory targeting. This creates a volatile dynamic where legitimate fraud investigations intersect with ethnic community advocacy, fueling both sides’ grievances. Ilhan Omar just called for the execution of the President of the United States and is smearing him as a “pedophile”. Trump should sue her for the $30 million she made off her fake wine company, then deport her. pic.twitter.com/PImLfpYi1i — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) February 11, 2026 Polarized Interpretations and Political Implications The incident reveals stark partisan divides in interpreting political speech. Conservative analysts view Omar’s tweet as dangerous incitement that violates standards for elected officials, especially given the heightened threat environment presidents face. Neutral outlets like TMZ described the post as expressing frustration rather than issuing an explicit threat, while left-leaning sources dismissed it as mere political commentary. Omar has not retracted the statement, and the tweet remains online as demands for congressional action continue. The controversy strengthens Trump’s narrative about radical elements in Congress while energizing his base around immigration enforcement and accountability for members who attack constitutional norms. Long-term implications include potential expulsion efforts, intensified fraud investigations, and further polarization of immigration policy debates. Ilhan Omar Posts Stunning Tweet that Seemingly Calls for President Trump's EXECUTION After He Comments on Somali Fraud | The Gateway Pundit | by Cullen Linebarger https://t.co/Qa9KB35y20 — Melanie (@MellieMAGA) February 11, 2026 The escalating rhetoric between Trump and Omar reflects broader tensions over immigration policy, fraud enforcement, and the boundaries of acceptable political discourse. For Americans concerned about government overreach and respect for the presidency, this incident underscores the need for accountability when elected officials cross the line that endangers public safety and constitutional order. As fraud investigations proceed and House leadership considers disciplinary measures, this controversy will test whether Congress enforces standards that apply equally regardless of political ideology or claims of protected status. Sources: Ilhan Omar Posts Stunning Tweet that Seemingly Calls for President Trump’s EXECUTION After He Comments on Somali Fraud – The Gateway Pundit Did Radical Leftist Somali Congresswoman Just Call for the Execution of POTUS? Sure Seems Like It – RedState Man charges Rep. Ilhan Omar at town hall – ABC News Ilhan Omar Tweet Pedophile Protection Party – TMZ