THE CENTER SQUARE—The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a case over whether states can prevent concealed carry holders on private property that is open to the public. Wolford v. Lopez challenges a Hawaii law that prevents concealed carry permit holders from bringing handguns to beaches, bars, restaurants that serve alcohol and gas stations without the owners permission. The Hawaii law stems from the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where justices struck down a New York law requiring concealed carry holders to display the need to defend themselves. “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court’s 2022 decision. Thomas further elaborated that gun restrictions should only be upheld if they are consistent with the “historical tradition” of the United States. In 2023, Hawaii implemented a law making it a misdemeanor for concealed carry holders to bring a gun on private property. The misdemeanor carries a sentence of up to a year in prison. Hawaii residents with concealed-carry permits challenged the state’s law. The residents, alongside a gun-rights group, argued that the government has no imperative to prohibit citizens from carrying concealed weapons in public spaces. “There is no comparable historical—or even modern-day—tradition of allowing the government to create a no-carry default rule for private property open to the public,” lawyers for the residents wrote to the Supreme Court. Lawyers for the gun-rights group also pointed to the disproportionate effect Hawaii’s law will have on rural areas with parks and beaches. “These bans are applicable to hundreds of thousands of acres of public land throughout Hawaii, even though the State allows hunting with firearms in many areas of these parks and forests,” lawyers wrote in a petition to the court. In a brief to the Supreme Court, Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez said the state instituted its law to protect citizens from hosting armed individuals on private property. Lopez points to a longstanding history of limiting the right of Hawaiian citizens to carry weapons in public spaces. “Property owners in Hawai’i could assume that—unless they made express arrangements to the contrary—firearms would not be carried onto their property, even if it was open to the public,” Lopez wrote in a brief to the nation’s highest court. Lawyers for Hawaii also argue that the Second Amendment, at the time of the nation’s founding, did not include the right to enter private property with a weapon. “The Founders recognized a property owner’s right to exclude,” the lawyers wrote. “Accordingly, at the Founding, a person had no right to enter private property with a gun unless he had the owner’s express consent or an implied license based on local law or custom.” In lower court litigation, Hawaii pointed to a 1771 New Jersey law and an 1865 Louisiana law that explicitly required consent before entering a private property of any kind with a gun. Lower courts upheld Hawaii’s arguments on the basis of these laws. “The overall purpose of all the laws was plainly to protect a property owner’s right to exclude firearms,” lawyers for Hawaii wrote. “Variation in the specific reasons why owners might wish to preclude guns—from preventing unwanted hunting to promoting safety, comfort or self-defense—does not undermine the basic fact that laws that vindicate the fundamental right to exclude are well within the tradition of American firearm regulation.” Lawyers for the concealed-carry holders argued Hawaii relied on faulty evidence to assert other laws were similar to the state’s ban. They argued certain public spaces, like beaches and public parks, would not be considered in the original bans, which fundamentally alters the state’s argument. “Under that approach, ‘the original understanding of the Second Amendment,’” the lawyers wrote, referencing a lower court judge’s opinion, “‘Would not apply to any new types of public spaces that would develop in the future.’” Gun rights and gun control advocates will be watching as the justices hear arguments in one of the court’s most consequential Second Amendment cases of the year, with a decision expected by July. Originally published by The Center Square. The post US Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Case Tuesday appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Democrat Left wants Americans to believe that excessively armed ICE agents in Minneapolis and elsewhere are kidnapping law-abiding immigrants en route to church or heading home from work. New Jersey congressional candidate Analilia Mejia moaned that “grandmothers and gardeners are being targeted by federal enforcement agencies with no accountability.” Attorney General Keith Ellison, D-Minn., called the people his ilk are shielding, “the most vulnerable neighbors in our community.” “They haven’t been able to produce any evidence that they are finding people who are undocumented who have committed crimes,” Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., told MS NOW’s evening anchor Chris Hayes. “It is unleashing complete terror on the residents of Minnesota.” A fresh serving of facts swiftly refuted these Leftist lies. Fox News’ intrepid, industrious Bill Melugin secured details from ICE on just 19 of its recent arrestees in Minnesota. These are not merely people of color “who want better lives,” as the cliche goes. (So what? Who doesn’t want a better life?) “It’s the most disturbing list I’ve ever seen,” Melugin wrote via X, “including numerous convicted child rapists/sodomizers & ten convicted killers, most with deportation orders going back many years.”  Let’s meet a dozen of these “vulnerable neighbors.” Hernan Cortes-Valencia: This Mexican illegal alien was convicted (Not accused. Not indicted. Convicted) of four DUIs, sexually assaulting a child, and carnal abuse. He was in America despite receiving a deportation order on December 1, 2016. Ge Yang: This Laotian illegal alien was convicted of strongarm rape (coercive sex via brute force, but no weapon), strongarm aggravated assault against a family member, aggravated assault with a weapon, and domestic violence involving strangulation. Deportation order: October 16, 2012. Sriudorn Phaivan: This Laotian illegal alien ran a one-stop shop for crime. He was convicted of strongarm sodomy of a boy, strongarm sodomy of a girl, nine counts of larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of fraud, vehicle theft, two counts of drug possession, obstructing justice, receiving stolen property, possessing stolen property, burglary, and check forgery. Deportation order: March 8, 2018. Tou Vang: This Laotian illegal alien was convicted of sexual assault, sodomy of a girl under age 13, and procuring a child for prostitution. Deportation order: October 31, 2006. Kou Lor: This Laotian illegal alien was convicted of sexual assault, rape, statutory rape, rape with a weapon, and shoplifting. Deportation order: August 16, 1996—nearly 30 years ago! These rodents don’t just rape. They kill, too. Aler Gomez Lucas: This Guatemalan illegal alien was convicted of DUI and negligent homicide with a vehicle. Deportation order: May 24, 2022. Abdirashid Adosh Elmi: This Somali illegal alien was convicted of homicide. Galuak Michael Rotgai: This Sudanese illegal alien was convicted of assault and homicide. Aldrin Guerrero Munoz: This Mexican illegal alien was convicted of assault and homicide. Deportation order: December 17, 2015. Gabriel Figueroa Gama: This Mexican illegal alien was convicted of amphetamine possession, battery, assault, and homicide. He was deported in 2002, eventually re-invaded America, and subsequently perpetrated these crimes. Mariama Sia Kanu: This illegal alien from Sierra Leone was convicted of burglary, three counts of larceny, four DUIs, and two counts of homicide. Deportation order: July 5, 2022. Gilberto Salguero Landaverde: This Salvadoran illegal alien was convicted of three counts of homicide. Deportation order: June 25, 2025. “ICE says all of these criminal aliens were roaming freely in the sanctuary state of Minnesota prior to arrest,” Melugin reported, “and that these are the type of people that politicians and activists are referring to as their ‘neighbors’ as they attempt to interfere with ICE.” From gas-pedal-stomping Minneapolis moms to cherry-bomb-hurling ANTIFA rioters, ICE’s enemies are making life look like Easy Street for these scumbags. Thankfully, ICE remains undeterred. Its director, Todd M. Lyons, promised: “Regardless of staged political theatrics, ICE is going to continue to arrest the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Minnesota and elsewhere.”  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post Dem/Left Shields Worst of Worst Illegal-Alien Rapists, Killers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Thursday night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act 2026. The bill provides the foreign aid industry $50 billion in taxpayer funding, $20 billion over the president’s budget request. The foreign aid industry praised it “as a long-awaited break for a beleaguered development community.” Heritage Action criticized the aid bill for “falling short of responding to American outrage over systemic waste, fraud, and abuse,” and “throws a lifeline to a corrupt, leftwing foreign aid establishment … that keeps open the door for the return of the progressive multi-billion-dollar aid industry” after President Donald Trump leaves office. On day one in office, Trump froze all foreign aid funding, denouncing the aid industry as “run by radical lunatics.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused the U.S. Agency for International Development of “rank insubordination.” Congressional hearings exposed the ideological rot in our aid programs from “funding transgenderism in Muslim Bangladesh, atheism in Hindu India, illegal abortions in traditional Mozambique and distributing condoms in Taliban-run Afghanistan.” Last September, a government report stated that 60% of the $10 billion per year global health funding was spent on “various forms of overhead” incurred by U.N. agencies, international NGOs and for-profit contractors. Last month, the State Department ceased funding humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and Yemen where billions in taxpayer money have been diverted to terrorists. The administration dismantled USAID, dismissed thousands of aid officials, defunded billions in woke programs, and reset foreign aid as a tool of national security in line with American values. Foreign aid has been transformed from a global platform to promote progressive radicalism to generating global wealth by promoting America’s economic interests. The strategy of the decimated foreign aid industry is to financially survive these next three years until Trump leaves office, expect a progressive to replace him as president, and reboot foreign aid spending to levels of the Biden administration. Meanwhile, a powerful coalition of aid lobbyists, spearheaded by millions of dollars from Bill Gates, have been actively working to falsely equate aid cuts with “millions of deaths.”   It worked. The bill overfunds the administration by $20 billion. Whereas the State Department wants to cut the global health budget by half (the US taxpayer has provided over $200 billion of health-related aid since 2001, double any other donor), this bill makes a cut of only 6%. Worse, the bill fully funds the left-wing National Endowment for Democracy whose board is openly anti-Trump. In comparison, the bill provides only $40 million for persecuted religious minorities despite the president taking military action against terrorists killing Nigerians Christians and although global persecution of Christians is at an all-time high. Conservatives in Congress were stunned by the bill’s massive funding of the National Endowment for Democracy. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, decried the organization for supporting “leftwing, anti-American NGOs.” A 2024 Heritage report details how the endowment became captured by anti-conservative progressives to attack conservatives at home and abroad with board members interfering in U.S. elections, denouncing Trump as “Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.” H.R. 3625, introduced by Eli Crane, R-Ariz., and which sought to prohibit new funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, lost but did win a majority of House Republican votes, a reputational stain on the organization.   The bill also includes a $100 million payment per year for ten years for a new similar foundation for international conservation to co-finance the leftwing global conservation industry, such as the World Wildlife Fund and Bezos Earth Fund. With congressional elections set for next year and the prospect of progressives retaking power, this bill provides the bridge financing the aid industry hoped for. If so, post-Trump America will again face the prospect of billions of its tax dollars funding radicalism at home and abroad. Congress still has another shot to align this harmful foreign aid appropriations with the administration’s reforms as the U.S. Senate considers it later this month. Don’t count on it though. The post Foreign Aid Bill: Bridge Financing for the Radical Left? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Minnesota? Somalis? Nine billion dollars in alleged welfare fraud? To understand what’s going on from a distance, it helps to understand basic culture. Minnesota was settled largely by people of Scandinavian and German ancestry. In survey after survey, Minnesota has ranked No. 1 or No. 2 among states, often just behind neighboring and much smaller North Dakota, in social connectedness, civic participation, workforce participation and voter turnout. It has traditionally led the nation in levels of trust and conscientiousness. This has been coupled with political behavior that resembles Scandinavian patterns. Minnesota, like North Dakota and fellow neighbor Wisconsin, had lively socialist-leaning third parties in the 1930s. It’s still the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, the result of a fusion engineered by future Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1944. As you might expect, Minnesotans have built a high-tax, high-spending state government. Like Scandinavians, they have trusted the state to provide services and have trusted individuals not to cheat in claiming benefits. Public support for these programs, as in Scandinavia, has traditionally been founded on confidence that aid goes only to the genuinely deserving. The Somalis who have been the most visible and politically active migrants to Minnesota over the past generation provide a vivid contrast. “The Somali,” the conservative writer Helen Andrews quotes a British official, “is convinced that he is entirely different from and vastly superior to any East African.” Somalia has been a land of chaos, a home base of pirates. Their home country has become a kind of no-man’s land, an example of what the political scientist Edward Banfield called amoral familism, where people are loyal only to fellow clan members and have no sense of obligations to the mores of the larger society. That’s in vivid contrast, it turns out, to the rampant, possibly billion-dollar-plus frauds perpetrated by Somalis who arrived in Minnesota as refugees and their offspring. Federal prosecutions began in 2022, when Biden administration Attorney General Merrick Garland authorized prosecutions of the Feeding Our Future program to feed hungry children during the COVID-19 lockdown period. As described in The New York Times last November, “State agencies reimbursed the group and its partners for invoices claiming to have fed tens of thousands of children. In reality, federal prosecutors said, most of the meals were nonexistent, and business owners spent the funds on luxury cars, houses and even real estate projects abroad.” In other words, this was a well-organized scam that required the cooperation or acquiescence of large numbers of people, including members of the Somali community as well as non-enforcement and non-auditing public officials. Were they simply naive Minnesotans, accustomed to an almost entirely conscientious population? Or were they deterred by the charges of racism that would inevitably be launched at anyone questioning a Somali-run operation? Most likely some of both. Any doubts that Feeding Our Future was a one-off exception have vanished with the exposure of other state-aided programs, which seemed to have no operations and no clients. Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson, who resigned this week for reasons unrelated to fraud cases, has estimated that Somali-run frauds have swindled $9 billion of public money, and it’s undisputed that the total take is at least in the hundreds of millions. It’s an obvious reason that DFL Gov. Tim Walz, the national party’s 2024 nominee for vice president, announced last week that he wouldn’t seek a third term. Minnesota liberals like to argue that Somalis have contributed much to Minnesota, but aside from their contribution to racial diversity statistics, they find it hard to come up with specifics. Actual data are not encouraging, showing that even after 10 years in Minnesota, three-quarters of Somali households receive Medicaid, half receive food stamps, and one-quarter receive government cash. Only about half are proficient in English. These numbers compare unfavorably with those of Hmong refugees who started arriving in Minnesota after the Vietnam War. After five decades, Hmong Minnesotans match state average incomes and home ownership rates, nearly match average high school graduation rates, and have no known involvement in massive welfare fraud. Somalis, after three decades in Minnesota, have made little progress on those dimensions. A low-trust, low-conscientiousness culture has proved to be stubbornly persistent, and, unlike the Minnesota liberals who helped the Hmong fit in, the last generation of Minnesota liberals has done little to move Somalis away from a dysfunctional culture that they brought from their embattled and unproductive homeland and from an adversarial attitude to the larger American society. The social connectedness of Minnesota liberals themselves has not disappeared. On the contrary, the network of volunteers monitoring and attempting to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation efforts, described vividly in The Wall Street Journal, is a prime example — and, as the death of Renee Good on Jan. 7 showed, a tragic one. It can be seen as an example of organized civil disobedience, only its participants seem to lack any sense that, by trying to obstruct federal law enforcement, they are doing anything morally questionable or potentially felonious. As Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have made it clear, they refuse to enforce federal immigration law and want to prevent the federal government from doing so. The state and city lawsuits seeking to block federal enforcement, in open defiance of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, stand out among the many absurd legal theories advanced by both the Trump administration’s opponents and, at times, the administration itself. This posture is not merely wrongheaded but reckless. It places Walz and Frey in the moral tradition of segregationist governors such as George Wallace (D-Ala.) and Ross Barnett (D-Miss.), urging resistance to lawful federal authority, a kind of incitement that, as recent events have shown, can turn deadly for participants and bystanders alike. Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. His new book, “Mental Maps of the Founders: How Geographic Imagination Guided America’s Revolutionary Leaders,” is now available. COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal The post What’s the Matter With Minnesota? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Writing at Axios, energy writer Amy Harder says, “The climate agenda’s fall from grace over the past year has been stunning—in speed, scale and scope.” Harder quotes oil historian and S&P Global vice-chairman Dan Yergin as saying, “There’s no handwaving about how ‘We want to cooperate on climate.’ It’s, ‘We’re slamming the door on that issue.’ We’ve gone from over-indexing it to zero-indexing it.” Polling has never shown climate change as being an issue of primary concern to American voters. Americans have consistently been more worried about issues that impact their daily lives today than about warnings from modern-day P.T. Barnums like U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres about some nebulous “highway to hell” and “the age of global boiling. The issue had been slowly losing its effectiveness during the Biden years even as that administration tried to memorialize the movement’s objectives in policy. Even Democrat politicians have quit talking about the so-called “climate emergency” which used to be a central plank in their talking points list. When was the last time you heard New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, co-author with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of the “Green New Deal” introduced in 2019, talk about the supposed need to force ordinary citizens to give up their cars, flying, and vacations and spend trillions on a nationwide network of high-speed rails to save the planet? When was the last time you heard any Democrat utter the phrase “Green New Deal,” for that matter? It simply doesn’t happen anymore. One of the motivators for the political abandonment of the climate scam by Democrats came from a pre-election analysis from the center-left Searchlight Institute last November. That memo advised Democrat candidates to avoid using the term “climate change” entirely, and to focus on the supposed cost savings to be obtained by switching to green energy solutions. Never mind that such cost savings are a myth: The truth doesn’t matter. What matters is the ability to influence voters with the message. Therein lies the central existential threat to the movement’s survival in the coming years. For decades, liberal politicians and climate advocates were able to advance the climate alarm agenda by creating, well, alarm among the public that the world is going to end if we don’t stop putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Always the messaging had a deadline claiming, “We only have X number of years to stop burning fossil fuels before it’s too late!” Over the past 40 years, that deadline to act has given the term “moving the goalposts” a new green meaning. AOC claimed the drop-dead date was only 12 years in the future as she rolled out her ambition to control everyone’s daily lives in the name of climate alarm in 2019. But the very next year, in 2020, child activist Greta Thunberg moved the goalposts to a mere five years. But wait: Just a year later, Joe Biden read a script from his teleprompter that set the deadline at 10 years. It’s all so darn confusing. No doubt, these politicians and activists wish they could erase their past claims from everyone’s memory. Their trouble is, the Internet is forever. Advocates were even successful in convincing Barack Obama’s EPA to dummy up an Endangerment Finding declaring that carbon dioxide is in fact a “pollutant” that must be regulated under the Clean Air Act in order to save the planet. Never mind that CO2, otherwise known as plant food, the foundational basis for all life on Planet Earth: The truth doesn’t matter. Now, it appears that the movement is inheriting the wages of decades of deception with a sudden and stunning fall from grace. It could not happen to a more deserving bunch of people. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.   The post Is the Climate Scare Narrative Headed for Bankruptcy? appeared first on The Daily Signal.