The chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform panel, Rep. James Comer, plans to advance a contempt of Congress vote on Wednesday against former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. At the last minute, they came up with a last-minute invitation to interview them in New York. Committee Chairman James […] The post Contempt Charges Against Bill and Hillary Advance appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Grab a mug and hold on by the handle because the tea coming from a steaming member of the Beckham family is piping hot. After years of speculation, Brooklyn Beckham announced to the world this week that he is done with his famous parents, David and Victoria Beckham, and has no plans to reconcile after claiming his family tried to sabotage his marriage. “I do not want to reconcile with my family. I’m not being controlled, I’m standing up for myself for the first time in my life,” Brooklyn said. In a lengthy post on Instagram, the 26-year-old said his parents have tried to ruin his relationship with his wife, Nicola Peltz Beckham, well before the two tied the knot in 2022. “The night before our wedding, members of my family told me that Nicola was ‘not blood’ and ‘not family.’ Since the moment I started standing up for myself with my family, I’ve received endless attacks from my parents, both publicly and privately, that were sent to the press on their orders,” Brooklyn said. The Beckham’s first born continued with scathing allegations against his parents, including that they tried to bribe him to sign away the rights to his name, his mom refused to make Nicola’s wedding dress, and his parents would invite his former flings around the family to purposely make him and his wife uncomfortable. Brooklyn added that several members of his family allegedly told him that Nicola was “not blood” and “not family” ahead of their wedding day. But wait— the most public part of the allegations may be that Brooklyn claims Victoria “hijacked” the “first dance” during his wedding from his wife, Nicola, and “danced very inappropriately.” “My mum hijacked my first dance with my wife, which had been planned weeks in advance to a romantic love song. In front of our 500 wedding guests, Marc Anthony called me to the stage where the schedule was planned to be my romantic dance with my wife but instead my mum was waiting to dance with me instead,” Brooklyn said. “She danced very inappropriately on me in front of everyone. I’ve never felt more uncomfortable humiliated in my entire life. We wanted to renew our vows so we could create new memories of our wedding day that bring us joy and happiness, not anxiety and embarrassment.” Brooklyn and Nicola noticeably didn’t attend David’s 50th birthday bash last spring. Don’t worry, Brooklyn addressed this scenario as well. “We still travelled to London for my dad’s birthday and were rejected for a week as we waited in our hotel room trying to plan quality time with him. He refused all of our attempts, unless it was at his big birthday party with a hundred guests and cameras at every corner. When he finally agreed to see me, it was under the condition that Nicola wasn’t invited,” Brooklyn said. The now-obvious strain was solidified late last year when he blocked his parents and brothers on social media. “The narrative that my wife controls me is completely backwards,” Brooklyn said. “I have been controlled by my parents for most of my life.” David was asked about his son’s statements on Wednesday at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. The soccer legend chose to be “Switzerland” on the matter and ignored the question from the reporter. Later in the day, David appeared on a talk show where he seemingly addressed the accusations by discussing the positives and negatives of social media. “It can be dangerous, but what I’ve found—especially with my kids as well—use it for the right reasons,” Beckham said on CNBC’s “Squawkbox.” He shared how he has used social media for good before adding, “I’ve tried to do the same with my children—to educate them. They make mistakes. Children are allowed to make mistakes … you have to sometimes let them make those mistakes as well.” Brooklyn doesn’t view his social media spill as a mistake, instead saying, “My wife and I do not want a life shaped by image, press, or manipulation. All we want [is] peace, privacy and happiness for us and our future family.” Though Brooklyn said he has found “peace” since parting with his once picture-perfect family, stay tuned for the next chapter in this apparent fractured fairytale.

Normally Stephen Miller, the White House homeland security adviser, spends his time focusing on major issues facing this country and the world at large — like removing illegal aliens from the United States, purchasing Greenland, deposing South American communists, and so on. But every now and then, Stephen Miller weighs in on topics that — at least on the surface, and several layers below the surface — don’t seem quite as important. For example, the other day, Miller offered his assessment of the new “Star Trek” show on Paramount+, called “Starfleet Academy.” Here’s what Miller wrote. It wasn’t exactly a flattering review. Tragic. But it’s not too late for @paramountplus to save the franchise. Step 1: Reconcile with @WilliamShatner and give him total creative control. https://t.co/HRMDcYeBnU — Stephen Miller (@StephenM) January 16, 2026 Credit: @StephenM/X.com Shatner, who of course played Captain Kirk in the original show, responded with this. ? ? I am so on the same page with you @StephenM! The fact that they have not cure Hyperopia by the 32rd Century is an abysmal oversight on the writers!? Also @paramountplus needs to up the budget because I’m sure that a well oiled organization like Starfleet in the distant… https://t.co/96MtYUGGWf — William Shatner (@WilliamShatner) January 19, 2026 Credit: @WilliamShatner/X.com Shatner writes, “I am on the same page with you Stephen Miller!”  He also called out some “abysmal oversights” by the writers, and wrote, “shame on the line producers. I am ready to assume command of the series.” Seeing this exchange, it occurred to me that this new “Star Trek” show is an ideal target for a deep dive — sort of like the one we did Thanksgiving week, with Ken Burns’ documentary about the American Revolution. That’s not because anyone should care about a new streaming show that’s complete garbage. Those are a dime a dozen. Except that these garbage streaming shows somehow cost like 100 million dollars to make, so it’s more like 1.2 billion a dozen. But I digress. The reason we should talk about the state of “Star Trek” as a franchise — and the reason Stephen Miller probably cares about Star Trek — is that it’s a useful window into what the modern Left has become, where they went wrong, and how to defeat them. And on top of that, some of the scenes in this new show are genuinely hilarious — unintentionally — and it will be highly enjoyable to mock them. As a certified Trekkie, I’m more than qualified to weigh in here. I’ve been watching Star Trek ever since the days when Frodo and Hermione were battling Dr. Doom on the Death Star, so I know a lot about this series and the lore behind it. Now, yes, it’s true that Star Trek began in the 1960s as a progressive, liberal show, by the standards of the day. And they weren’t exactly subtle with the messaging about equality. They had a black woman on the bridge, serving as a communications officer, which was unusual at the time. And by the time the movies came out, the writers decided that, in the Star Trek universe, there was no money at all. Everyone just worked for free, to improve mankind. It was a communist utopia. But in those early communist Star Trek shows, there were still some elements that you could describe as Right-wing, at least in modern times. Everyone in the crew was physically fit, which you’d expect from the crew of a military vessel. So there was no body-positivity movement. The leaders were all highly competent, decisive men. The officers talked to one another like serious people, who understood the gravity of their positions. As the author Isaac Young put it: Star Trek’s beating heart was a professional 19th century naval crew in space. It was basically a love letter to Rightwing aristocracy and professionalism with a Leftwing coat of paint, and you can literally pinpoint the exact second it died by the BMI of the cast. https://t.co/wSsFHTDu19 pic.twitter.com/z6VuodF7w7 — Isaac Young (@HariSel57511397) January 12, 2026 Credit: @HariSel57511397/X.com And more importantly, the old Star Trek shows explicitly rejected the idea that everyone is a “blank slate.” Every species on the ship was clearly distinct, in significant ways. According to my producers, who wouldn’t lie to me about something like this, the Klingons were the warriors who were obsessed with honor and violence. The Vulcans were cold and unemotional but highly logical. The Ferengi were scheming and untrustworthy. And so on. Ferengi sound to me like some kind of parasitic infection you pick up in an African jungle, but apparently they’re an alien species in Star Trek. The point is that these differences weren’t inherently good or bad. They were just unavoidable, consistent differences. That’s how liberals and most communists — including Gene Roddenberry, the creator of the series — used to view the world. They recognized differences between large groups of people, and they wrote a show about those people getting along, sometimes. But new Star Trek, like modern Leftists, takes a very different approach. They enforce the fiction of blank-slateism — meaning that everyone starts life with a blank slate. Under this worldview, no particular demographic has any inherent advantage or disadvantage over another. We’re all the same; we’re just molded by our environment. This is unscientific and factually, obviously wrong. But it’s a core tenet of Leftism. And that’s why, at every opportunity, “Starfleet Academy” on Paramount+ takes pains to push blank-slateism. For example, no longer are Klingons a warrior race that’s fixated on honor and warfare. Instead, Klingons are now into science and bird-watching: Watch: Credit: Paramount+/Star Trek: Starfleet Academy So, you can already see that racial diversity was very, very important to the writers of this show. Unfortunately, writing was not important to the writers of this show. A lot of people have accused Starfleet Academy of having bad acting, which it does. But you can’t blame the actors. Think about the dialogue here. One character says: “I watch birds. They’re beautiful.” And the other says: “Nice.”  What do you want an actor to do with that? You try delivering those lines in an award winning way. Daniel Day Lewis couldn’t elevate this material. It’s impossible. But at least it really subverts your expectations to have a gay birdwatching Klingon. And more to the point, it completely erases anything unique about the entire race. And of course, the people who are writing this trash — the people who are going out of their way to turn traditionally masculine characters into effeminate bird-watchers — are women. A large portion of the writing staff of this show, including the lead writer and a show runner, are women. And with this show, they’re showing us exactly how liberal women see the world in 2026. For instance, judging by this show, liberal women still haven’t recovered from Donald Trump’s first term. They’re still very upset about the fact that, when parents commit crimes, they’re separated from their children. In fact, that’s the plot device that “Starfleet Academy” uses in order to put the entire show in motion. The show begins with the villain — a white guy, of course, played by Paul Giamatti, who is way, way too talented to be here. Paul Giamatti on Starfleet Academy is like if Marlon Brando was still alive and played the villain on the 5th season of “Stranger Things,” opposite a bunch of actors who wouldn’t get the job if they auditioned for a high school play. Anyway, Giamatti, who must be working to pay off some serious gambling debts or something, plays a character who is working with an impoverished woman to commit a space robbery. And a Starfleet officer is ultimately murdered during the robbery. By any measure, this crime means that both Paul Giamatti, and the mother, should go to prison for a very long time. Instead, they throw the book at Giamatti, and the mother has to go to rehab. Yes, rehab, for committing felony murder. So already, this is an extremely lenient sentence for the mother, by any measure. She commits robbery and murder, and her sentence is to talk about her feelings. But the show immediately tells us that, in fact, that sentence is a great travesty of justice. That’s because the mother, in order to go to rehab, has to be separated from her child, who is taken into the custody of Starfleet. The Starfleet woman who issues the sentence — played by Holly Hunter, who’s extremely difficult to understand when she talks — comes to regret it. She has a full-on meltdown, actually. She quits her job in Starfleet and becomes a teacher. And that leads to this remarkable scene, where a high-ranking officer tries to convince her to go back to work. This is one of the most cliche’d kinds of scenes in shows like this, but they manage to make it even worse than normal. Watch: Credit: Paramount+/Star Trek: Starfleet Academy First of all, what a way to date the show. Everyone can tell that they wrote this a decade ago. The Left doesn’t pretend to care about “family separations” anymore. They’re straight-up admitting that, in their view, only Nazis enforce immigration law, period. They’ve dropped the pretext of being outraged by “family separations.” But in Star Trek, apparently, they’re still hung up about the fact that, if you murder someone, you’ll get separated from your family. If you have a child, you should be able to commit any crime you want. That’s their position. And then we learn that, in fact, the entire show is going to be a power fantasy for the white liberal woman who’s been frozen in a time capsule since 2017. The white female captain decides to track down the child, 15 years later, and offer him a career in Starfleet — even though, by that point, he’s become a criminal himself. Watch: Credit: Paramount+/Star Trek: Starfleet Academy This is the dream of every Leftist woman who voted for Kamala Harris. They dream of breaking oppressed, multracial illegal aliens (and other criminals) out of prison. The more crimes they’ve committed, the better.  And of course, in this show — spoiler alert — the multiracial criminal saves the ship in the end. He reprograms the villain’s goo that’s eating the ship alive, or something like that. So he’s a genius, in addition to being a criminal. He’s far smarter than any of the professional officers on the ship, somehow. All he needed was a better environment — and for his mother to get away with murder. This is the blank-slate fantasy that underlies Leftism. And at some level, they know it’s a fantasy because they don’t pretend to take anything in this show seriously. The old shows would at least try to present thoughtful, intelligent content. But throughout “Starfleet Academy,” the female captain sits in her chair like a cat lady who’s lounging at her house, watching reruns of Grey’s Anatomy. Credit: Paramount+/Star Trek: Starfleet Academy She keeps the same posture even when the ship is being attacked and nearly destroyed because she decides to take a random detour. Sometimes she has her glasses on, because in the future, they’ve figured out intergalactic space travel and teleportation, but not optometry. And by the way, speaking of that “attack” on the ship — the big dramatic moment in the show — it gave us yet another insight into the IQ of the writer’s room. See if you notice anything odd about the dialogue in this scene: Credit: Paramount+/Star Trek: Starfleet Academy Yes, they’ve got a ton of injuries on the crew. Things are blowing up, and people are seriously hurt. Some senior officers have been impaled, in fact. But on the bright side, there are “no casualties.” Not to nitpick, but somehow, through the entire production of this show, none of the 15 executive producers, none of the 20 writers, none of the crew members, none of the actors, and none of the directors picked up on the fact that a seriously injured individual counts as a “casualty.” The show made it all the way through production without a single person noticing that the doctor of the ship doesn’t know what a “casualty” is. A few minutes earlier, when the attack began, there was another technical error. This one, admittedly, is a little harder to spot. But if you’re watching the video version of the podcast, see if you can identify it: Credit: Paramount+/Star Trek: Starfleet Academy They say the incoming fire is coming from the port side of the ship. And then they cut to the CGI shot, where the fire is clearly coming from the starboard side. It’s obvious what happened here. The woman writing the show — who was probably hot and bothered by all of the fan-fiction she was writing about rescuing a multiracial criminal and turning him into a Starfleet officer — quickly looked up the definition of “port.” And she learned from ChatGPT, which also wrote most of the script for her, that “port” means “the left side of the ship when facing the front.” But for this definition to work, you have to understand that you’re facing the front of the ship, while facing in the same direction as the bow of the ship. So in this diagram, “port” is the red portion of the diagram. So in this CGI shot, the weapons are hitting the starboard section of the ship, not the port. In a show with any standards, they’d be embarrassed by this. The bridge crew on this ship is supposed to consist of professional, highly trained officers. But they don’t know the difference between port and starboard. Of course, the point of modern storytelling in Hollywood isn’t to create a realistic environment, or believable dialogue. Instead, they’re contractually obligated to shoehorn as much Leftist ideology as possible into the episode. And to that end, we’re introduced to a “jerk” character among the cadets, who of course is played by a white actor. So the villain and the jerk cadet are both white men. But to the extent that white people are portrayed positively in this show, they’re either salivating over criminals, or they’re lesbians delivering DEI struggle sessions. This is from Episode 2 — it’s a viral clip you may have seen already. Watch: Credit: Paramount+/Star Trek: Starfleet Academy One thing you immediately notice when you watch these woke streaming shows is just how bad they look. Putting aside the atrocious ChatGPT dialogue and the wooden, lifeless acting. It just looks cheap, even though they spent more than 10 million dollars per episode. They had better sets, with more character, in the 1960s. From the looks of it, it appears that they shot the entire season of Starfleet Academy at a Chuck-e-Cheese. And hired the employees to be the lead actors in the show. The rest of Episode 2 isn’t much better. They have a telepathic species using sign language, for the first time in the show’s history, as a way to appeal to the deaf community.  Yes, in the future, telepaths — who by definition have an extremely advanced system of communication that’s beyond human comprehension — are also using sign language. They apparently retconned this, changing the way the whole species works, just for the sake of appealing to deaf people. Then they spend the rest of the episode telling us that walls are bad, and that Donald Trump is a bad man because he built a border wall. Again, parts of this show were definitely written a decade ago. Then, in a more modern touch, they also tell us that the multiracial criminal isn’t actually a bad guy, because he didn’t get “due process.”  You see, he’s just like Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Watch: Credit: Paramount+/Star Trek: Starfleet Academy First of all, even if you commit a crime outside of a “jurisdiction,” you can still be considered a criminal in that jurisdiction. If a high school student commits some heinous crime in Tokyo, and somehow escapes to the United States, the United States will still definitely treat him like a criminal. We certainly wouldn’t let him into West Point, which is what’s basically happening in this show. We’d arrest him and put him on a flight to Japan. And for what it’s worth, the telepathic guy actually makes a great point in this scene. We’re supposed to think he’s obnoxious, but he’s absolutely correct. He points out that Starfleet’s standards must be pretty low, if they’re letting a criminal into their highly selective academy because a liberal white woman is attracted to him. And in response, the white liberal captain explains that, actually, they didn’t lower the standards at all. You see, in this Leftist fantasy, the multiracial criminal from a broken home has a 98th-percentile test score. That’s a revealing moment, in a few ways. The writers could’ve said, “Yeah, he had bad test scores, but he brings other skills to the table.” But they insisted on keeping the line about 98th percentile scores, so they can have a girlboss “gotcha” moment where she puts the racist white man (again, another nasty white man) in his place. And they included this line because, even in their fantasies, Leftists still recognize that objective standards are important. They just imagine that, since everyone is a blank slate, all of their preferred demographic groups are capable of meeting those standards — even though it’s not remotely true. Every streaming service, across virtually every show, in virtually every genre, is now full of shows like this. To give just one more example, there’s a new Agatha Christie adaptation on Netflix, where they introduce a black character (who wasn’t in the original novel) who lectures all of the white people about how Europeans destroyed Africa. It’s just a constant stream of propaganda, and all of it says the exact same thing.  Watch: Credit: Paramount+/Star Trek: Starfleet Academy They insert dialogue like this, where it obviously doesn’t belong or make any sense, into modern adaptations of classic works of literature. You’re trying to watch a mystery series based on a novel from the 1920s, and instead of getting that, you’re informed that white people caused all of Africa’s problems. And the person telling you this is a Cameroonian scientist, not a German like the original novel, for the simple reason that the writers felt compelled to deliver yet another lecture on colonialism. They really thought that would be compelling to watch. They’ve done this to Star Trek, they’ve done it to Agatha Christie, and they do it to everything else. Streaming services are full of this garbage — most of which is based on fabricated history, bad data and anti-white feminist propaganda. We put a lot of effort into my show, “Real History,” for exactly this reason. You can make a very strong case that, if more people understood history, then streaming services would have a lot less slop. That’s because, in all of these shows, the writers see themselves as “atoning” for past “injustices.” They believe it’s their role to bring about “equity” because of atrocities that never actually happened. And audiences, for the most part, don’t know any better. Particularly if you went to public schools, then no one ever told you the truth. But even if you don’t buy that theory, the fact remains that most new streaming shows are unwatchable. They treat you like you have a Somali-tier IQ, and they beat you over the head with Leftist messaging. “Real History” — which will continue monthly, with new episodes — is my effort to combat this trend and ultimately, to end it. Let’s hope there are many more similar efforts to come.

'Thinly veiled threat'

'Showing up is half the battle'

The college football transfer portal continues to deliver its annual dose of jaw-dropping and unpredictable moves

“AI is one of the most consequential issues, right now, in the White House,” The Daily Signal’s White House Correspondent Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell said in an interview with former White House advisor Steve Bannon. “We have four coalitions here competing for the president’s attention,” starting with the tech accelerationist coalition, Mitchell explained to Bannon during an appearance Monday on “War Room” on Real America’s Voice. She noted that the “Big Tech people,” including Elon Musk, David Sachs, and Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, want the president to quickly increase AI development. “Then we have three coalitions that are united against the tech accelerationists,” she said. The populist coalition is focused on protecting jobs and rebuilding the manufacturing base, and is concerned about the potential for AI to replace jobs. The national security coalition, she said, is concerned about the threat of Chinese influence in artificial intelligence. The pro-family coalition, meanwhile, “is concerned about the suicides we’re seeing, AI convincing kids online, deep-fake porn we’re seeing being created by AI that is a danger to kids.” Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell: Inside the ‘Most Controversial Issue’ in Trump Administration: AI Policy @TheElizMitchell pic.twitter.com/H9xlERb6Vc— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) January 19, 2026 Bannon called this debate over AI, “by far, the most vicious and probably most important fight I’ve seen in Washington.” “It’s galvanized everybody,” he added, but it has, thus far, flown under the public radar. “I think as we move closer to more and more people being replaced by AI, more people are going to wake up and say, ‘Hey, I’m about to lose my job because of AI, and I want the administration, I want Congress, the government to do something about this,'” Bannon said. While Big Tech is already pouring money into fighting AI regulations, Mitchell says pro-family groups are pushing back. “It’s a really big battle that’s happening here to protect kids on the pro-family side,” she said. “And I think that’s an argument the whole country will be sympathetic to, which is that we’ve seen how kids have been endangered and harmed by social media … and we’re likely to see a similar situation that’s already begun with AI.”Access the interview via the link below: Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell: Inside the ‘Most Controversial Issue’ in Trump Administration: AI Policy @TheElizMitchell pic.twitter.com/H9xlERb6Vc— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) January 19, 2026 The post Daily Signal Reporter Discusses White House’s AI Divide With Steve Bannon appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In the midst of the back and forth of Nicolás Maduro’s capture, the seizure of so-call “Ghost Fleet” oil tankers, and the banter over a possible annexation of Greenland, it’s easy to miss the significance of the Christmas U.S. missile strikes in Nigeria which hit ISIS and other jihadist groups. This would be a real tragedy, as this was a real step forward. On Christmas Day, the U.S. conducted precision airstrikes in Nigeria’s Sokoto State, targeting ISIS affiliates with Tomahawk missiles and killing multiple terrorists in coordination with Nigerian forces. These strikes, launched from a ship off the coast, followed President Donald Trump’s threats against militants attacking Christians and aimed to disrupt violent extremist groups.  While some western analysts worried about sovereignty and unintended consequences, Nigerian officials hailed the joint operation as a success against terrorism.  The Trump administration acted quickly and with firm resolve, and in the process reshaped U.S.-Nigeria ties around safety and faith. Nigeria supported this action and wanted U.S. help. Beginning with a Nigerian state visit to the White House, Trump made it clear that more needed to be done to protect persecuted Christians, and the Nigerians got the point.  The U.S. and Nigeria can and should do more together to fight jihadis in West Africa. Nigeria carries a tremendous strategic weight. It’s land mass, enormous population, and large military make it a natural anchor from West Africa to the rest of the world. The United States, long accused of ignoring Africa, truly needs a safe and steady Nigeria. A stable Nigeria does not guarantee stability in the nations around it, but an unstable Nigeria means the entire region is at risk. Large crime rings and jihadist groups are a threat to both Nigerian and U.S. aims. We cannot have Nigeria collapse like Niger and Mali.  The motivations and context of Trump’s actions are key here. The center piece is protecting Christians who were being persecuted.  The strikes followed Trump’s orders to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio to prepare for military and diplomatic intervention to protect Christians facing attacks. It is important to note that Nigerian officials emphasized that in executing the strikes, a clear message was sent to all terror groups—and those who fund and support them—that targeting minority groups of any faith will no longer be tolerated. This is consistent with a broader U.S. policy to combat global radical Islamic terrorism, similar to actions in Syria.  Nigerian officials expressed satisfaction and thanks to Trump, calling it a successful joint operation and highlighting the long bond between the two nations as key allies. They also pointed out the continuing joint efforts on local and regional safety. There are numerous joint U.S.-Nigeria efforts to break up crime webs and terror groups. Nigeria’s work to guard its borders and disrupt drug, arms, and kidnap rings are aided by a close relationship with U.S. Africa Command. The gains already made rest on strong and steady U.S. backup. The U.S. government should leverage these successes and find additional ways to do to allow the Nigerian government to purchase weapons, intelligence capabilities, and training from the U.S. The FY 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, signed by Trump, seeks to boost support the Nigerian military. The NDAA provides $413 million for counterinsurgency and security operations in Nigeria and other African countries. Guarding Christians and all faith groups is essential as Nigeria moves forward together with America. The U.S. move to name Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” on faith rights may have been a forcing function for renewed action.   Now, Abuja is moving to match rhetoric with action. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu recently ordered an expanded security surge to protect Christians and people of all faiths—using additional military and police deployments, expanded patrols and rapid response, intelligence-led operations, and tighter federal–state coordination to deny terrorists and kidnappers a safe haven. Tinubu stated, “Nigeria will not yield any community to those who threaten our people—especially in the North Central states and other affected areas.” There has been on and off harm to Christians over the last decade and the need for swift steps were clear. Nigeria’s duty, in law and in day-to-day work, to guard all faith groups is clear and must be affirmed without any waffling. Lagos appears to understand their requirements. Tinubu has been clear in his goal to root out terrorists and protect Christians. Late last year, Tinubu issued a declaration of a national security emergency to strengthen civilian protection and uphold every Nigerian’s right to worship freely. He ordered an expanded security surge in the North Central states and other affected areas—more military and police deployments, broader patrols and rapid-response coverage, intelligence-led operations against terrorist and criminal networks, and stronger federal–state coordination. This included redeploying police assigned to protecting VIPs to the North Central states (the Middle Belt). The Nigerian government  is also advancing the Forest Guards initiative to deny criminals sanctuary, and it has directed enhanced protection around places of worship. These operations remain Nigerian-led, with partner support where appropriate, including ISR. But more must be done. Rights related actions that must be taken include the following: Restate and emphasize that Nigeria’s Constitution backs faith freedom and free speech for all Nigerians; publicly describe ongoing work with faith leaders and key world partners to keep those rights real; and note the state’s wide responsibilities to all, with Christians and Muslims in jobs at all ranks. The Trump administration and their partners in Nigeria need to agree on what comes next. This should include but not be limited to a call for deeper U.S.-Nigeria work on safety and faith rights; a greater effort for more joint ops, land and property rights reforms and protections in the North Central states; and more aid for at-risk groups and plain talk on wins and gaps. Lastly, the U.S. and Nigeria should begin a public information campaign to cast this bond as a model for fighting terror and backing basic rights in the region. The FY 2026 funding bill for the Department of State, just passed by House Republicans, while noble, would restrict funding to Nigeria until measurable actions are taken to protect Christians. This would have the opposite intended effect and undermine the joint efforts by Trump and Tinubu to protect Christians and root out Islamic terrorism in West Africa. The “Country of Particular Concern” tag and the Christmas strikes marked a key shift in the relationship between the giant of the West, and the giant of Africa. It can be argued that with U.S. help and Nigerian will power, the two can see West Africa can gain a level of peace and safe worship for all not seen recently.  All political sides in both nations should be united in a call to keep this work going and make the bond even stronger. This effort must not be lost in fog of events elsewhere in the world, the momentum must be maintained.  The post Trump’s Christmas Strikes in Nigeria: A Turning Point for Security and Faith appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Cuba Declares a 'State of War' as the Country Runs Out of Time

On Tuesday’s Inside Politics, CNN attempt to give credence to a story that an unfortunate “disabled” woman was accosted and arrested by ICE for supposedly no reason while trying get to a doctor’s appointment. But a simple search of the woman’s name, Aliya Rahman, turns up a treasure trove proving that she had a long history as a professional liberal activist working with far-left organizations that promote “racial,” “criminal,” and “social justice.” With part of her focus being against law enforcement. “We’re hearing for the first time from Aliya Rahman, the woman ICE officers dragged from her vehicle while she shouted that she was disabled and trying to get to her doctor’s office,” announced host Dana Bash. What followed up was a soundbite of Rahman claiming that even someone without her cognitive processing problems would have an issue understanding the ICE agent’s order to move her car out of their way: I think even someone who doesn’t have the kind of auditory processing challenges I do would not know what to do with the sentence “move, I will break your effing window.” And then back and forth between, “move, get out,” trying to open my door, more threats of breaking a window, which I don’t understand the functional purpose of. And it’s not a warning, its a threat of violence, that really shouldn’t be packaged with an instruction.   CNN highlights a woman who they label as "disabled woman dragged out of her car and arrested by ICE," as if she was an innocent bystander. But the woman is Aliya Rahman, a fellow at a leftist activist group with a long history in progressive "racial and criminal justice… pic.twitter.com/eJdXtLGfgO — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 20, 2026   But they never explained who Rahman was outside the incident in question. A simple Google search for her name turn up her employment page for New America, a left-wing organization, which listed her as their fellow from the Open Technology Institute. New America boasts about her: Her work was informed by a background in legislative, electoral, and community organizing for racial and criminal justice campaigns, fifteen years of software development for the social justice movement, and a former life as an educator and researcher working in public education and workforce development. Aliya served formerly as Program Director at Code for Progress, where she led the recruitment, in-residence training, and job placement of community organizers of color into full-time developer positions. She is also is the former Field Director of Equality Ohio, where she built a statewide field program focused on bridging gaps between racial justice organizers, LGBT rights groups, and labor. Prior to that, she worked for the Center for Community Change, first as their Ohio organizer in the passage of employment legislation supporting formerly incarcerated people, and later as a national circuit rider working with immigrant rights groups on voter engagement.     About themselves, New America openly declared they’re all about “equity” (Click “expand”): We are dedicated to realizing the promise of America in an era of rapid technological and social change. At New America, our research and policy recommendations focus on five key thematic areas: education and work; family economic security and wellbeing; global politics for people and planet; political reform and civic engagement; and technology and democracy. In each area of our work, we put equity at the center; elevate stories of people closest to the public problems we seek to solve; invest in the next generation of leaders; and intentionally engage with local perspectives. Taken together, these efforts advance toward our vision of a more equitable America that lives up to its values. Rahman's true identity was discovered back on January 14 by the New York Post, yet six days later, CNN was still trying to pull one over on their viewers. On the flip side of this, Bash gave the ‘conservatives pounce’ treatment to the story of a crazed leftist mob storming a church on Sunday and shouting down their service: [Y]ou're almost surely seeing exclusively on conservative media and in conservative algorithms is something else that happened in Minneapolis yesterday. There was a church service where protesters made a point of going to this church service and using that as a staging area for, you know, making their, um, the fact that they're not happy with ICE, known. And this is one of the things so far, maybe, maybe the thing that the Trump Justice Department is looking into whether federal laws were broken there.   CNN follows up by giving the 'conservatives pounce' treatment to the story of the leftist mob invading a church to assail parishioners on Sunday: "[Y]ou're almost surely seeing exclusively on conservative media and in conservative algorithms is something else that happened in… pic.twitter.com/9ywtfEnwLc — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) January 20, 2026   “So, it's a battle of narratives, for sure,” griped Leigh Ann Caldwell, chief Washington correspondent for Puck News. “Republicans are going to focus on that, that you know, protesters, liberals are - don't respect ICE officers, Federal Law Enforcement, they don't even respect your Sunday church service where you're at.” Further in the conversation, CNN senior political analyst Nia-Malika Henderson made the comment that, “Barack Obama, he deported like 3 million people and no one got shot in the face, and you didn't, you know, see people getting ripped out of cars, and so that is the problem.” What Henderson’s snarky comment brushed over was the fact that the media back then were Obama’s lapdogs who refused to speak negatively about him; unlike with Trump, for whom they stoke and ferment hate and hysteria to the point where people try to obstruct ICE and try to kill them. NewsBusters Intern Nicholas Spinnato contributed to this blog. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s Inside Politics with Dana Bash January 20, 2026 12:36:39 p.m. Eastern DANA BASH: We’re hearing for the first time from Aliya Rahman, the woman ICE officers dragged from her vehicle while she shouted that she was disabled and trying to get to her doctor’s office. Here she is with our colleague Laura Coates [Cuts to video] ALIYA RAHMAN: I think even someone who doesn’t have the kind of auditory processing challenges I do would not know what to do with the sentence “move, I will break your effing window.” And then back and forth between, “move, get out,” trying to open my door, more threats of breaking a window, which I don’t understand the functional purpose of. And it’s not a warning, its a threat of violence, that really shouldn’t be packaged with an instruction.” [Cuts back to live] BASH: And our panel is back here. John, you’ve been out a lot, around the country. I just wonder if what you’re hearing, even from Trump Supporters, matches what we’re seeing in our polling, which is not a lot of support. JOHN KING: Too far, too far. Donald Trump had a mandate when he won the election to have pretty aggressive immigration actions, including aggressive deportations, the American people were fed up. But, and it’s very important but, I would capitalize it in bold face this but, even Trump supporters when they watch this stuff say it is too much. And so, I do think the language – as you just heard the woman there yanked from the car, you’re going to see in Democratic ads this fall, I’m not going to repeat it here, the language used by the ICE officer who shot and killed Renee Good. And then there was another one captured the next day; ‘Don't you don't want to end up like that bleep, bleep, bleep.’ Suburban women decided the 2018 election because they thought about the 5 A.M. tweets and all the chaos of the first Trump term, and they said we have to have to run our families lives, and this is just over the line, it's too much, it's too much. I think that is, that's a common theme in our poll, that even people who support the president here support the president there think, whoa, you're over the top here. I do think there are, you know, again, the president had a mandate to fix the immigration system, the American people would support orderly deportations of people who are here illegally. There would be a debate about, do you have to commit a crime? You know, where's the line? I think would be a fair debate in our public. But the tone and the tenor, the repetitive nature of this, they're not one offs anymore, you know,  it's not, it's not a one situation, you know, and a lot of people have empathy for people in law enforcement. They have very stressful jobs. And so you can't – there but for the grace of God. Right? But when you see it again and again and again, I think the tone of this, given where key elections are decided, and given there are a lot of reluctant Trump voters who said, I want the border closed and I want a better economy, but I don't want that stuff again, that this is too far. BASH: And what you are going to see here, because we're going to show you everything, but you're almost surely seeing exclusively on conservative media and in conservative algorithms is something else that happened in Minneapolis yesterday. There was a church service where protesters made a point of going to this church service and using that as a staging area for, you know, making their, um, the fact that they're not happy with ICE, known. And this is one of the things so far, maybe, maybe the thing that the Trump Justice Department is looking into whether federal laws were broken there. Let's listen. [Cuts to video] HARMEET DHILLON (DOJ, assistant attorney general for human rights): The attorney general reached out to me about this yesterday when I was on an airplane, and before I landed, we'd already scrambled the jets and gotten prosecutors assigned to this, as well as reached out to the FBI and had agents assigned and the U.S. Attorney's office in Minneapolis assigned to this. So, here are already several law enforcement officials working on this as of yesterday evening. LEIGH ANN CALDWELL: So, it's a battle of narratives, for sure. Republicans are going to focus on that, that you know, protesters, liberals are - don't respect ICE officers, Federal Law Enforcement, they don't even respect your Sunday church service where you're at. But, I will say that the images that ICE has been very aggressive in promoting, themselves, as John said, looks like it could start to backfire. On Capitol Hill. You know, I reported over the weekend that that Democratic leadership are, are, are thinking about a probe - a quiet - they're quietly thinking right now about a probe into DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, starting their own investigation, regardless of what Republicans want to do, because they think that the politics are much better for them on immigration. The border is closed, Trump took that issue away. And if they win back the majority, they want to be ready, really on day one, to have some sort of accountability and oversight of this DHS. BASH: Yeah, and now they're also blaming and going after, and since the end of last week, threatening to or pursuing prosecution of the Democratic Governor of Minnesota, the mayor of Minneapolis, ICE, the social media post that they put up on Sunday, “Tim Walz and Jacob Frey are responsible for whipping these mobs into a frenzy and allowing them to run rampant. We won't be deterred.” This is specifically about the church protests, and I should say that Walz has said that he does not support protesters interrupting houses of worship. NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON: And possibly our former colleague Don Lemon, too, who was there as a journalist filming what was happening there. The complaints that the protesters have is that they say that a pastor at that church is cooperating with the ICE agents who were there. I think average Americans simply don't understand why they're there and why it's getting so out of control. If you think about Barack Obama, he deported like 3 million people and no one got shot in the face, and you didn't, you know, see people getting ripped out of cars, and so that is the problem. This is an administration that likes to govern through image, through image of strength. Right? And we've seen that particularly with with, with DHS and some of these apprehensions. But as you know, John has said, Americans believe they've gone too far. And Democrats don't even really need to message very much on it because they can just see it on their television. DAVID CHALIAN: Although, as you see, Democrats could also, even though that may be wise advice, they also can easily form a circular firing squad amongst themselves, sort of debating the future of ICE - HENDERSON: Abolishing ICE, yeah. CHALIAN: And how that created political problems for them a few years ago. BASH: Alright, we’re going to have to take a quick break. Thank you all, appreciate it.