In the wake of two deadly shootings in Minneapolis involving left-wing street activists and ICE agents, the political left has once again elevated new figures into instant heroes. It should cause reasonable people to pause and examine the strange and consistent hero-worship culture that defines the modern Democratic Party. This...

Elon Musk believes that US surgeons who performed ‘gender transition’ procedures on minors in the US, will soon be facing thousands of lawsuits. He likened the surgeons to the infamous Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, who [...] The post Musk Predicts That Thousands Of Mutilated Kids Will Sue ‘Evil’ Gender Surgeons appeared first on The People's Voice.

It's really time to roll back this judicial tyranny and these unhinged tyrants. The post Clinton Judge Demands Gov Free Illegal Alien Because He’s Very Angry appeared first on Frontpage Mag.

Taylor Rehmet (D-TX) coasted to a 14-point victory in a special election for the Texas State Senate seat recently vacated by Kelly Hancock (R-TX) prompting Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin to warn Republicans across the country to beware. Rehmet, a veteran and a union leader, dedicated his win to “everyday working people” and immediately pivoted to raise funds for his imminent reelection campaign in November. This win goes to everyday, working people. I’ll see you out there! pic.twitter.com/kPWzjn2LhW — Taylor Rehmet (@TaylorRehmetTX) February 1, 2026 “Republicans just lost a district Trump won by 17 points — in Texas. That’s not an anomaly, it’s a pattern,” Martin crowed when Rehmet was projected to win the seat. “Democrats are building on our historic overperformance, and we’re not slowing down. November is coming, and we’re ready. ALL GAS, NO BRAKES!!” President Donald Trump gave Mehmet’s opponent, Leigh Wambsganss, a lengthy endorsement as voters went to the polls for Saturday’s special election. “Today is the day! To all Voters in Texas’ 9th State Senate District: GET OUT AND VOTE for a phenomenal Candidate, Leigh Wambsganss. She is a highly successful Entrepreneur, and an incredible supporter of our Movement to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN,” Trump posted via Truth Social. “My very good friend, Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, needs a strong conservative Republican in SD-9 to KEEP TEXAS RED! The Radical Left Democrats are spending a fortune to beat a true MAGA Warrior, Leigh Wambsganss. You can win this Election for Leigh, who has my Complete and Total Endorsement.” Hancock, the out-going Republican who had served four terms in the same seat, won every reelection campaign with plenty of breathing room. Democrats have delivered in several key elections since Trump’s second term in the White House began, but the majority have been in districts that ranged from purple — like Virginia — to more reliably blue like New Jersey. Rehmet’s win comes as another Democrat, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, ramps up her own campaign for a U.S. Senate seat in the reliably red state.

Obama Administration Recognized Him As A "Champion of Change"

'That doesn't allow us necessarily to prosecute somebody'

When it comes to the arrest and charges against former CNN Host Don Lemon, for his role in the invasion of a Church in St. Paul, Minnesota last month, it appears that some in the liberal media are not only willing to support his claims that he was there as a "journalist", but they are willing to leave out some important information during their reporting. As pointed out by our colleague Alex Christy, ABC and CBS are guilty of doing it, and they are not alone. Friday night on CNN's NewsNight With Abby Phillip, the host incorrectly claimed that Lemon was not named in a part of the indictment where he was in fact included, and she wound up being corrected by panelist and New York Post correspondent Lydia Moynihan. Phillip opened the show by claiming, "Freedom of the press is under siege after the arrests of Independent Journalists, former CNN anchor Don Lemon and Georgia Fort for their coverage of an anti-ICE protest that erupted and interrupted a Church service in St. Paul, Minnesota." Phillip soon played part of Lemon's interview with Pastor David Easterwood, who described what was happening as, "unacceptable and shameful," and at one point said he needed to go and "take care of my flock." But Lemon continued and eventually accused the pastor of "pushing" him, although it does not appear that way on the video. Phillip then read from the indictment. PHILLIP: So, that was described in the indictment as Lemon and Fort approaching the pastor and largely surrounding him. They stood in close proximity to the pastor in an attempt to oppress and intimidate him and physically obstructed his freedom of movement while Lemon peppered him with questions to promote the operation's message. Phillip disagreed with that description, claiming Lemon lecturing about the Constitution was an "interview," and then Moynihan weighed in and they went at it. MOYNIHAN: ..The question is, is he (Lemon) a protester or a journalist? And the indictment obviously suggested that he posted himself at the main door, he prevented people from exiting... PHILLIP INTERUPTS: No, no it does not say that. MOYNIHAN: The indictment says that. PHILLIP: It says that protesters did that. It names the other people. It did not say that Don did that.  It would take almost 17 minutes for Moynihan to prove that Phillip was wrong in her assertion that Lemon was not named, and it came following Phillip's theory that Lemon was targeted. PHILLIP: Even if you don't agree that there's race as an underlying factor here, it does seem very clear that the Trump administration, Lydia, views this as a slam dunk because Don in particular, can be polarizing. And I think they feel like it's an easy way for them to chip away at the media.. Why is it suddenly okay just because it's Don Lemon, just because it's Georgia Fort, that Trump is trying to criminalize the exercise of the free press, the actual reporting that they were doing on the ground MOYNIHAN: Well, also I just want to respond because you accused me of mischaracterizing the indictment. This is actually a quote from the indictment that, 'Lemon posted himself at the main door of the Church where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit, challenging them with facts about U.S. immigration policy. So, that is what the indictment says... So how did Phillip react to being wrong? She sighed and then punted. PHILLIP: They also characterized him as intimidating a Pastor who he was calmly interviewing. So, I think we also have to, the characterization of him conducting journalism is also something to be questioned. No apology to Moynihan or her viewers for providing false information earlier in the show at Moynihan's expense, only more of the "support Don Lemon" narrative, which we can count on being force fed to us until this case is adjudicated. 

A bill advancing through the Massachusetts Senate would make reducing how much people drive an explicit goal of state transportation policy. It is called the Freedom to Move Act.The bill, SB 2246, does not impose mileage caps on individual drivers. There is no odometer check, no per-driver limit, and no new fines or taxes written into the legislation. Instead it directs the state to set targets for reducing total vehicle miles traveled statewide — targets that would be incorporated into transportation planning, infrastructure investment, and long-term emissions policy.When reducing driving becomes a formal state objective, personal mobility inevitably becomes something to be managed.Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Massachusetts, as it is in many states. From that perspective, lawmakers argue the bill simply aligns transportation policy with existing climate mandates. The state already has legally binding emissions reduction goals, and supporters say those goals cannot be met without addressing how much people drive. SB 2246, they argue, is about planning — not punishment — and about expanding alternatives rather than restricting choices.Planning ... or punishment?The bill also establishes advisory councils and requires state agencies, including the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, to factor VMT reduction into project development and funding decisions. In theory, this means greater emphasis on public transit, transit-oriented development, walking and biking infrastructure, and land-use policies designed to shorten commutes. Supporters emphasize that the legislation does not ban cars, restrict ownership, or mandate lifestyle changes. It simply provides a framework for offering residents more options.The practical implications, however, deserve closer scrutiny — especially outside the state’s urban core. In greater Boston, where transit access is relatively dense, reducing car trips may be feasible for some commuters. In suburban and rural areas, the reality is very different. Many residents drive long distances to work because there are no viable alternatives. Families juggle school, child care, medical appointments, sports, and jobs across multiple towns. Small businesses rely on vehicles for deliveries, service calls, and daily operations. For these drivers, “driving less” is not a preference — it’s a constraint imposed by geography.Future restrictionsCritics also worry that while SB 2246 does not cap individual mileage today, it lays the groundwork for future restrictions. Once statewide VMT reduction targets are established, pressure will mount to meet them. That pressure could influence everything from road funding and parking availability to congestion pricing, zoning decisions, and the collection of driving data. Even without explicit mandates, policy signals matter. When reducing driving becomes a formal state objective, personal mobility inevitably becomes something to be managed.There is also the issue of trust and execution. Massachusetts has struggled for years to maintain and modernize its public transportation system. The MBTA’s well-documented reliability problems have eroded confidence among riders and taxpayers alike. Promising expanded transit options while existing systems remain fragile leaves many residents skeptical that alternatives to driving will arrive quickly — or equitably.RELATED: EPA to California: Don’t mess with America’s trucks Bob Riha, Jr./Getty ImagesNational trendFrom a broader policy standpoint, SB 2246 reflects a national trend. States and cities across the country are experimenting with VMT reduction as a climate strategy, encouraged by federal guidance and funding priorities. The premise is that cleaner vehicles alone are not enough and that total driving must decline to meet emissions targets. Whether that assumption holds as vehicle technology evolves — including hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and increasingly efficient internal combustion engines — remains an open question.Supporters argue that thoughtful planning now can prevent more disruptive measures later. By gradually reshaping transportation and development patterns, they believe emissions can be reduced without dramatic lifestyle changes. Opponents counter that history suggests incremental planning often leads to more intrusive policies — especially when initial targets prove difficult to meet.What makes SB 2246 significant is not what it does immediately, but what it signals about the future of transportation policy. It reframes driving not simply as a personal choice or economic necessity, but as a behavior the state has an interest in reducing.As the bill moves to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers will have to weigh climate goals against economic realities, regional disparities, and personal freedom.Massachusetts residents should pay close attention. SB 2246 may not tell you how many miles you can drive today — but it helps define who gets to decide how transportation works tomorrow.