A Salvadoran journalist who built a big social media following by documenting immigration raids may be facing deportation. Mario Guevara, who was arrested during a “No Kings” protest near Atlanta last Saturday, was transferred to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody early Wednesday morning, a spokesperson for ICE in Atlanta confirmed to CNN. Although a state judge had granted him release without bail, ICE authorities requested that he remain detained due to his immigration...

Countering racism with flair.

The annual Reuters Digital News Report found that 54 percent of the world’s population is turning to social media platforms (such as Facebook and X) rather than traditional outlets to get their news. (READ MORE: My Job as a Journalist Is Going to a Bot)  On this episode of The Spectator P.M. Podcast, hosts Ellie Gardey Holmes and Lyrah Margo discuss the future of news and the implications of social media on journalism. Ellie and Lyrah discuss their personal reservations with cable news outlets and how they utilize social media. They also explain how conservative outlets like The American Spectator can continue to stand out and remain a strong source for information. (RELATED: The Democrat-Media Codependency)  Tune in to hear their discussion! Watch the episode here. Read Ellie and Lyrah’s writing here and here. Listen to the Spectator P.M. Podcast on Spotify. Watch the Spectator P.M. Podcast on Rumble. The post <i>The Spectator P.M.</i> Ep. 147: Will Social Media Hurt <i>The American Spectator</i>? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

In 1990-91, the United States sent a large military force to Saudi Arabia and subsequently to Kuwait and Iraq to defeat Iraq’s occupation of Kuwait. Two years later, Islamists reacted to our “desecration” of their land by setting off a bomb at the World Trade Center in New York. Ten years later, Islamists hijacked airplanes in the United States and used them as weapons to destroy the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York killing more than 2,000 people, attacking and damaging the Pentagon, killing more Americans, and attempting to destroy either the Capitol or the White House in Washington — an attempt foiled by the courageous passengers of Flight 93. Those Islamist attacks on September 11, 2001, resulted in the futile, endless, and costly wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Global War on Terror. As the Trump administration ponders joining Israel’s war with Iran, it should factor in its consideration such unintended consequences of war. The lead-up to the first Gulf War involved extensive debate in Congress, which passed a resolution authorizing the president to use whatever force was necessary to evict Iraq from Kuwait. The United Nations passed a similar resolution. But there was no congressional declaration of war. (RELATED: Why Democrats Are Dodging the Iran Debate) Similarly, prior to the Afghan and Iraq wars, Congress passed resolutions authorizing the president to wage war but refrained from actually declaring war against Iraq and our terrorist enemies. In the current Israel–Iran War, there has been no formal debate by Congress on whether this country should join Israel in going to war against Iran. Congress once again has abandoned its constitutional responsibility to determine whether this nation should go to war. (RELATED: When American Power Meets Jewish Survival) Indeed, the last time Congress declared war was after Japan’s attack at Pearl Harbor in World War II, yet since then, we have fought wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (twice), Afghanistan, and a Global War on Terror. One would hope that the people’s representatives would take greater care before allowing a president to commit this country to wage war, given the reality of the unintended consequences of war. A few congressional voices have raised this concern, but most of our legislators seem to be content to let the president alone decide on whether to go to war against Iran. (RELATED: Avoiding the Third World Wars) In his compelling study of what went wrong in the Vietnam War, Col. Harry Summers noted that a key reason was that President Lyndon Johnson “made a conscious decision not to mobilize the American people — to invoke the national will — for the Vietnam War.” He and the “limited war theorists,” Summers wrote, “excluded the American people from the strategic equation.” Our leaders operated under “the delusion that we could disregard not only the form of a declaration of war but also its substance — the mobilization of the American people.” Defense Secretary Robert McNamara even argued that “[t]he greatest contribution Vietnam is making — right or wrong is beside the point — is that it is developing an ability in the United States to fight a limited war, to go to war without the necessity of arousing the public ire.” As events later demonstrated, right or wrong was not beside the point. Summers concluded that the “failure to invoke the national will was one of the major strategic failures of the Vietnam War,” because “a declaration of war makes the prosecution of the war a shared responsibility of both the government and the American people.” The great theorist of war, Carl von Clausewitz, emphasized the important relationship in all wars between the government, the armed services, and the people. The initiation and prosecution of America’s involvement in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror removed one aspect — arguably the most important — of Clausewitz’s trinity: the people. As commander-in-chief, the president has the power to use the armed forces to repel attacks and resist invasions, but in the current Israel–Iran war, we have not been attacked or invaded. If we go to war against Iran — and bombing the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordo would be an act of war — it will be a war of choice and should constitutionally result from a congressional declaration of war. That, however, is unlikely. President Trump has made it clear that he alone will decide whether America’s armed forces directly join this war. The people — through their representatives — will again be left out of the decision. The supporters of an American strike on Iran’s Fordo nuclear complex claim that no American ground forces will be necessary and our involvement will be limited to striking the Fordo facility from the air. But this claim ignores the unintended consequences of war. What Clausewitz termed “friction” is always present in war. Plans and operations go wrong for a variety of reasons. Remember the debacle of Jimmy Carter’s Iran hostage rescue mission on April 24, 1980: Navy helicopters took off from the aircraft carrier Nimitz in the Arabian Sea, traveled 600 miles to meet up with C-130 transport planes in the Iranian desert. An unexpected sandstorm damaged aircraft and hampered visibility, and several crew members became sick. Carter aborted the mission, and during the departure from the desert, a helicopter crashed into a C-130, killing eight members of the rescue team. But even a successful American strike will have consequences that our leaders better think about: Iran trying to close the Strait of Hormuz; Iran targeting our many bases and military personnel in the region through missile attacks or terrorist attacks; Iranian “sleeper cells” in the United States carrying out acts of sabotage, terror, or assassination. Any of these actions on Iran’s part may lead to the sending of American ground troops to Iran, a country of 95 million people with armed forces much more powerful than Iraq’s in 2003. And what if we and the Israelis are successful in bringing about regime change — which many neoconservatives in this country are urging Trump to achieve? What comes next? Do our armed forces occupy parts of Iran until a stable government can be formed? What happens if, as in Iraq, an insurgency resists U.S. occupying forces? A nuclear-armed Iran posed an existential threat to Israel. Israel’s attack was justified. But Iran does not pose an existential threat to the United States. And experts say that Israel has already significantly set back Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and probably has the capability to render the Fordo nuclear complex unusable. So why do we need to get directly involved in this war? These are questions and issues that the Trump administration and Congress should be discussing and debating before this nation goes to war. READ MORE from Francis P. Sempa: Avoiding the Third World Wars Obama Trusted Iran — Israel Didn’t The Two Americas The post The Unintended Consequences of War appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Has the United States become what President Donald Trump recently condemned? Can the president fight any war he wishes? Can Congress fund any war it chooses? Are there constitutional and legal requirements that must first be met before war is waged? These questions should be central to a debate over the U.S. involvement in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran. Sadly, there has been no great debate. The mainstream media are mouthing what the CIA is telling them, and only a few websites and podcasts are challenging the government’s reckless, immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional wars. Here is the backstory. All power in the federal government comes from the Constitution and from no other source. Congress is restrained by the Constitution and by treaties to which the U.S. is a party. Congress cannot legally declare war on Russia, Gaza, or Iran since there are no militarily grounded reasons for doing so. Russia poses no threat to American national security, persons, or property; nor do Gaza or Iran. Moreover, the U.S. has no treaty with Ukraine or Israel that triggers an American military obligation. Under the Constitution, only Congress can declare war on a nation or group.The last time it did so was to initiate American involvement in World War II. But Congress has given away limited authority to presidents and permitted them to fight undeclared wars — such as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and President George W. Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Congress has not only not declared war on Russia or Gaza or Iran; it has not authorized the use of American forces in those countries. Yet, it has given the president a blank check and authorized him to spend it on military equipment for Ukraine and Israel however he sees fit. President Donald Trump came into office promising to end America’s forever wars. Instead, the United States continues to fund a war his predecessor entered into in Ukraine, the goal of which was to eliminate Russian troops from Ukraine and Crimea and Russian President Vladimir Putin from office. None of these objectives is realistically attainable. In Gaza, the Israeli goal has been to remove by death or force all Palestinians from their ancestral land. That goal, which is morally reprehensible and militarily unfeasible, has produced more than 55,000 civilian deaths — none of this to the benefit of the U.S. In Iran, the president lulled the Iranians into believing that the U.S. was seriously negotiating with them, while U.S. intelligence assets planned and helped execute the Israeli attacks on Tehran last week, some of which murdered the negotiators. Does Iran, which U.S. and Israeli intelligence have concluded has no nuclear weapons as Israel does, pose the slightest threat to U.S. national security? It does not. We don’t know how many American intelligence officers are in Ukraine, Gaza, or Iran. But we know that they are there. During Trump’s first term in office, the CIA built 20 facilities for its officers and agents across Ukraine. We also know that they are involved in hostilities, since much of the U.S. hardware used against Russia and Gaza and in defense of Israel requires American know-how to operate and maintain. Are American intelligence officers killing Russian soldiers, Gazan civilians, and Iranian officials? The White House prefers not to answer, yet none of this has been authorized by Congress. Now back to the Constitution. The War Powers Resolution, which requires presidential notification to Congress of the use of American military force, is unconstitutional because it consists of Congress giving away one of its core functions — declaring war. The Supreme Court has characterized delegating away core functions as violative of the separation of powers and thus unconstitutional. Moreover, that statute only applies to the military. It does not constrain or require reporting of the use of intelligence personnel to fight wars. Nevertheless, Trump has not informed Congress of his intentions to use American troops violently. Yet, he has used the Navy, the Air Force, and the CIA to attack civilians in Yemen — a war crime — and he has soldiers out of uniform in Ukraine, so as to perpetuate the Biden-era deception that American boots are not there on the ground. Don’t be surprised if Trump gives War Powers Act notice secretly to the Gang of Eight. That’s the Congress within the Congress. It consists of the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and Senate with whom the president legally shares secrets. Just as Congress cannot delegate away its war-making powers to the president, it cannot delegate them away to the Gang of Eight. The concept of the Gang of Eight is antithetical to democratic values. Informing them of whatever violence the president is up to is done under an oath of secrecy. What kind of democracy operates and kills in secret? The various treaties to which the U.S. is a party limit its war-making to that which is defensive, proportional, and reasonable. So, if a foreign power is about to strike — like on 9/11, while the government slept — the president can strike first in order to protect the U.S. Beyond an imminent attack, the basis for war must be real, the adversary’s anti-U.S. military behavior must be grave and imminent, the objective of war must be clear and attainable, and the means must be proportionate to the threat. Have Russia, Gaza, or Iran seriously threatened any grave acts against the U.S.? They have not. Last month, in Saudi Arabia, Trump condemned the neocons’ forever wars and Western military intervention in the Middle East. We now know he didn’t mean what he said. We have reposed the Constitution for safekeeping into the hands of those who ignore it. The consequences are deaths of innocents and the undermining of constitutional norms. And the U.S. continues to be what Trump verbally condemned. To learn more about Judge Andrew Napolitano, visit https://JudgeNap.com. COPYRIGHT 2025 ANDREW P. NAPOLITANO. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM READ MORE: Why Democrats Are Dodging the Iran Debate Trump Isn’t Looking for a Ceasefire. He Wants a No-Nukes Iran. America First: Keep Our Boys Out of It, but Shoot Down Iranian Ballistics and Drop a MOAB or Two The post Trump, War, and the Constitution appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

from Sarah Westall: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

by Mac Slavo, SHTF Plan: Forty percent of Americans expect a civil war to break out within the next decade. In a poll, which surveyed 3,375 adults, almost half were convinced that a civil war was “somewhat” or “very” likely within the next decade. The poll, conducted by YouGov and released on Tuesday, underscores widespread anxiety over […]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a twice-yearly injection developed to prevent HIV. The first and only of its kind drug, manufactured by Gilead Sciences, will be sold under the name Yeztugo (lenacapavir). WATCH: #GileadNews: The FDA has approved our injectable HIV-1 prevention medication, making it the first and only twice-yearly #HIV prevention option in the U.S. This approval is helping to usher in the future of prevention as we work to help end the epidemic. https://t.co/wGacaduPRn pic.twitter.com/BqVToUqrtX — Gilead Sciences (@GileadSciences) June 18, 2025 Per Gilead Sciences: Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Nasdaq: GILD) today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Yeztugo® (lenacapavir)—the company’s injectable HIV-1 capsid inhibitor—as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to reduce the risk of sexually acquired HIV in adults and adolescents weighing at least 35kg, making it the first and only twice-yearly option available in the United States for people who need or want PrEP. Data show that ≥99.9% of participants who received Yeztugo in the Phase 3 PURPOSE 1 and PURPOSE 2 trials remained HIV negative. “This is a historic day in the decades-long fight against HIV. Yeztugo is one of the most important scientific breakthroughs of our time and offers a very real opportunity to help end the HIV epidemic,” said Daniel O’Day, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Gilead Sciences. “This is a medicine that only needs to be given twice a year and has shown remarkable outcomes in clinical studies, which means it could transform HIV prevention. Gilead scientists have made it their life’s work to end HIV and now, with the FDA approval of Yeztugo and in collaboration with our many partners, we can help to make that goal a reality.” The first PrEP medication, which was also developed by Gilead, was approved in the U.S. in 2012. However, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that, in 2022 (the most recent year with available data), only about 1 in 3 (36%) people in the U.S. who met the CDC’s eligibility criteria for PrEP were prescribed a form of PrEP. CDC data show that all populations in the U.S. are not yet using PrEP at rates that could end transmission of the virus at the population level, with particular gaps for women, Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino people, and people in the U.S. South. Data also show that barriers including adherence challenges, stigma and low awareness of existing PrEP options—by both healthcare providers and consumers—contribute to this low uptake of PrEP across multiple populations. The potential impact of this limited uptake, adherence and access is underscored by the fact that, in 2023, more than 100 people were diagnosed with HIV every day in the U.S. FDA Greenlights Twice-A-Year HIV Prevention Drughttps://t.co/wxILsohVki pic.twitter.com/bd1uXkjp2i — Forbes (@Forbes) June 18, 2025 From the Associated Press: While a vaccine to prevent HIV still is needed, some experts say the shot made by Gilead Sciences — a drug called lenacapavir — could be the next best thing. It nearly eliminated new infections in two groundbreaking studies of people at high risk, better than daily preventive pills they can forget to take. “This really has the possibility of ending HIV transmission,” said Greg Millett, public policy director at amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research. Condoms help guard against HIV infection if used properly but what’s called PrEP — regularly using preventive medicines such as the daily pills or a different shot given every two months — is increasingly important. Lenacapavir’s six-month protection makes it the longest-lasting type, an option that could attract people wary of more frequent doctor visits or stigma from daily pills. But upheaval in U.S. healthcare — including cuts to public health agencies and Medicaid — and slashing of American foreign aid to fight HIV are clouding the prospects. Millett said “gaping holes in the system” in the U.S. and globally “are going to make it difficult for us to make sure we not only get lenacapavir into people’s bodies but make sure they come back” twice a year to keep up their protection. Gilead’s drug already is sold to treat HIV under the brand name Sunlenca. The prevention dose will be sold under a different name, Yeztugo. It’s given as two injections under the skin of the abdomen, leaving a small “depot” of medication to slowly absorb into the body. People must test negative for HIV before getting their twice-a-year dose, Gilead warned. It only prevents HIV transmission — it doesn’t block other sexually transmitted diseases. Some researchers who helped test the shot advise cold packs to counter injection-site pain.

The Justice Department sued Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear and state officials for a policy the Trump administration says unlawfully allows illegal immigrants living in the Bluegrass State access to in-state college tuition. In a lawsuit filed in the Lexington-based Eastern District federal court, the Trump administration alleges the regulation unconstitutionally discriminates against American citizens. “No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said, according to Fox News. DOJ Sues Kentucky Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear for Offering Reduced In-State Tuition to Illegal Aliens https://t.co/7WcwcLgUT4 — Steve Ferguson (@lsferguson) June 19, 2025 Fox News reports: When reached for comment, a representative for Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear said he had no role in creating the policy and that it is enforced by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (KCPE) which is an independent agency. “We haven’t been served with this lawsuit and had no advance notice, nor any prior discussion with the Department of Justice about it,” Beshear spokesperson Crystal Staley told Fox News Digital. Staley said the regulation was issued “before 2010” and that KCPE, not Beshear, has sole authority to determine tuition-related residency requirements. “The governor has no authority to alter CPE’s regulations and should not be a party to the lawsuit.” Melissa Young, a KCPE spokesperson, said the agency just found out about the lawsuit on Tuesday morning and that they are not prepared to offer detailed comment. “This unconstitutional regulation turns our universities into sanctuary cities, costing Kentuckians an estimated $5 million annually to benefit hundreds of illegal aliens—while denying the same opportunity to out-of-state U.S. citizens,” Kentucky state Rep. T.J. Roberts said. “I introduced HB 352 to BAN in-state tuition for illegals and stop Kentucky Universities from harboring illegals. Thank you to @tichenor4ky and the Kentucky Student Rights Coalition for fighting for this bill. While it didn’t make it across the finish line, we sent a message and WASHINGTON DC HEARD US LOUD AND CLEAR!” he continued. “Now, the Trump Administration and the Department of Justice have stepped in with a federal lawsuit filed yesterday against Beshear and the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education, validating the fight I took on right after I got elected,” he added. I Exposed Beshear’s Tuition Handouts to Illegal Migrants – Now the Trump Administration is Suing Beshear to put an end to it! Back in November, I was the one who first exposed the outrageous policy under Governor Andy Beshear’s regime that forces Kentucky taxpayers to… pic.twitter.com/Pn1NMLNqSd — TJ Roberts (@realTJRoberts) June 18, 2025 Per WHAS 11: The U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit says the regulation violates federal immigration law by enabling undocumented students to qualify for the lower tuition rate at Kentucky’s public colleges and universities, while American citizens from other states pay higher tuition to attend the same schools. “Federal law prohibits aliens not lawfully present in the United States from getting in-state tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens. There are no exceptions,” the suit said. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in a federal court in Kentucky, follows a similar action by Trump’s administration in another red state as part of its efforts to crack down on immigration. A federal judge blocked a Texas law that had given college students without legal residency access to reduced in-state tuition. That order only applied to Texas but was seen as an opening for conservatives to challenge similar laws in two dozen states. Such laws were intended to help “Dreamers,” or young adults without legal status, to be eligible for in-state tuition if they meet certain residency criteria. “The Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas, and we look forward to fighting in Kentucky to protect the rights of American citizens,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. The lawsuits in both states follow recent executive orders signed by Trump designed to stop any state or local laws or regulations the administration feels discriminate against legal residents.