The star's mugshot was reportedly not taken

Cracker Barrel bad

'So-called friends'

'A welcome development in this saga'

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Democrat Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s net worth reportedly skyrocketed to upward of $30 million in 2024 after claiming she’s “barely worth thousands” earlier this year. Omar and her husband Tim Mynett’s May 14 financial disclosure shows a 3,500% increase in net worth from Mynett’s two businesses, as was first reported by The Washington Free Beacon on Monday. This increase in assets comes months after the far-left House “squad” member claimed speculation she was a secret millionaire was “disinformation” in February. Mynett’s venture capital business, Rose Lake Capital, was the source of the largest gains, with Omar valuing the company’s assets between $5 million and $25 million in 2024, according to the disclosure. Despite the gains, the income from the firm is listed on the disclosure as “none.” The year prior, the company had less than $1,000 in assets. There is still $60 billion in assets under management, according to Rose Lake Capital’s website. The disclosure lists Mynett’s other business, eStCru LLC, a winery in Santa Rosa, California, with assets between $15,000 and $50,000 in 2023, which leaped to between $1 million and $5 million in 2024. The congresswoman sharply denounced online speculation about her financial status to Business Insider in February, calling the claims “categorically false.” “Since getting elected, there has been a coordinated right-wing disinformation campaign claiming all sorts of wild things, including the ridiculous claim I am worth millions of dollars which is categorically false,” she told the outlet. “I am a working mom with student loan debt. Unlike some of my colleagues—and similar to most Americans—I am not a millionaire and am raising a family while maintaining a residence in both Minneapolis and D.C., which are among the most expensive housing markets in the country.” The financial disclosure includes roughly $100,000 in student loan and credit card debt Omar owes. She also has a credit union savings account containing between $1,000 and $15,000, and another $15,000 to $50,000 in a retirement fund from serving in the Minnesota state Legislature, per the disclosure. The Democrat was born in Somalia and moved to the U.S. as a refugee in 1995. She has earned the standard congressional salary of $174,000 since being elected in 2018. Omar’s office did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post Ilhan Omar’s Net Worth Reportedly Soars After Calling Millionaire Claims ‘Ridiculous’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As lawmakers return to the Capitol after the long August recess, it appears the Jeffrey Epstein controversy just won’t die. On Monday, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., announced he would file a petition to force a House vote on a bill introduced by him and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to compel the Justice Department to release additional files on the now-deceased convicted sex offender. Democrats have sought to weaponize the Epstein transparency issue against President Donald Trump’s administration, while some Republicans who have demanded the release of the files for years support a vote on the bill. “I am in D.C., and I will file the discharge petition today, Sept. 2nd, at approximately 2 p.m. when Congress officially returns from the August recess,” wrote Massie on the social media platform X. “At that point, we can begin collecting the 218 signatures necessary to force a vote on binding legislation to release the Epstein files.” I am in DC and I will file the discharge petition today, Sept 2nd, at approximately 2pm when Congress officially returns from the August recess. At that point we can begin collecting the 218 signatures necessary to force a vote on binding legislation to release the Epstein files.— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) September 2, 2025 Massie and Khanna’s discharge petition would force consideration of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a resolution that currently has 47 co-sponsors. This resolution, if passed, would then initiate a vote on releasing documents. A discharge petition, traditionally a tool of the minority party, is a relatively rarely used measure, ordinarily intended to bypass House and committee leadership. Eleven of the Epstein Files Transparency Act’s sponsors are Republicans, with the remaining 36—including the District of Columbia’s nonvoting congressional delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton—being Democrats. As he left for recess in late July, Massie told reporters that the issue would not go away. “Over the August recess, I think momentum will build for transparency. I don’t think this is going to go away,” he told reporters. “We’ll get, I believe, every Democrat and at least a dozen Republicans who want transparency and justice [to support this bill].” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. (Jemal Countess/Getty Images) If support holds strong for the petition, then Massie could have the signatures necessary to force consideration of his bill.  Massie is set to speak at the Capitol alongside Khanna and a number of Epstein accusers on Wednesday morning, at which the congressmen will likely demand a vote on the bill.  The Washington Post, citing an anonymous “senior leadership aide,” has reported that these accusers will also meet with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) Massie and Khanna’s continued push for consideration of their resolution comes after the White House and House Republican leadership have taken additional steps to provide satisfaction on the Epstein issue. The White House, responding to a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee, has transferred previously unreleased files to the panel. “I want to commend the Department of Justice,” Comer said in a recent interview on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” program. “[Attorney General] Pam Bondi has started turning over those documents to the House Oversight Committee. I subpoenaed those documents. The Trump administration is cooperating with us.” House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) During the August recess, the administration also released transcripts of an interview by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche of Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s associate and now-imprisoned accomplice. Additionally, House leadership has scheduled a vote on a bill directing the Oversight Committee to “continue its ongoing investigation into the possible mismanagement of the federal government’s investigation” into Epstein and Maxwell. Massie responded to the bill Tuesday on X, calling it a “meaningless vote to provide political cover for those members who don’t support our bipartisan legislation to force the release of the Epstein files.” The post House Duo Resurrects Epstein Discharge Petition Effort appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Liberals Discover That the BRICS Exist, Blame Trump

Democrats at the Crossroads in Virginia

As Justice Amy Coney Barrett releases her new memoir, CNN Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic couldn’t help but trash the part of the book where Barrett defends overturning Roe v. Wade. On Tuesday’s The Situation Room, Biskupic claimed that Barrett’s argument that Roe undermined the democratic process was bad because the Constitution is to be interpreted to protect minority rights, a claim that is not only not accurate but also one that Biskupic only seems to be applying to abortion. Biskupic began with the suggestion that the country will survive or fall in the Trump era based on Barrett’s rulings, “She’s arguably the most important justice on a Court at such a crucial time in America, testing how much it will check President Trump's effort to really remake the country.”     Getting to Roe, Biskupic notes, “You know that one of the foundational principles of the Supreme Court is loyalty to precedent. And this was a 1973 ruling that they were tossing out. And she said that that decision should not even have existed in the first place, because it did not rise to the level of a true constitutional right.” Reading from the book, Biskupic continued, “She said that constitutional rights should be implicit. Constitutional rights should be embedded in American history. And here's what she said, ‘The evidence does not show that the American people have traditionally considered the right to obtain an abortion, so fundamental to liberty that it ‘goes without saying’ in the Constitution. In fact, the evidence cuts in the opposite direction. Abortion not only lacked long-standing protection in American law, it had long been forbidden.’” She then retorted, “In fact, what she was saying is it sort of flouted the democratic process. But as you know, the Constitution is there to be interpreted to protect minority rights, not to necessarily adhere to the will of the American majority.” No, the Constitution is to be interpreted based on what it says. Sometimes the democratic majority gets its way, and sometimes the minority is protected from that majority. It all depends on what the Constitution says about the specific issue. Additionally, when the Court hears cases involving Democrat-run bureaucracies, Biskupic tends to believe they should be able to do whatever they want. Here is a transcript for the September 2 show: CNN The Situation Room 9/2/2025 10:44 AM ET JOAN BISKUPIC: She’s arguably the most important justice on a Court at such a crucial time in America, testing how much it will check President Trump's effort to really remake the country.  Roe v. Wade, you know, ensured a national right to abortion. And it was in place for nearly 50 years. When the justices rolled it back in 2022, Justice Amy Coney Barrett signed on to Sam Alito's opinion but did not write anything separately. So, this is the first time that she's actually saying why she did that and what she talks about is why the Court was permitted in this case to turn its back on precedent. You know that one of the foundational principles of the Supreme Court is loyalty to precedent. And this was a 1973 ruling that they were tossing out. And she said that that decision should not even have existed in the first place, because it did not rise to the level of a true constitutional right. She said that constitutional rights should be implicit. Constitutional rights should be embedded in American history. And here's what she said, “The evidence does not show that the American people have traditionally considered the right to obtain an abortion, so fundamental to liberty that it ‘goes without saying’ in the Constitution. In fact, the evidence cuts in the opposite direction. Abortion not only lacked long-standing protection in American law, it had long been forbidden.” In fact, what she was saying is it sort of flouted the democratic process. But as you know, the Constitution is there to be interpreted to protect minority rights, not to necessarily adhere to the will of the American majority.

A federal judge appointed by President Biden said conflicting stories have given her no choice but to block a round of deportation orders. A lawsuit was filed after 1 a.m. on Sunday by the legal activist group National Immigration Law Center. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said she received notice of the complaint at 2 a.m. and subsequently called the U.S. attorney's office and left a voice message at 3:43 a.m. The judge left word with federal authorities asking for a hearing before she issued an emergency motion that halted the deportation of a group of 76 illegal immigrants. She even moved the hearing up by three hours when she discovered the deportations were already under way.'I have conflicting narratives from both sides here.'The issue, however, was that these illegal immigrants were minors who were set to be reunified with their families in Guatemala."The Court ORDERS that [Homeland Security] cease any ongoing efforts to transfer, repatriate, remove, or otherwise facilitate the transport of any Plaintiff or member of the putative class from the United States," Sooknanan wrote, per ABC News.Sooknanan also called it "surprising" that the government was "attempting to remove minor children from the country in the wee hours of the morning on a holiday weekend."Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign claimed the illegal minors are actually undergoing a repatriation process and that "all of these children have parents or guardians in Guatemala who have requested their return," according to Fox News.However, the judge claimed that she has been receiving conflicting stories that have forced her hand.RELATED: Tom Homan says Trump administration has located 23,000 of the 300,000 migrant children lost under Biden administration "I have conflicting narratives from both sides here on whether what is happening here is an attempt to reunite these children with their parents or just return these children to Guatemala where they face harm," the judge stated.Sooknanan said that in the court filings, the children themselves claimed that they were "afraid of going back to Guatemala" over a fear of abuse or neglect from their family members. One child also allegedly said their parents received a "strange phone call" about being deported back to Guatemala along with other minors.Ensign's explanation was far more simple, claiming that the government of Guatemala had requested the return of the children, all of whom have "parents or guardians in Guatemala who are requesting" that they be brought back."[The] United States government is trying to facilitate the return of these children to their parents or guardians from whom they have been separated," Ensign said.RELATED: Trump prepares massive immigration enforcement in sanctuary cityJudge Sparkle Sooknanap is blocking flights to *reunify* Guatemalan children with their families.Now these children have to go to shelters. This is disgusting and immoral. https://t.co/vIunZV6YFL— Tricia McLaughlin (@TriciaOhio) September 1, 2025In a post on X, Dept. of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the judge's order "disgusting and immoral," while oppositely, the NILC's Efrén Olivares called it a "dark and dangerous moment when our government chooses to target orphaned 10-year-olds."After some of the children had already boarded planes or had arrived to the planes on buses in Harlingen and El Paso, Texas — ready for deportation — they are now in custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.In total, the judge's order blocks the deportation of about 700 Guatemalan minors.Homeland Security did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!