The Trump administration is fighting to block a global carbon tax that a United Nations (UN) agency is attempting to pass quietly this week. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN body based in London, is meeting this week to adopt a so-called “Net-Zero Framework,” which would levy significant penalties on carbon dioxide emissions from […]

While Democrats describe their nominee for Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger, as a moderate, she voted for a slate of unpopular leftist causes in Congress, from opposing voter ID requirements to amnesty for illegal aliens, from men in girls’ bathrooms to profligate federal spending. “I have tried to get ‘passionate pragmatist’ to become a thing,” Spanberger told The Washington Post late last year when discussing her image as a problem-solver who can work with Republicans. “Too many politicians talk when they should listen and divide instead of unite,” she said in her first TV ad of the cycle. Spanberger’s campaign shared a Wall Street Journal report describing her as the “anti-Mamdani,” a moderate counterpoint to Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic Socialist candidate who won the Democratic Party primary for New York Mayor. While the Virginia Democrat may not be as radical as the Gothamite, critics say she’s no moderate, either. “Abigail Spanberger is not the moderate she pretends to be,” Stephanie Kreuz, director of sentinel strategy at Heritage Action, told The Daily Signal. “You don’t have to take my word for it—Spanberger’s record speaks for itself.” “Abigail Spanberger voted for legislation to allow men to access women’s bathroom and locker rooms, opposed widely supported voter ID laws, denied law enforcement tools to keep violent illegal aliens off Virginia’s streets, supported removing protections for underage women against rapists and traffickers, prevented basic health and safety standards for abortions, and attacked Virginians’ Second Amendment rights,” Kreuz added. The Heritage Action organizer also faulted Spanberger for having “voted for trillions in unnecessary COVID spending that has driven up inflation and made everything from groceries to buying a vehicle more expensive.” “Spanberger is in lock-step with the extreme Leftists in her party—and far too Left for Virginia,” Kreuz concluded. Rave Reviews From the Left Leftist groups have given Spanberger high ratings for her votes in Congress. Americans for Democratic Action rated her 75% for 2020 and 2021, for example. The LGBTQ activist group Human Rights Campaign gave her a 100% rating for 2019-2022, and the pro-abortion Planned Parenthood Action Fund also gave her a perfect score for 2019-2024. She received perfect scores from the American Civil Liberties Union (2019-2022) and from unions like the National Education Association (2019-2024), and the American Federation of Government Employees (2019-2023). Unsurprisingly for a Democrat, she does not rank well with conservative groups like Heritage Action (she scored between 0% and 10%), Americans for Prosperity (between 0% and 19%), or the American Conservative Union (between 3% and 11%). She also received occasional zero ratings from the pro-energy American Energy Alliance, the socially conservative Family Research Council Action, and the anti-tax Club for Growth. Men in Girls’ Bathrooms While Spanberger has claimed it is a “lie” to say she voted for men to have access to girls’ bathrooms, she repeatedly sponsored and voted for legislation that would require it. Spanberger co-sponsored HR 5, “The Equality Act,” in 2019, 2021, and 2023. She voted for the legislation each time the House considered it. The Equality Act would amend federal civil rights legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, inserting new language into the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which desegregated public schools. Federal Spending While Spanberger is running on a platform of making Virginia more affordable, she voted for trillions in spending during the COVID-19 pandemic and in its aftermath, a massive spending surge that arguably triggered the inflation of the Biden years. She supported the $1.9 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act in March 2020 (it passed by voice vote so there is no record of her vote); a supplemental funding package with $900 billion in COVID-19 spending in December 2020; and the $2.1 trillion American Rescue Plan Act in February 2021. These COVID-era bills cost nearly $5 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Critics have claimed only a small fraction of the funds went to health care. She also voted for the Inflation Reduction Act, which Biden later celebrated as “the largest climate investment in history.” While Democrats at the time said the bill would pay down the deficit and combat inflation, a Cato Institute study estimated that the bill will cost between $936 billion and $1.97 trillion over the next ten years. Spanberger also voted for the November 2021 infrastructure law, which authorized more than $500 billion of direct spending and tax breaks. Opposing Voter ID Polls repeatedly show that most Americans support requiring voters to present proof of identification to vote. An October 2024 Gallup poll found that 84% of Americans support voter ID, for example. Yet Spanberger repeatedly voted for legislation that would undermine such a requirement. She repeatedly voted for H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” which would have eviscerated state voter ID laws, have prevented states from updating their voter registration rolls, forced states to automatically register voters, and set up a public funding program for candidates running for Congress. She voted for H.R. 4, the “John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,” which would have allowed the Justice Department to veto state voter ID requirements. Last year, she voted against the SAVE Act, which would prohibit states from registering people to vote in federal elections unless they first prove they are American citizens. Opposing Border Security During both the first Trump administration and under President Joe Biden, as the country experienced an influx of millions of illegal aliens, Spanberger repeatedly voted for legislation to grant legal status to illegal aliens and against legislation to secure the border. In 2019, she voted for H.R. 5038, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which would have created a new pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens who work on farms. She repeatedly voted to codify President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which aimed to give amnesty to illegal aliens. She voted against H.R. 2, the Secure the Border Act, which would have beefed up border security under the Biden administration. Gun Control Spanberger also repeatedly voted for restrictions on Second Amendment rights. She repeatedly voted for the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act,” which would have required universal background checks for firearm ownership. She voted for the “Assault Weapons Ban Act,” which would arbitrarily restrict firearm ownership by banning “high-capacity magazines” for civilians. Abortion Spanberger has also taken a strong stance against limits on abortion. She voted for the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would have repealed state laws regulating abortion, such as informed consent requirements and parental involvement, and would have directed federal tax dollars to support abortion. She repeatedly refused to sign a discharge petition to bring the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to the House floor. George Floyd Act Finally, while Spanberger presents herself as an advocate for law enforcement, she voted for the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act,” which would have put police at increased risk of harm when carrying out their duties. The Spanberger campaign did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time. The post Is Spanberger the ‘Anti-Mamdani’? Not So Fast… appeared first on The Daily Signal.

More than two weeks into the federal government shutdown, Republicans are intent on hammering their message home to pressure Democrats into voting to end the impasse. The chairman of the House Republican Conference, Rep. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., a member of Republican leadership tasked with coordinating the team’s messaging, has been appearing alongside top Republicans almost every single day of the shutdown, blasting Democrats for voting against a stopgap spending continuing resolution. McClain told The Daily Signal on a press call Wednesday that she hopes that bombarding Democrats in these press conferences can create some movement in the shutdown standoff. “We have the facts. We don’t talk in hyperboles. We talk about the actual facts of the matter. And I think we have faith in the American people, that if we are transparent with the American people, if we tell the American people the truth and not just headlines, that the American people will understand why this is happening, or why the government is not opening,” McClain said.  Democrats “are putting $1.5 trillion and taking it back into the budget,” she said. “I think if the American people understand the truth, they will put pressure on their Democratic senators to stop putting [illegal immigrants] over them and actually open up the government. So, that’s the goal with the press conferences.” Throughout the shutdown, Democrats have put the focus on health care, demanding the extension of boosted COVID-era premium tax credits and the repeal of all of the cost-saving health care provisions in the July budget reconciliation bill. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images) As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told the press shortly before the shutdown began, Democrats are “making this debate a debate on health care.” McClain was joined on the press call by members of the House Freedom Caucus, a fiscally conservative faction of House Republicans. Many of them said they welcome Democrats making the shutdown a debate about health care. “I am delighted with the Democrats trying to put the focus on Obamacare, the COVID-era temporary subsidies … . Remember, Prohibition was the law of the land for 13 years, and then it was repealed. And I got to tell you, now Obamacare is older than Prohibition was. It’s time to take a good, hard, serious look at it,” said Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas., was similarly dismissive of Democrats’ messaging. “Radical Democrats are totally fine shutting the government down. Why? So they can enrich insurance companies and give health care to illegal aliens,” Roy said. “I look forward to them putting that out on the campaign trail.” Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images) Some Republicans think the tide is turning, citing polls showing Americans increasingly blaming Democrats for the shutdown. “The polling is breaking our way,” Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., said. “Recent polls that were posted by The Hill and Politico all indicate that the American people are starting to see this for what it really is, and that the Democrats are the ones owning this shutdown.” A new poll from YouGov/The Economist shows that Americans are increasingly blaming Democrats for the shutdown, with 33% now blaming Democrats in Congress—up from 30% last week. A higher percentage, 39%, blame Trump and congressional Republicans for the shutdown, down from 41% last week. Historically, the party that controls the White House tends to take the blame for shutdowns among the general public. The post Can the GOP’s Messaging Offensive Force an End to Shutdown? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a closely watched case that could have a significant impact on which party controls Congress and that could have national consequences when it comes to drawing congressional maps, the Supreme Court heard a second round of arguments Wednesday pertaining to a congressional redistricting case out of Louisiana. Liberal groups are sounding the alarm that the forthcoming ruling in Louisiana v. Callais could net Republicans up to 19 new seats nationwide in the U.S. House of Representatives, as the decision could impact parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  The dispute began after the 2020 Census when Louisiana redrew six congressional districts with just one majority-minority black congressional district. The state had one majority-black district from the 2010 Census, but the groups contend that the black population shifted and grew, resulting in the need for a second district.  The NAACP and others sued, alleging the new map resulting from the 2020 Census violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act, which bans race-based gerrymandering of districts.  In 2022, U.S. District Chief Judge Shelly Dick sided with the NAACP and ordered the state to redraw the map with two majority black districts.  After the state created a new map, other state voters sued, asserting the new map violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment, since the boundary lines of the second district had been drawn based on race. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the new map.  A final decision from the court is anticipated before the 2026 midterm elections next fall, according to the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office. However, varying news reports suggest it may not come in time to affect state laws next year.  The ruling will affect how all state legislatures can draw their district maps. Based on their questions during Wednesday’s arguments, the justices seemed to mostly break along predictable lines, with the three Democrat appointees most favorable to the map with the two minority-majority districts. Here are the key takeaways from the second round of oral arguments in the case.  1. ‘Chaos,’ ‘Catastrophic,’ and ‘Sky-Is-Falling’ NAACP Legal Defense Fund President and Director-Counsel Janai Nelson said during her opening statement before the justices that brushing aside past precedent “would throw maps across the country into chaos.” Justice Elena Kagan later asked Nelson, “What could happen? What would the results on the ground be?” “I think the results would be pretty catastrophic,” Nelson replied. “If we take Louisiana as one example, every congressional member who is black was elected from a VRA [Voting Rights Act] opportunity district. We only have the diversity that we see across the South, for example, because of litigation that forced the creation of opportunity districts under the Voting Rights Act.” Politico first reported that an analysis by two liberal groups, Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund, found that states could use redistricting to pick up 27 total seats nationwide for Republicans. Of those, 19 would come from changing the application of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to allow state legislatures to not consider race in drawing congressional maps. However, during the arguments Wednesday, Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga argued gerrymandering has its practical limits. He argued that if a state legislature, such as the Republican-controlled Legislature in Louisiana, wanted to draw a new legislative map that would completely favor electing Republicans, it would encounter complications. For example, redrawing a map could end up turning some “safe” red districts into purple (toss-up) ones as voters are drawn out of one district into another. “There has been a lot of sky-is-falling rhetoric from the other side in this case,” Aguiñaga said. “Remember what has to happen with the hundreds of thousands of Democrat voters that currently exist in the majority-Democrat districts, District 2 and District 6,” he said. “They have to go somewhere.” He said if the Legislature was intent on mass overhaul of the political maps, it would be politically risky. He said Republican incumbents wouldn’t seek to make their own districts more competitive.  “That, I think, is a very dangerous political risk,” he said.  2. Race-Based Remedies ‘Indefinite’ or ‘Endpoint’ “Race-based remedies are permissible for a period of time, sometimes for a long period of time—decades, in some cases. But they should not be indefinite and should have an endpoint,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said, noting past high court determinations. Kavanaugh asked if there would ever be an endpoint to using race to create congressional or legislative districts.  Nelson replied that race-based redistricting may never need to expire. “A race-based remedy can and should and usually does have a time limit and a durational limit,” Nelson said. “What is not grounded in case law is the idea that an entire statute should somehow dissolve simply because race may be an element of the remedy.” Kavanaugh responded, “I don’t think it’s the statute. It’s the particular application of the statute that entails the intentional, deliberate use of race to sort people into different districts.” “I think you might be saying there shouldn’t be a time limit,” Kavanaugh inquired.  Nelson replied, “I am saying that. I’m saying there should not be a time limit.” She added that Section 2 doesn’t always require a race-based remedy.  The Supreme Court first heard arguments in the case in March, however, justices were not ready to rule and ordered a new round of arguments to focus specifically on whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second black district violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment of people under the law, or the 15th Amendment, which guarantees a citizen’s right to vote regardless of race. Aguiñaga argued to the court that “race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution.” “It requires striking enough members of the majority race to sufficiently diminish their voting strength, and it requires drawing in enough members of a minority race to sufficiently augment their voting strength,” he told the justices.  “Embedded within these expressed targets are racial stereotypes that this court has long criticized,” Aguiñaga continued. “They assume, for example, that a black voter, simply because he is black, must think like other black voters, share the same interests, and prefer the same political candidates—and this stereotyping system has no logical endpoint.” “It’s a simple issue. The lower court found the plan was done for racial purposes and, therefore, the plan should die under the 15th Amendment,” J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, told The Daily Signal after the arguments. His organization filed a brief in the case.  “There won’t be more than three justices that vote to keep the extra district. This ought to be unanimous,” he said. “The lower court and sponsors have said this was done for racial purposes. That should be the end of the story.” 3. ‘Like a Tape Measure’ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stressed that it is not easy to bring an argument under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act regarding districts. “It’s like a tool, it’s like a tape measure that we’re looking as to whether or not certain circumstances exist, and those circumstances that Congress is worried about is unequal access to electoral opportunity. And Section 2 tells you we have to look for those circumstances, and then the court says, yep, they exist in this situation under Section 2, and so now, a remedy is required,” Jackson said. “That’s right, and its usage becomes less and less as we see racially polarized voting and residential segregation decreasing,” Nelson said.  Jackson added, “Because the plaintiffs can’t make the showing [of fact].” That’s because, Jackson said, it’s difficult for a plaintiff to make a clear case of unequal treatment under voting laws. 4. ‘Compact Districts’ During the first oral arguments in March, Chief Justice John Roberts said the second-drawn black district looked like a “snake” that stretched more than 200 miles. Justice Samuel Alito on Wednesday talked about whether the district for the intentionally-drawn black district made any sense.  Alito noted that past court precedent stated that in order to create a majority-minority district, a minority group must be sufficiently large enough to constitute a majority in number. Further, he said, the district much be “reasonably configured.” “What the district court did there was not to ask whether the minority group was sufficiently compact but whether the district itself was sufficiently compact,” Alito said.  Aguiñaga agreed with Alito’s assessment.  “If you look at the black population in Louisiana, I mean, it is all over the place,” he said. “You can identify pockets of black voters, but they are dispersed across the state. There’s no way you can conceive of that population as compact.” The post 4 Takeaways From SCOTUS Redistricting Case That Could Shape Who Controls Congress appeared first on The Daily Signal.

CENTCOM Enters The Chat With Warning to Hamas; Trump Escalates

As part of NBCUniversal’s preparations to spin off MSNBC from the rest of the company, executives purged about 150 journalists, primarily from their niche woke journalism projects and NBC News. According to a report from the left-wing The Wrap, the “diversity teams” of “NBC BLK, NBC Asian America, NBC Latino and NBC OUT” were completely eliminated and made up “about 7% of NBC News’ newsroom of about 2,000 staffers.” “The cuts mean that the verticals NBC BLK, NBC Asian America, NBC Latino and NBC OUT will no longer have dedicated teams bolstering their coverage,” The Wrap’s Corbin Bolies reported. “The verticals will continue to publish stories related to the specific groups, according to one source, but the work will be distributed across the broader newsroom.” The report seemed to try to blunt possible accusations that those teams were marked for layoffs because of the topics they covered, but rather because of how tremulous the current media land scape was finically: The cuts did not target specific teams and were driven by the network’s budget and the desire to streamline its editorial efforts, according to one source. (…) It also reflects the challenging nature of operating a large-scale newsroom amid a media environment facing declining ratings and a fragmented audience, with layoffs occurring across news outlets, including the Washington Post, Rolling Stone, CNN and PBS. Although, the report also noted that, “The layoffs also reflect the media industry’s larger retreat from efforts focused on diversity, equity and inclusion.” Pointing fingers at Disney (the parent company of ABC News) and newspaper giant Gannett. Over the years, NewsBusters had called out several stories from those axed divisions. In July 2015, Executive Editor Tim Graham reported on an NBC BLK pundit who wanted the FCC to be used as a weapon against people who “misgendered” transgendered people: DANIELLE MOODIE-MILLS: You know, I think the first issue is that  We need to stop misgendering people in the media and there needs to be some type of fine that's put into place for outlets, for media outlets, whether they be print, online, radio or what have you that decide that they're just not going to call people be their name -- right? – and that they're going to misgender them just because they can. And that’s what we saw with K.C.  Haggard, we saw in the press, we saw, we’ve seen all over the place, and it’s ridiculous. There are guidelines that have been put in place by GLAAD -- right? -- that have been put out to all press outlets. And if you don't follow them you should be fined by the FCC. It should be that serious. Despite the network having those divisions for years, in 2020, NBC wanted to pledge $100,000 to “advance social justice and equity,” as written by NewsBusters Associate Editor Joseph Vazquez. In January 2022, NBC OUT celebrated a Catholic school capitulating to the woke and hiring a lesbian lacrosse coach. NBC OUT had also touted “LGBT Books for Your Summer Reading List” in July of 2017. Back in 2025, clearly, NBCUniversal executives didn’t find any value in keeping that kind of reporting going.

New York magazine wondered aloud about the success of President Donald Trump in achieving a peace deal in the Middle East while the Biden administration was an utter failure in that regard. That puzzlement was reflected in the title of Ross Barkan's Tuesday Intelligencer section column, "How Did Trump Get a Peace Deal Done Where Biden Could Not?" Barkin struggles with the idea of Trump's success by denigrating him as merely a transactional deal maker in the real estate mode as well as being primarily motivated by a desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Yes, such mockery is to be expected in the liberal New York magazine but what really stands out is also Barkan's criticism of Biden and his administration which is not merely harsh but downright brutal. Before we go to the absolutely delicious takedown of Biden & Co., let us get his critique of Trump out of the way.  Keep in mind such criticism of Trump is actually mild compared what he observes about Biden: Gaza is now smoldering rubble; the peace plan being enacted does not change this bare fact. There is blood, gobs of it, on the hands of President Donald Trump. But even his harshest critics must concede that he was able (if many months too late) to accomplish what Joe Biden never would or could: bring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to heel. ...In Trump’s first term, he had moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and never, for a moment, offered any serious resistance to Netanyahu or Israel. The occupation of the West Bank continued apace and Gaza suffered in the shadows. Trump, however, has always been a transactional president when it comes to foreign governments. His beliefs are never held entirely firm; he views diplomacy like New York real estate, with deals to be had and favors to be traded. Trump is nothing like the peacemaker his fervent allies and supporters believe him to be—the military-industrial complex looms large across Earth, and Trump is currently carrying out extrajudicial killings in Venezuelan waters—but he is not, like past Republican presidents, a neoconservative who is eager for fresh conflict. ...Trump still defers far too much to Netanyahu, but he began to grow impatient in the last few months. The war in Gaza wasn’t benefiting Trump politically. He had become interested in winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and sometimes venal self-interest can do a little good. Without such a laurel dangling in front of Trump, he might not have tried so hard. Okay, we got the pretty much expected New York magazine critique of Trump out of the way. Transactional real estate deal maker with a Nobel Prize "dangling in front" of him as a big motivator. However, now we come to Barkan's attack on the Biden administration which will quickly make readers forget his criticisms of Trump which, in retrospect, will seem quite mild. Still, a stark question facing Democrats is why the Biden administration could not achieve a version of this agreement during the entirety of 2024. Jake Sullivan and Antony Blinken, the architects of Biden’s foreign policy, must answer for their failure. More crucially, though, Democrats must consider why Biden himself could not do more. One discomforting possibility is that the elderly president simply wasn’t mentally fit enough to conduct aggressive foreign policy. Biden’s capacity was much diminished—this was apparent as early as 2022, though most Democrats pretended otherwise—and it’s in the foreign arena where an executive’s weakness is most felt. Domestically, presidents can farm out a good deal of governing to advisers, cabinet members, and congressional leaders. Top Biden aides like Ron Klain and Jeff Zients could effectively serve as shadow presidents, working in concert with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. Abroad, the president as an individual matters much more. If Biden himself cannot cajole or threaten Netanyahu, his aides can only do so much. This does not absolve Blinken, Biden’s Secretary of State, or Sullivan, Biden’s National Security Adviser. There’s little evidence to suggest they were ever willing to pressure Netanyahu and force him to pull back. And now for Barkan's final brutal slap in the face of poor helpless (and hopeless) Joe Biden. Biden had a chance to wrench history in a different direction and failed. If he is cognizant at all of the events over the last week, he should feel regret and shame. OUCH!!!

President Trump has achieved a success previously unheard of. That is, he has simultaneously received praise from both Republicans and Democrats for negotiating the unprecedented Israel-Hamas ceasefire and bringing all the hostages home.Even former president Joe Biden had something positive to say.“I am deeply grateful and relieved that this day has come — for the last living 20 hostages who have been through unimaginable hell and are finally reunited with their families and loved ones, and for the civilians in Gaza who have experienced immeasurable loss and will finally get the chance to rebuild their lives,” Biden wrote in a post on social media.“The road to this deal was not easy. My Administration worked relentlessly to bring hostages home, get relief to Palestinian civilians, and end the war. I commend President Trump and his team for their work to get a renewed ceasefire deal over the finish line,” he continued.Former president Bill Clinton also chimed in to sing Trump’s praises, writing in a statement posted to X: “The horrors of the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, and the conflict they reignited, have resulted in unbearable human loss. It has been hard to watch and nearly impossible to rationalize.”“I’m grateful that a ceasefire has taken hold, that the last 20 living hostages have been freed, and that desperately needed aid has begun to flow into Gaza. President Trump and his administration, Qatar, and other regional actors deserve great credit for keeping everyone engaged until the agreement was reached,” he added.And comedian Jimmy Kimmel even had something nice to say about the president, though he laid the sarcasm on quite thick.“What a day for Donald Trump. You know what? He finally did something positive today, and I want to give him credit for it, because I know he’s not the type to take credit for himself,” Kimmel said on “Jimmy Kimmel Live.”“Trump was in Israel and Egypt today to celebrate a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. All 20 Israeli hostages are home after 738 days. Almost 2,000 Palestinian prisoners and detainees have been released, and while we’re only in the first phase of what will undoubtedly be a long and tricky process, the fact is, the bombing has stopped,” he continued.“The hostages have been released, and Trump deserves some of the praise for that. And so I know it sounds crazy to say, but good work on that one, President Trump. Now, maybe you can not invade Portland,” he added.However, not all of Trump’s left-wing critics were quick to praise him.“Bernie Sanders, as you might expect, a little bit more insane,” BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere says.“Today, we welcome the long-overdue release of the 20 remaining Israelis held by Hamas and the freeing of almost 2,000 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons,” Sanders wrote in a statement posted to social media.“But it must be the Palestinians themselves that guide this process and determine their future,” he added.“Here’s some news for you,” Burguiere comments. “No. No, it must not be the Palestinians that determine their future. The last time the Palestinians got to determine their future, they elected Hamas. So no, they don’t get to determine their future.”Want more from Stu?To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

An American beauty queen expressed relief after her request for a restraining order against a sitting U.S. congressman was granted Tuesday, and her attorney implied that more legal actions may be coming.Lindsey Langston sought the order against Republican Rep. Cory Mills of Florida based on accusations that he had threatened to release compromising videos of her after she ended their romantic relationship.'There's certainly the evidence there to pursue criminal charges. I would suspect that this isn't the last time you're going to hear about this.'Langston and her attorney, Bobi Frank, answered questions from Blaze News and other outlets on Wednesday. When asked whether Mills would face criminal prosecution over the sextortion accusation, Frank implied there was a possibility he might."I am not a prosecutor, and I am not a law enforcement officer, but I can tell you I have a lot of experience in both the civil and criminal arenas in our justice system," she responded."Certainly from my perspective, the allegations that Ms. Langston made have been absolutely substantiated in each of the elements of two particular crimes ... through the findings of fact that the court issued," Frank added. "So I will say this: There's certainly the evidence there to pursue criminal charges. I would suspect that this isn't the last time you're going to hear about this."When asked if she knew whether anything had been filed or was in the works, she repeated only that the TRO ruling on Tuesday was unlikely to be the last time they would hear about the case."The Court, considering the totality of the testimony and circumstances, does not find the Respondent's testimony concerning the intimate videos to be truthful," Judge Fred Koberlein Jr. wrote in granting the restraining order against Mills.The judge also wrote that the purpose of at least some of Mills' messages to Langston "was to continue to harass and cause emotional distress" to her.Frank went on to call on Republicans and Democrats to vote to purge Mills from Congress over the sextortion allegations as well as numerous other scandals and controversies."It's clear as day that Cory Mills is synonymous with unethical behavior," she added. "This is not an isolated incident. He leaves a trail of unethical behavior."Frank quoted from the order that forbids Mills from referring to Langston on any social media platform."If Mr. Mills chooses to take even one step, performs one act that is harassing, threatening, or intimidating in any fashion, we will react swiftly and severely."Langston's attorney said they were thankful that the judge gave the TRO case proper consideration."He clearly took this case very seriously, and that is demonstrated in the 14-page injunction that he painstakingly wrote," she said.RELATED: Why did Cory Mills come to Ilhan Omar's rescue? Frank praised her client for speaking out about the accusations."She found the courage, the strength, the perseverance to hold Cory Mills responsible, primarily because of her fear," she said. "That is amazing, astonishing. It's to be commended."When asked if justice had been served, Langston described her emotional reaction to being told the restraining order had been granted."I do feel that justice was served, and I can't even describe the relief that I felt once I got the phone call that I had been issued the injunction for protection. I felt like I'm able to live my life again," she said."I hope that it serves as a clear message to victims, whether it be physical violence, intimidation, threats, coercion, anything like that," Langston added. "I hope that you come forward. I hope that you stick to your guns. Be thorough. Be truthful and have faith in the justice system because it is there to protect you. There are laws in place to protect you. Know your rights, and have courage," she continued.A representative for Mills 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!

Mamdani’s NYC Mayor Bid: No Jews or Their Allies Allowed in My Socialist Utopia, Sorry Not Sorry