They played a gig at Bruce Dickinson’s school when he was 15 years old

The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to end temporary legal protections for more than 300,000 Venezuelan citizens living in the United States.

President Trump promised no new wars and that he will resolve the current ones, but the build up around Venezuela over a war on drugs is, according to The Washington Examiner, enough to “seize and hold” ports and airfields. On Thursday, they wrote, “military planners believe the assembled forces are now sufficient to seize and hold key […] The post Fears That US Will Go to War with Venezuela appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Munich airport said on Saturday it was gradually resuming flights from 7 a.m. (0500 GMT), with delays expected through the day, hours after both runways were closed for the second time in less than 24 hours due to a drone sighting. The airport advised travellers to check with their airlines as it prepared for the restart, two hours later than originally scheduled, after the Friday evening closure. Dozens of flights had been diverted or cancelled, stranding some 6,500 passengers, authorities said. European aviation has repeatedly been thrown into chaos in recent weeks by drone sightings that some authorities have blamed on Russia. The Kremlin has denied any involvement. Authorities have yet to attribute Thursday’s or Friday’s drone sightings to a specific actor. “German air traffic control restricted flight operations at Munich Airport as a precautionary measure due to unconfirmed drone sightings and suspended them until further notice,” a statement on the airport website read. In a later update, the airport said 23 flights were diverted, 12 flights to Munich and 48 departures cancelled or postponed. “As on the previous night, the airport and airlines took care of the passengers,” it added. “Camp beds, blankets, drinks and snacks were handed out.” Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout The previous evening, the captain on a London-bound aircraft whose departure was cancelled told passengers that runways had been closed “because of drone sightings near the take-off and landing runways” and that police helicopters were aloft. The airport website showed due arrivals had been diverted starting at 8:35 p.m. (1835 GMT). Munich airport was closed for several hours late on Thursday and in the small hours after unconfirmed drone sightings that disrupted dozens of flights. German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt promised earlier on Friday to bring forward legislation making it easier for the police to ask the military to shoot drones down. (Reporting by Karin Strohecker and Mrinmay Dey, additional reporting by Kirsti Knolle; Writing by Thomas Escritt; Editing by Chris Reese, Rosalba O’Brien and William Mallard)

'Choose that option'

It makes perfect sense that there would be hundreds, if not thousands, of rock songs written with the word “water” in the title. Not to overuse a very popular phrase recently, but “water is life,” unless some may argue it’s soccer. Yes, I’m a big fan of Ted Lasso. But getting back to rock and roll, picking a list of just ten songs that utilize the word “water” in the title was quite challenging because there are so many legendary ones. It gets boring if we just pick the really popular ones, but then we also face the prospect of many The post 10 Best Rock Songs With The Word ‘Water’ In The Title appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

Pro-life pregnancy centers expect an increase in appointments after President Donald Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” defunded Planned Parenthood facilities, a center director told The Daily Signal. Trump’s spending bill instructed the federal government to end Medicaid payments for one year to abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. As a result, women are getting turned away by abortion facilities and are instead making appointments at privately funded pro-life pregnancy centers, which support them in carrying their babies to term, at no cost to the clients. James Harden, president and CEO of New York pregnancy center network CompassCare, said he has “absolutely” seen an increase in appointments since the bill passed. “We built a team in the Bronx, and they’re already fully booked,” Harden told The Daily Signal. “We’re triple-booking right now.” It’s too soon to tell whether the increase in the number of clients will continue, but in case it does, pregnancy centers need to prepare to accommodate a four- to eight-times increase in patient load, Harden said. Last week, CompassCare’s center in the Bronx, a borough of New York City, saw a woman who had gone to Planned Parenthood for an abortion, but they had refused her Medicaid, because they would not be able to get reimbursement. The woman first came into the Bronx CompassCare center for a pregnancy test. After a nurse verified the pregnancy, she made an appointment to go to Planned Parenthood, which told her it would charge $600 for the abortion. Her Medicaid wouldn’t cover it, so she returned to CompassCare. “She came back and she said, ‘That must be a sign,'” Harden said. The woman decided to keep the baby, and CompassCare is giving her free medical and community resources to support her pregnancy. “The data shows when a government pays for abortion, abortion numbers go up,” Harden said. “And when government doesn’t pay for abortion, abortion numbers go down.” Planned Parenthood is even sending women to pregnancy centers to get free ultrasounds, giving the centers a chance to present them with the facts about life beginning at conception, he said. Half of abortions are paid for by Medicaid in New York state, so CompassCare centers are preparing for a significant in the number of clients turned away by Planned Parenthood centers. “There’s not an abortionist anywhere who will provide an abortion for free,” Harden said. “But CompassCare and other pro-life medical centers provide comprehensive medical care and community resources for free. The demand is great. Women need pro-life medical centers now more than ever.” The post ‘We’re Triple-Booking’: Pregnancy Centers Expect Surge in Appointments After ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Defunded Planned Parenthood  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Election integrity advocates are pushing the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to require documented proof of citizenship for federal voter registration forms.  More than 15,700 people have made public comments, mostly in support of the rule. The public comment period closes on Oct. 20. America First Legal, a conservative government watchdog, filed the petition with the EAC in July.  “There have been important documented cases of noncitizens registered to vote and of noncitizens voting,” James Rogers, senior counsel to America First Legal, told The Daily Signal.  “Thousands have been taken off the voter rolls,” Rogers continued. “But some states don’t check. In most states it’s not a robust system, but an honor system or pinky swear. You check a box yes or no if you are a citizen. If someone were going to illegally vote, they wouldn’t think twice about lying on a form.” The federal voter registration form is a baseline that states are required to have under the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, though most states also have their own registration forms. If adopted, the rule would apply to the federal form. “The Left has been very agile at filing petitions for rulemaking for a long time,” Cleta Mitchell, chairwoman of the Election Integrity Network, told The Daily Signal. “If a regulation is adopted, there is the same process for overturning it as adopting it. It’s not just like an executive order that the next president can change.” The House twice passed a proposal to require proof of citizenship to register to vote, but the Senate did not take up the measure.  Mitchell said the Election Integrity Network has done training sessions and provides a video tutorial for posting public comments, which are standard for adopting a regulation. Mitchell added, if public comments are overwhelmingly in favor and the commission doesn’t consider the measure, then America First Legal could have grounds to sue.  One of the public commenters in favor of the rule said: “States like Arizona and Georgia have faced legal barriers to implementing DPOC [documented proof of citizens], leaving our system vulnerable.” Another commenter in favor of the rule said, “Requiring DPOC, such as a passport, certified birth certificate, or enhanced driver’s license, is a simple, common sense measure that helps ensure only eligible U.S. citizens are allowed to register and vote in our elections.” However, Nicholas J. Lima, registrar and director of elections for Cranston, Rhode Island, raised objections, asserting it could result in “disenfranchising millions of legitimate American citizens.” “It is well-known that a significant portion of American citizens who are eligible voters, including citizens who have been voting without issue for many decades, do not have ready access to DPOC documents that could be easily provided to a voter registration agent during the registration process,” Lima said in the posted comment. “Acquiring this documentation can be burdensome, time-consuming, and costly for individual Americans, who may not have the financial, transportation, or other means to do so due to their income, disability, residing in a remote area, advanced age, or lack of caregivers to support them, among other reasons.” Lima proceeded to call for more funding for election offices if the proposal is adopted.  “If it is determined by policymakers that adding DPOC as a requirement to register to vote is, as is essentially argued in the petition, a means to mitigate an existential threat to our democratic republic, then the federal government should similarly endeavor to provide enough funding and resources to election officials in order to achieve desired outcomes related to that argument—certainly much more than the $15 million appropriated in total for the nation’s more than 10,000 election jurisdictions in FY2025,” Lima added.  This week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement apprehended Ian Andre Roberts, a Guyanese national allegedly living illegally in the United States, working as a school superintendent in Iowa. He was also reportedly a registered Democrat voter in Maryland. Maryland officials say there is no record that he has voted.  In June, the FBI announced that a Chinese national, charged with illegally voting in Michigan in the 2024 election, had fled the country.  In March, an Iowa audit found 277 noncitizens were registered to vote in the state and 35 voted in the 2024 election. In 2019, Pennsylvania found that more than 11,000 noncitizens were registered to vote. Also, since 2021, Texas has removed about 6,500 noncitizens from voter rolls, and 1,900 of whom had voting histories. Since 2022, Virginia has removed 6,300 noncitizens from its rolls, Alabama removed 3,251 noncitizens, and Ohio removed 597.   It was the Maryland Freedom Caucus that discovered Roberts on the voter rolls. State Rep. Matt Morgan, a Republican and chairman of the caucus, supported the proposed proof of citizenship at the federal level.  “That is absolutely part of the solution,” Morgan told The Daily Signal. “I hope the Trump administration can tackle it. The Department of Justice sent the Board of Elections a letter in July wanting to take a look at voter rolls. The Board of Elections said we can’t let you see that because they were afraid the administration would use it for immigration enforcement.” The Maryland State Board of Elections errs on the side of caution before removing a name from the voter registration lists, said Jared DeMarinis, the board’s administrator.  “If an individual who does not meet the requirements of voter registration was UNINTENTIONALLY registered to vote, that individual did not violate the law against unlawful voter registration,” DeMarinis said in the public statement.  The post Federal Requirement for Proof of Citizenship to Vote Could Arrive appeared first on The Daily Signal.

When Jeffrey Clark was tapped to lead the second Trump administration’s chief regulatory review office, it marked an astonishing redemption.For years, congressional investigators and prosecutors had pursued the former Department of Justice official primarily over an unsent letter he drafted in support of President Donald Trump’s 2020 election challenge, calling for Georgia to consider launching a last-minute legislative session to review its results.The president’s adversaries who weaponized the justice system through ‘lawfare’ have opened another front in their war through ‘barfare.’Trump’s return to power has not ended Clark’s troubles. Washington, D.C.’s legal disciplinary authority has recommended that he be disbarred over his conduct from five years ago. Lawyers for Clark claim that the effort seeks to punish “thought crime” regarding their client’s belief in potential irregularities in an election that authorities declared devoid of widespread fraud.Even as Trump’s critics now claim he is engaging in retribution against a wide range of past assailants, including former FBI Director James Comey, his supporters say Clark’s case reveals there is an ongoing, politically motivated push to punish MAGA advocates. In their telling, the president’s adversaries who weaponized the justice system through “lawfare” have opened another front in their war through “barfare.”The rise of barfareSince 2020, Democrat officials and progressive groups established specifically to target conservatives have lodged bar complaints against dozens of Trump-allied attorneys such as Clark. While supporters of these efforts say they are trying to hold officeholders and advocates accountable for actions that betrayed the canons of ethical legal practice, conservative opponents say the push to punish their political foes via bar complaints, often brought in politically partisan jurisdictions, threatens not only the ability of presidents to receive counsel but the American legal system itself.“The most politicized situations are the ones where the bar should be the most reticent” to consider punishing attorneys over their work, James Burnham, former DOGE general counsel, said during a recent panel discussion on alleged bar weaponization hosted by the right-leaning Federalist Society. “That’s when lawyers are supposed to be the most creative and the most aggressive. ... But it’s not the kind of situation where we want lawyers to be afraid to even engage in advocacy in the first place.”The Clark complaint concerned his activities in the final weeks of the first Trump administration, while he served in part as acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. Clark, an environmental and regulatory lawyer by background, believed that there were potentially election-altering fraud or irregularities in Georgia and other states, requiring resolution before the fast-approaching January 6, 2021, election certification date.In response, he wrote a draft letter dated Dec. 28 and addressed to Georgia leaders recommending that the state legislature convene a special session to further probe potential irregularities and take remedial steps as necessary if they impacted the election outcome.Clark circulated the letter to acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who were responsible for probing 2020 election issues. Rosen and Donoghue disagreed with its thrust — especially the suggestion that there was potentially election-altering fraud — and declined to sign and deliver it.Trump gets windAs Trump’s election challenge proceeded, he got wind of Clark’s views. Apparently finding an ally, the president floated the idea of making Clark acting attorney general. Clark allegedly offered to decline any such appointment if Rosen would sign off on the letter, the then-Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee would later report — an allegation Clark would flatly deny. In opposition to a possible appointment, Clark’s superiors convened a Jan. 3, 2021, meeting with Trump and other officials, at which several said they and other colleagues would resign en masse should the president elevate him.Ultimately, the president backed off, and Clark’s letter was consigned to the dustbin of history — until one or several ex-Trump administration officials leaked word of its existence and contents to the New York Times. The Times wrote about Clark’s efforts in a Jan. 22 article titled “Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General.”RELATED: Democrats’ lawfare is on a collision course with hard reality Photo by CatLane via Getty ImagesA flurry of probes pertaining to the president’s election challenge followed. Clark — a Harvard- and Georgetown-educated litigator who had spent the bulk of his career as a partner at white-shoe law firm Kirkland & Ellis — spent the next several years facing the scrutiny of congressional committees, including the Democrat-dominated Jan. 6 Committee, and prosecution in cases brought by Fani Willis in Fulton County, Georgia, and special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C. In June 2022, he was forced to wait outside his home in his undergarments while federal investigators searched his suburban Virginia residence, seizing electronic devices in connection with their January 6 probe.In July 2022, in response to a complaint lodged by the then-Democrat-led Senate, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility charged Clark with violating the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. It accused him of engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty” by drafting the letter the board alleged contained false statements and for “attempt[ing] to engage in conduct that would seriously interfere with the administration of justice.”The allegations against Clark rested in part on the argument that because his superiors disagreed with his views on potential election fraud in Georgia, Clark’s assertions in the letter were fraudulent.Unprecedented caseIn his defense, Clark invoked a slew of privileges and raised myriad procedural and substantive arguments — including that the local D.C. disciplinary board lacked jurisdiction over Clark’s conduct as a federal lawyer providing counsel to the president; that Clark enjoyed immunity from liability while rendering advice to the president; and that the purported false statements were merely proposed Justice Department positions for consideration by superiors — positions largely consistent, as his lawyers noted, with those raised by several U.S. Supreme Court justices and nearly 20 state attorneys general.Clark’s lawyers argued during his trial that “no one has ever been charged by the D.C. Bar with attempted dishonesty in a draft letter that recommended a change in policy or position where that document was not approved and never even left the office.”His lawyers made the point that sanctioning him for such conduct would lead to a limitless array of disciplinary actions against attorneys over private or internal deliberations on behalf of clients should they hold contrarian views.Government “lawyers will be afraid to give their candid opinions for fear of losing their careers. Likewise, lawyers will not join government for the same reason,” Harry MacDougald, one of Clark’s lawyers, told RealClearInvestigations.On July 31, 2025, despite acknowledging “that there are no factually comparable prior disciplinary cases,” a majority of the board recommended that Clark be disbarred. While rejecting Clark’s arguments, including that he was protected as a government lawyer giving advice, the nine-member board said that the charges against him “focus on the truthfulness of the factual assertions” in the letter that he authored.Those who believe the bar is being weaponized against those who hold disfavored viewpoints — namely on the right — say corrective action is required.Although Clark’s superiors had testified that Clark had “sincere personal concerns” regarding the integrity of the election, the board said, “they also agreed that the Justice Department had not identified potentially outcome-determinative issues in Georgia or other states.”Therefore, his continued efforts to press officials to send the letter “constituted an attempt to make intentionally false statements about the results of the Justice Department’s investigation,” the board said.The tribunal added that Clark “should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.”The disbarment decision is pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals, which has final say over such decisions in the nation’s capital.Claims of unequal justiceIn an August 2025 filing with the appeals court obtained by RealClearInvestigations detailing Clark’s exceptions to the board’s order, his counsel contrasted the disciplinary tribunal’s treatment of the Justice Department lawyer with that of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. He received just a one-year suspension for doctoring a document submitted to the FISA Court supporting the government’s FISA warrant application that enabled surveillance of Trump adviser Carter Page.“The disciplinary process in the D.C. bar is radically disparate according to the political affiliation and views of the respondent attorney,” Clark’s lawyers charged.A preliminary review of public records indicates that a majority of the board that made the Clark recommendation was composed of registered Democrats, individuals who had contributed to Democrat candidates, or public advocates of progressive causes. Only one board member was publicly identifiable as a Republican.The board recommendation followed a trial before a separate three-member panel, at least two of whom were registered Democrats and had contributed financially to Democratic Party candidates, public records show.The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which handed down the original charges against Clark and effectively prosecutes such cases, is also headed by an attorney, Hamilton P. Fox III, who, according to public records, is a Democrat.“D.C. voted Democrat more than 90% against Trump all three times he was on the ballot — the most lopsided margin in the country to have [its] own Bar,” MacDougald noted on X in a response to the disciplinary authority’s decision.Many prominent Republicans also took issue with the actions of Trump and his confidants in challenging the 2020 election. This includes the sole publicly identifiable Republican board member, Margaret M. Cassidy, a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association who concurred in the recommendation that Clark be disbarred.After the panel handed down its recommendation to disbar Clark, MacDougald told RealClearInvestigations that “the reason Jeff has been singled out is lawfare — straight-up political persecution.”With the Clark disbarment decision now in the hands of federal judges, the lawyer may have just gotten a big boost. On Sept. 25, three former attorneys general submitted an amicus brief in support of his case. William P. Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey — all Republican-appointed prosecutors, but not all supportive of Clark’s conduct — echoed his arguments in writing.“The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility … has no business — indeed, no authority whatever — in policing internal deliberative discussions and documents exchanged within the federal Executive Branch for containing purportedly ‘dishonest’ (yet somehow also ‘sincere’) ideas or assertions,” they said.They added that “immunity for top advisors is necessary to ensure that the President may receive candid and necessary advice prior to acting.”“Although we are not persuaded by Mr. Clark’s proposed legal strategy, and former Attorney General Barr has publicly criticized it in no uncertain terms, disbarring or otherwise disciplining Mr. Clark for those actions would set a dangerous precedent that would significantly interfere with Executive Branch functions,” while sending a “biting chill throughout the federal government,” they concluded.Not alone in the dockOn the same July day that the D.C. tribunal formally made its recommendation to disbar Clark, three current Justice Department officials were hit with ethics complaints lodged with the bar disciplinary authorities where they are licensed to practice.The parallel complaints — targeting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton, special counsel Brad Rosenberg, and trial attorney Liam Holland — allege they made “intentionally and materially misleading statements” in litigation over the Trump administration’s attempt to curtail the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The complaints note that presiding Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court upbraided the lawyers over certain representations made to the court.Several ex-Justice Department staff members have defended their colleagues, writing that “our former colleagues took immediate steps to correct the record in response to plaintiffs’ evidence,” while noting that “leaving any such inquiry in the first instance to the court and the parties, who have intimate knowledge of the facts and circumstances that state bar authorities lack, would be a far better approach for determining whether sanctionable misconduct occurred.”The Justice Department did not respond to RealClearInvestigations’ inquiries regarding the complaints against its employees.The three complaints were filed by the Legal Accountability Center. The advocacy group’s executive director, Michael J. Teter, has said its efforts are aimed at “going on offense in defense of democracy” at a time when “the rule of law is under direct assault.” The organization maintains it is merely seeking to hold to account “attorneys who abuse their power and violate professional conduct rules.” Its financials are unavailable. A broken web link appears to tie the nonprofit to progressive tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund.Among the Legal Accountability Center’s initiatives is the 65 Project. The “dark money” outfit was launched in the wake of the 2020 election to “shame” lawyers who represented Trump in some 65 lawsuits challenging the election and “make them toxic in their communities and their firms,” according to Democrat operative David Brock, founder of the partisan watchdog group Media Matters, who is one of the group’s advisers.Billed as a bipartisan effort, the 65 Project is led by staffers with ties to Democratic Party campaigns and causes. Teter, who also serves as its managing director, has worked for candidates including John Kerry and counseled the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. Its senior adviser, Melissa Moss, is a former Clinton appointee and finance director of the Democratic National Committee.The 65 Project was originally run through another nonprofit, Moss’ Law Works, which achieved notoriety for hosting a stage adaptation of the Mueller Report performed by Hollywood stars. According to archived websites, the 65 Project was sponsored by the Franklin Education Forum, a supporter of progressive causes previously chaired by Brock and a grant recipient of Omidyar’s Democracy Fund.Neither Teter nor the organizations with which he is affiliated responded to RealClearInvestigations’ inquiries in connection with this story.Justice or harassment?More senior officials, as well, have gotten hit with bar complaints in recent months. In September, the center filed a bar complaint against Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming, among other things, a conflict of interest in his interviewing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It also filed a complaint against Ed Martin, the former U.S. attorney for D.C., asserting he had abused his position and conduct rules by engaging in politically motivated investigations, among other matters.Martin, now a Justice Department special attorney, also faces scrutiny from the D.C. disciplinary body. During his tenure as U.S. attorney, he had requested information of that office, citing in part the Clark case, indicating his concern that it might be biased against conservatives.Elected Republican officials around the country, including Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and Lawrence VanDyke, the former solicitor general in Montana and Nevada and a current judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have also been targeted.RELATED: Meet the evil mastermind targeting Trump with lawfare Photo by hapabapa via Getty ImagesJudging by their disposition, most of these accusations were of dubious legal merit. A recent analysis of nearly 80 complaints filed by third-party organizations like the 65 Project against attorneys who represented Trump or related causes — many of them Republican state attorneys general — found that in only three instances did attorneys face public discipline.The conservative group America First Legal filed a bar complaint against Teter last fall for his 65 Project work, claiming he was abusing the bar disciplinary process in targeting attorneys associated with Trump. It is unclear whether the Utah Bar, which received the complaint, has taken any action.De-weaponizing the bar discipline processThose who believe the bar is being weaponized against those who hold disfavored viewpoints — namely on the right — say corrective action is required. They assert that beyond pursuing arguments regarding the immunity that federal lawyers ought to have from state and local authorities, there is a First Amendment right to viewpoint diversity that quasi-governmental entities, such as state bar associations, are currently violating.Some, such as Michael Francisco, an appellate litigator who formerly clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, believe that “attorneys are not capable of regulating themselves.”America First Legal’s Gene Hamilton echoed these remarks, adding during the Federalist Society panel: “I really do think that each of the state bar associations need to take a really hard look at the rules and to modify them to prevent abuses of the disciplinary process.”Clark’s lawyer, MacDougald, told RealClearInvestigations that ultimately, lawyers advocating for Republican and Democrat causes will be losers if the weaponization of discipline doesn’t end.“Lawyers have a job to do and should be allowed to do it,” he said. “State legislatures and state bar associations must reform themselves and commit to political neutrality, or they will destroy themselves and the profession.”Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.