The Washington Free Beacon published an extensive and horrific description of a Maryland gangland. It is a spot where MS-13 governs a housing complex, and a homeless encampment of drug addicts and mentally ill souls terrorized them for years. The country won’t do a thing. The long-suffering residents have no place to go. “There they […] The post The Evil Misbegotten Mercy of Democrats for the “Unhoused” appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

Film critics raved over “Becoming,” the fawning 2020 documentary about former First Lady Michelle Obama, produced by Michelle Obama. The Detroit News: It’s a warm latte, delivered to you in your favorite mug. NPR: Even with its flaws, Becoming is a compelling documentary, offering a carefully revealing look at a whip smart, ferociously practical woman trying to understand how her historic time in the White House changed herself, her family and the nation.  Now, see if you can detect a slight tonal shift in reviews for “Melania,” the new documentary capturing First Lady Melania Trump, who also produced the film, as she moves back into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW. Globe and Mail: Ratner has accidentally delivered the ultimate chronicle of 21st-century excess and greed, a world of casual yet immense cruelty covered in flop sweat and gold glitter. Variety: A documentary that never comes to life. It’s a “portrait” of the First Lady of the United States, but it’s so orchestrated and airbrushed and stage-managed that it barely rises to the level of a shameless infomercial. Several reviews compared the film to Nazi propaganda. One critic gave “Melania” a “rotten” score at Rotten Tomatoes while admitting he never actually saw the film. (That review was quickly removed from the critical aggregator site) Amazon MGM Studios. The Guardian’s review compared the movie to 2024’s “The Zone of Interest.” That well-received drama depicted a Nazi family living next door to a concentration camp. The reviewer didn’t stop there, mocking FLOTUS’s face and voice, a no-no in critical circles. Review the film, not the physical attributes of the people on screen. When a Variety scribe suggested actress Carey Mulligan wasn’t pretty enough to play the femme fatale in 2020’s “Promising Young Woman,” the outlet uttered an apology directly to the actress. For some reason, that unwritten rule didn’t apply to “Melania.” Nor should FLOTUS expect an apology any time soon. The chasm between movie critics and general audiences over “Melania” may be the new, startling benchmark. Rotten Tomatoes lists the film as having a 7% “Rotten” score from movie scribes and a 99 percent “fresh” rating from the public at large. Those blistering critiques, delivered by a film body that leans overwhelmingly to the Left, were just part of the media’s war on “Melania.” The said war began before “Melania” hit American theaters on January 30. Outlet after outlet preened over reports of poor pre-release ticket sales. So did Stephen Colbert of “The Late Show” fame. Empty theaters, reporters cried, suggested “Melania” would underperform even modest expectations. It did the opposite, earning north of $7 million in its opening frame. Recent documentaries made far, far less. “Mr. Nobody Against Putin” – $19K to date in U.S. “Orwell: 2+2=5” – $355K in U.S. For context, most documentaries are lucky to earn $1 million in theaters. “Melania,” media voices argued, might not make it to the $3 million mark. And, with a gaudy $40 million price tag courtesy of Jeff Bezos’ Amazon, that’s a debacle. Except “Melania” delivered the biggest documentary debut in a decade. The film has kept earning since then.  Amazon MGM Studios. USA Today argued it’s “patriotic” to slam “Melania.” To be the subject of a documentary, one would think you’d have to accomplish something beyond being a complicit grifter in two of the most cruel, dishonest, and dangerous presidential terms in American history. Indiewire said the film’s box office success is terrible news for the documentary genre.  Suddenly, a rising tide doesn’t lift all boats. It’s a scary time for documentarians. Will they have to start working with the likes of Brett Ratner to make infomercials that please Donald Trump to pay the bills? The success of “Melania” suggests they might. Meanwhile, a news media landscape that routinely decries review bombing – the practice of slagging a film or TV show sight unseen due to a variety of pre-release complaints, like overt wokeness – suddenly cheered on review bombing of “Melania.” NPR needed something negative to share about the film. So it dug into the demographic breakdown of movie patrons and determined a large number of older white women lined up to see “Melania.” How often do media outlets report on the demographics of a given film? Hint: Not very often. NPR likely sought to portray the film’s fan base as overwhelmingly white (with a touch of supremacy?) A few outlets have thrown all credibility to the wind to savage “Melania.” The far-Left Daily Beast took the crown here. The site has repeatedly called the film a “flop,” although it’s on pace to pass 2024’s “Am I Racist?” as the most successful documentary of the last decade. DailyWire+ “Melania” expands its release pattern in its second weekend, upping the theatrical count to 2,000 screens. Even if the film underperforms from here, the theatrical release has done its job. Amazon likely viewed the film all along as a Prime Video draw, first and foremost. The documentary will draw attention and eyeballs to the streaming service, giving it a competitive title in a cutthroat streaming landscape. The film’s theatrical bow is an extended promotion for its final, digital destination. Why all the unprofessional hate? The First Lady may have said it best at the premiere of her own movie. “Superior storytelling drives culture and in turn moves markets.” Legacy Media outlets fear a conservative encroachment on their turf most of all. * * * Christian Toto is an award-winning journalist, movie critic, and editor of HollywoodInToto.com. He previously served as associate editor with Breitbart News’ Big Hollywood. Follow him at HollywoodInToto.com. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

In 2015, then-Senator Marco Rubio delivered a forceful and prophetic floor speech in the United States Senate, offering a scathing critique of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Rubio’s address was not merely a political disagreement but a historical warning as he sought to document his opposition for posterity, predicting that the agreement would fundamentally destabilize the Middle East and jeopardize American national security. Rubio’s primary contention was that the deal provided Iran with a massive influx of capital through sanctions relief, which the regime would inevitably funnel into its military infrastructure. He warned that Tehran would use these resources to develop “anti-access” capabilities — specifically advanced rockets and “swarm” boats designed to threaten U.S. naval assets and aircraft carriers. By raising the “price of presence” for American forces, Rubio argued, Iran sought to eventually force a total U.S. withdrawal from the region. Furthermore, he predicted that the regime would continue its development of long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching the American mainland, as these were not restricted by the agreement. “Iran is led by a Supreme Leader who is a radical Shia cleric with an apocalyptic vision of the future,” he warned. “He is not a traditional geopolitical actor who makes decisions on the basis of borders, or simply history, or because of ambitions. He has a religious apocalyptic vision of the future — one that calls for triggering a conflict between the non-Muslim world and the Muslim world, one that he feels especially obligated to trigger.” Rubio drew an ominous parallel to North Korea, describing a future where a nuclear-armed Iran would become “immune” to military intervention. He argued that once the regime achieved nuclear status, the cost of a preemptive strike would become prohibitively high, leaving the world hostage to a “radical Shia cleric with an apocalyptic vision.” Unlike traditional geopolitical actors, Rubio emphasized, Iran’s leadership is driven by a religious ideology that views conflict with the non-Muslim world as a spiritual obligation. He framed the deal as a “terrible mistake” that would leave a dangerous legacy for future generations. To address these perceived fatal flaws, Rubio proposed several rigorous amendments to the legislation reviewing the deal. These included the “Israel Recognition Amendment,” which would have barred sanctions relief until Iran recognized Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. He also introduced a “Terrorism Certification Amendment” to link sanctions relief to the cessation of Iranian-sponsored terrorism against Americans. Additionally, Rubio demanded the full disclosure of “side deals” between Iran and international monitors and advocated for “anytime, anywhere” inspections to replace the “managed access” protocol of the JCPOA. Ultimately, Rubio’s 2015 remarks served as a call for a return to “crippling” sanctions backed by a “credible threat of military force.” He concluded with a hopeful nod toward the American Republic, praying that future leaders in the executive branch would have the resolve to reverse the deal. Now serving as Secretary of State, Rubio is in a unique position to help implement the very “maximum pressure” and strict verification standards he championed a decade ago, as the United States navigates a renewed era of tension with the Iranian regime. Listen to @marcorubio’s 2015 speech explaining why he opposed the JCPOA. Nearly everything he warned about has already happened. What hasn’t, is clearly underway. Now the clock is louder than ever. Donald Trump has a once in a generation choice: shut down the Islamic Republic’s… pic.twitter.com/SkJqHvNIJu — ثنا ابراهیمی | Sana Ebrahimi (@__Injaneb96) February 5, 2026

Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) is warning Democrats that the same anti-law-enforcement instincts that fueled the post-George Floyd unrest are now being repackaged as immigration policy, as violent protests erupt once again in Minneapolis. In a Fox News op-ed published Friday, Kennedy argued that Democratic officials who once flirted with defunding the police are now applying the same playbook to immigration enforcement, dismissing federal agents as racists, undermining the rule of law, and inviting chaos in the process. “As I’ve watched the protests in Minneapolis, it seems obvious to me that America is at risk of falling face-first into another disastrous anti-law enforcement crisis,” Kennedy wrote.  The Louisiana Republican framed the unrest as a familiar pattern: leftist activists seize on a crisis, demonize law enforcement, and pressure Democratic officials to stand down rather than restore order. According to Kennedy, the results are always the same. “There are some people in this world who enjoy hurting other people and taking other people’s stuff,” he wrote. “They’re not sick. They’re not confused. They’re not mixed up. … They’re just antisocial.” Kennedy argued that the “defund the police” movement exploited a handful of high-profile misconduct cases to push what he called a fundamentally dishonest narrative, that law enforcement officers are worse than criminals and should be replaced with social workers. Before Floyd died in 2020, Kennedy said, such ideas were fringe, embraced primarily by radical academics and leftist activists. But Democratic leaders in Minnesota, including Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, ultimately chose to appease what Kennedy mockingly labeled the party’s “Karen wing” rather than enforce the law. “They let rioters seek revenge on law enforcement, stood by as police precincts burned and sat in silence as activists defamed the countless good cops who kept their cities safe,” he wrote. The consequences, Kennedy argued, were measurable and severe. In the wake of the Floyd riots, commercial burglaries surged by 43%, carjackings jumped 93%, and murders rose 44%, according to crime data cited in the op-ed. Even years later, Kennedy noted, police departments have struggled to recover from the damage. Nationwide, departments remain understaffed compared to pre-2020 levels. In Minneapolis, the police force is still roughly one-third smaller than it was before Floyd’s death, despite ongoing recruitment efforts. “Maintaining a strong police force is not a light switch you can flick on and off as the woke mob demands,” Kennedy wrote, arguing that years of demoralization drove officers out of the profession altogether. Now, Kennedy says Democrats appear poised to repeat the same mistake, this time targeting immigration enforcement instead of local police. As federal agents move to enforce immigration laws in Minnesota, leftist activists and Democratic officials have accused ICE and Border Patrol agents of racism and “white supremacy,” rhetoric Kennedy argues is designed to delegitimize enforcement entirely. “Instead of arguing that cops are a bigger problem than criminals,” Kennedy wrote, “Walz and Frey have joined the Karen wing of the Democratic Party to say that enforcing immigration laws is racist and vetting migrants is a form of White supremacy.”  Kennedy warned that activists are once again exploiting unrest in Minneapolis to pressure Congress into defunding federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE and the Border Patrol, a move he argues would repeat the same disastrous errors of the defund-the-police era. The senator’s warning comes as Democrats increasingly frame immigration enforcement as a civil rights issue, even as violent protests and property damage accompany demonstrations against federal agents in major cities. Democrats across the country have increasingly made immigration enforcement and reform of ICE a central part of their 2026 policy agenda, particularly in the wake of two fatal shootings of leftist protesters in Minneapolis by federal immigration agents. Party leaders in Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), have tied their support for funding the Department of Homeland Security to a sweeping set of proposed changes aimed at “rein[ing] in ICE,” including requiring body cameras and visible ID for agents, restricting arrests without judicial warrants, banning enforcement near sensitive locations like schools and hospitals, and instituting uniform use-of-force standards.  Leftist members of Congress and activists have pushed even further, with some calling for abolishing the agency outright or defunding it entirely, arguing ICE has become “beyond repair,” while Democratic strategists warn that hardline abolition language could complicate efforts to build broader support for more moderate reforms.  For Kennedy, the lesson of the last five years is clear: undermining law enforcement does not produce justice or safety; it creates disorder. “If anyone should recognize the deep-dish stupidity of the defund-the-police movement,” he wrote, “it should be the officials who watched their cities burn the first time.”

The Trump administration has finalized a rule that significantly alters the job status of approximately 50,000 high-ranking career federal employees. Issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the rule creates a new classification—often referred to as “Schedule Policy/Career”—for workers in policy-determining or policy-advocating roles. This reclassification effectively strips these officials of long-standing civil service protections, transforming them into at-will employees who can be disciplined or fired without the right to appeal to an independent board. For over a century, the U.S. civil service has functioned as a professional, non-partisan workforce. While political appointees serve at the president’s pleasure, career staff have historically been shielded from political firing to ensure institutional stability. However, the administration argues this shift is necessary to combat a “deep state” that President Trump claims undermines his agenda. OPM Director Scott Kupor defended the move, stating that while employees are entitled to personal views, they cannot act as “conscientious objectors” or engage in “sabotage” that thwarts the administration’s objectives. The implementation is moving rapidly. Agencies have already begun identifying eligible positions, with a finalized list expected within 30 days. This will likely be followed by an executive order from the president to finalize the reclassifications. The administration maintains that these changes are merit-based and will not target employees based on their political party, though the rule specifically cites media leaks and open resistance to executive orders as grounds for discipline. In response, a massive legal battle has intensified. On February 6, 2026, several organizations announced updated litigation strategies focusing on the regulatory mechanisms of the rule. Protect Democracy and Democracy Forward argue that the rule violates the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which was designed to prevent a return to the 19th-century “spoils system.” The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation’s largest federal union, is preparing a lawsuit characterizing the rule as an “unlawful ultimatum.” Furthermore, legal advocates have raised alarms over whistleblower protections; under the new rule, converted employees would report complaints to their agency’s general counsel rather than the independent U.S. Office of Special Counsel, a move critics call a clear conflict of interest. With the rule set to take effect in early March, plaintiffs are expected to seek preliminary injunctions to freeze these changes while the courts weigh their legality.

Some federal immigration agents in several areas of the country have been instructed to stop conducting “roving patrols,” where they approach individuals to inquire about their immigration status, multiple Homeland Security sources told The Daily Wire. In recent days, some Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers making arrests across the country have been told to no longer conduct what are known as “consensual encounters,” where feds initiate a voluntary conversation with an individual to determine if they’re in the country illegally. ICE began employing the tactic as the Trump administration ramped up its mass deportation campaign. Border Patrol has long used it along the border to catch contraband, illicit goods, or illegal immigrants. Ending the tactic is a key demand of Congressional Democrats amid ongoing negotiations over funding the Department of Homeland Security. It also comes as President Donald Trump admitted this week that his immigration enforcement efforts may need a “softer touch” following the recent fatal shootings of two anti-ICE activists in Minneapolis. A formal sweeping policy change on “roving patrols” has yet to come down. ICE sources gave mixed reviews after receiving the orders. “Consensual encounters work because we can talk to anyone, and a lot of people that we ‘encountered’ are illegal with criminal records,” one ICE source told The Daily Wire. “Targeted arrests are the norm for ICE operations. The consensual encounter approach was hard for a lot of officers who don’t have the prior Border Patrol experience and [for] quickly determining alienage. I have no problem doing either,” a second ICE source said. Another ICE source explained that while “targeted” arrests are “fine,” they only help track down the illegal immigrants officers “know about” since they’re already on their target lists, adding, “What about the ones we don’t [know about]?” The Daily Wire reached out to DHS for comment and received a statement from a Customs and Border Protection spokesperson, who said “no such order was given,” and that “CBP will continue to enforce the law in Minneapolis, just as they do across the country.” “Authority under 8 USC [United States Code] 1357 and of course reasonable suspicion are protected by the U.S. Constitution,” the spokesperson added. However, the question was about ICE, an agency separate from CBP. DHS later responded to a follow-up question about any orders given to ICE officers, saying that ICE “conducts targeted operations to remove public safety threats from this country—any individual illegally in the country is on the table.” “There is only one page: the President’s page. Everyone’s on the same page,” they said. On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said ending roving patrols was a key demand of Democrats. “You can’t just pick someone up on the street and put them in a dark prison without any kind of warrant. You can’t bust someone’s door down without any kind of warrant. That’s the Constitution, yet that’s what’s going on despicably on the streets of Minnesota and other places,” Schumer told MSNOW’s Morning Joe. Among Democrats’ long list of demands is for federal immigration agents to wear body cameras. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced this week that all federal immigration agents in Minneapolis would receive body-worn cameras and that the Trump administration hopes to do the same nationwide, pending funding. Federal agents drew backlash for conducting “consensual encounters” in Los Angeles when Border Patrol agents showed up at a Home Depot in the City of Angels over the summer. What followed were days of violent protests, where anti-ICE activists blocked highways, set cars ablaze, and hurled concrete blocks at the feds. A legal battle erupted over the action, which ended with the Supreme Court ruling that ultimately lifted a lower court’s restraining order against the roving patrols in Los Angeles. (Photo by Madison Thorn/Anadolu via Getty Images) In Minneapolis, similar changes have been made with the arrival of border czar Tom Homan last week. Trump put Homan at the helm of Minneapolis immigration raids, replacing Border Patrol’s Gregory Bovino, who was known for conducting aggressive “roving patrols.” Homan directed federal agents operating in the Twin Cities to focus on “targeted” arrests of illegal immigrants with the worst rap sheets. He has also said that the directive doesn’t exempt people whose sole crime is being in the country illegally.

An illegal immigrant is accused of violently sexually assaulting an Uber driver in Miami, causing her to collide with another vehicle and slam into a concrete wall, The Daily Wire has learned. Oscar Ernesto Sanchez-Aguire, who hails from El Salvador, snuck across the border undetected, the Department of Homeland Security told The Daily Wire. Last month, authorities finally learned about him after he allegedly violently groped the ride-share driver. The unidentified victim said Sanchez-Aguire, 26, told her to turn down a dark street before he covered her mouth and began attacking her, according to Local 10. The woman was left with bruising to her chest, scratches to her neck and scrapes to her mouth, according to the local news outlet. “In that moment, I panicked and lost control of the car and crashed,” she said. The woman crashed into another car, causing it to hit the wall of a church. Her vehicle then hit the concrete wall of a storage facility. Sanchez-Aguire then allegedly jumped out of the car and began running, but was later nabbed. A witness, Candela Navarro, reported seeing the Uber driver “trapped inside the car,” which “was completely destroyed,” according to 7News. “She was, like, stuck inside of the car and in a state of shock that you can’t even imagine, so I immediately – the deal was to get close to the car and, like, tell her I’m going to help her. Like, I don’t care if the car maybe can explode or whatever, because the car was a mess,” Navarro said. “What she immediately [said] was, ‘He tried to rape me, he tried to rape me, he tried to touch me, abuse me,’ and I was like, ‘Oh, my God,'” the witness said. “This is yet another example of how years of open border policies have resulted in a heartbreaking number of preventable attacks. This monster should never have been in our country in the first place and had the opportunity to prey on this innocent woman,” Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement on Friday. “Every day, we’re working to get illegal aliens out of our country before more innocent Americans are victimized,” McLaughlin said. Sanchez-Aguire faces charges of battery and culpable negligence, according to Local 10. His bond was set at $1,450. ICE recently lodged a detainer with local authorities in Florida “to prevent his release back into American communities,” DHS said.

Peeling back red tape and eliminating redundant regulations sits at the heart of the Trump administration’s economic agenda. That mission went on the road Friday as the Office of Advocacy joined the House Committee on Small Business for the first stop of a new cross-country listening tour focused on small business owners.  The Daily Wire spoke with Joe Krenzelok, with the Office of Advocacy, who is representing the agency at the tour’s opening stop, titled The Open Road: Small Business Conversations Across Main Street America.  Krenzelok said the agency has flagged hundreds of regulatory concerns, adding that the difference this time is that those issues are receiving serious attention, creating what he described as a rare opportunity for lasting reform. He went on to emphasize that the administration’s posture toward small business marks a meaningful shift from past approaches. “President Trump values the input of small businesses,” said Krenzelok.  Krenzelok will join House Committee on Small Business Chair Roger Williams to hear business owners’ concerns directly. He noted that a significant portion of the regulatory concerns raised by businesses stem from Environmental Protection Agency rules. Trump nominated Lee Zeldin to lead the EPA, praising him as a “true fighter for America First policies” with a strong legal background.  Two months into his new role, Zeldin announced what he described as “31 historic actions in the greatest and most consequential day of deregulation in U.S. history.” The move launched sweeping reviews across the energy sector, including easing restrictions on coal plants, power plants, and oil and gas operations. Among the actions was a rollback of national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants.  Krenzelok told The Daily Wire he has already seen tangible effects in his region.  “I met with a small trucking company that raised concerns about diesel emissions regulations,” he said. “The very next day, Administrator Zeldin came to Iowa and mentioned they would be making adjustments within that.” “That told me that he’s very well in tune with what’s happening on the ground,” Krenzelok added. “It’s very evident to me that this administration is actively seeking input from the ground because they’re addressing issues in real time.”  According to the Office of Advocacy’s first annual report, the agency’s efforts have saved small businesses more than $110 billion in regulatory costs. The report states that, on an annualized basis, first-year savings during Trump’s second presidential term were more than 35 times those in Biden’s first year in office. 

Well, last week we talked about the Oscars, and this week, it’s the Grammys. And I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Please, God, kill me now, before I have to hear about the Grammys. Otherwise, I’ll be forced to drown this out by sticking my fingers in my ears and whistling Dixie, which may give people the impression that I support the Confederacy when, in fact, I think holding your fellow human beings in bondage, branding and flogging them before selling their families is a horrible thing, and if I were forced to choose between life as a slave and watching the Grammys, I would pretend to think about it, then suddenly break my chains and escape through the alligator-infested swamps of Mississippi, never to return to slavery until the award show was over.” Okay, maybe that’s not exactly what you’re thinking. I mean, only a degenerate would think something like that. Even just saying it out loud is morally disgusting, though obviously not as bad as the Grammys. But this year, the Grammy award show was not just the usual self-celebration of a collection of semi-talented drug addicts who set disgustingly explicit words to simplistic and atonal music. This year we got to hear what these addicts think about politics. How great is that? For instance, Billie Eilish, who won “Best Performance by a Dumpy Person with a Weirdly Skewed Face who Sings as if Even She Doesn’t Want to Hear her Crappy Music,” denounced ICE agents’ arrest of illegal migrants, by saying, “No one is illegal on stolen land.” In response, the native American Fugawe tribe requested Eilish return her $3 million Los Angeles mansion, since it stands on land that belongs to them. The tribe promised to repay Eilish by burning her heart as a sacrifice to the Great Spirit, after they had devoured her body in a traditional indigenous ceremony. Eilish politely refused as she ran screaming from the award show, explaining that if everyone in California gave their land back, the Native Americans would return the state to poverty, primitivism and savagery, and that’s Gavin Newsom’s job. Bad Bunny won this year’s Grammy for Best Album by a Puerto Rican Drag Queen. Mr. Bunny immediately demanded that Federal immigration officers stop enforcing Federal Immigration law or else. ICE officers responded by crying out in agitated, high-pitched voices, “Oh no, Bad Bunny is angry at us, whatever shall we do?” then went back to work. Now, the Super Bowl is this Sunday, and Mr. Bunny is scheduled to do the half-time show at that all-American display of manhood by wearing a dress and denigrating America. So NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was asked to comment on Bunny’s speech. Goodell said, “We at the NFL gave the half-time show to Mr. Bunny to make a strong statement, namely that we have so much money we really don’t give a rat’s ass what our audience thinks, and we will continue to mock the deeply-held beliefs of ordinary Americans while dining on lobster, caviar and champagne served on the naked backs of former Athletes, whose brain injuries have rendered them useless for anything but acting as furniture for the people who got rich off destroying them. Enjoy the show.” Singer Kehlani won this year’s Grammy for “Most Desperate Attempt to Extend an Evanescent Fifteen Minutes of Fame by Writhing Around Virtually Naked so No One Would Notice She has no Talent.”  Kehlani also denounced ICE, saying, “It is important for artists to speak out, because our opinions matter to the sort of brain-dead 12-year-olds who listen to this crap. I for one want to inspire the young minority men in our audience to stand up to law enforcement agents with violent and aggressive tactics, which is going to work out great for you. And when you’re in prison, we’ll have your back, or actually some muscle-bound thug in Gen Pop will probably have your back, but at least you can think about how much money we’re making for inspiring you to take action.” Now, personally, I thought these speeches were boring, conformist, ignorant, destructive, and foul-mouthed displays of misbehavior. Or maybe that was the songs. No, it was the speeches. Or maybe the songs. Whatever. * * * This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “The Andrew Klavan Show.” Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fifth installment, After That, The Dark, is NOW AVAILABLE. Follow him on X: @andrewklavan. The views expressed in this satirical piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Amazon yanked the Melania Trump documentary from an Oregon theater after the venue’s marquee joke sparked backlash, raising alarming questions about corporate censorship and Big Tech’s willingness to cave to leftist pressure. Theater’s Marquee Joke Triggers Corporate Response An Oregon theater manager reported that Amazon removed the documentary Melania from their screening schedule after the venue displayed a marquee joke about the film. The theater’s marquee, which referenced the documentary about former First Lady Melania Trump, generated complaints that the manager characterized as attacks from leftist critics. Amazon, serving as the film’s distributor, allegedly responded by withdrawing the screening rights from the Oregon venue. The incident occurred in a state known for progressive political leanings, where promotion of Trump-associated content predictably draws intense opposition from activist groups. Amazon has pulled #Melania from an Oregon movie theater. The move was in response to the theater’s marquee messages promoting the film, including “Does Melania wear Prada? Find out Friday!” and — quoting Sun Tzu — “To defeat your enemy. You must know them. Melania.”… pic.twitter.com/f6g5LEEns6 — Variety (@Variety) February 4, 2026 Big Tech Censorship Concerns Resurface Amazon’s decision to pull the documentary represents another troubling example of Big Tech companies prioritizing political appeasement over free expression. The corporate giant holds significant leverage over independent theaters that rely on major distributors for content access, creating an inherent power imbalance. By withdrawing the film based on complaints about a marquee joke, Amazon demonstrated how easily corporate distributors can suppress content deemed politically controversial. This undermines the ability of local venues to promote films creatively and signals to theater owners that humor involving conservative figures invites corporate retaliation. Patriots concerned about viewpoint discrimination have long warned that tech platforms would extend their censorship beyond social media into traditional entertainment distribution. Independent Theaters Face Distribution Stranglehold The Oregon theater’s experience exposes how independent venues operate at the mercy of corporate distribution policies that prioritize risk avoidance over artistic freedom. Theater owners who depend on platforms like Amazon for access to new releases face immediate consequences when their promotional choices displease vocal critics. The manager’s public statement about Amazon’s actions received no official response from the company, leaving the theater’s claims unverified but consistent with Big Tech’s pattern of quiet content suppression. Fans of the Melania documentary in Oregon lost access to the film, while the theater suffered revenue losses from the canceled screening. This incident establishes a chilling precedent for other venues considering how aggressively they can market politically charged documentaries. Long-Term Implications for Conservative Content Amazon’s intervention signals broader threats to conservative film distribution as cultural polarization intensifies. Theater owners now understand that provocative marketing of right-leaning content risks corporate delisting, potentially homogenizing film promotions to avoid political controversy. The incident amplifies ongoing free speech debates by demonstrating how easily corporate intermediaries can restrict access to lawful content based on complaints from ideological opponents. While progressive critics may celebrate the outcome as justified accountability, conservatives recognize the troubling pattern of selective enforcement that consistently targets Trump-associated content. Limited media coverage of the incident suggests mainstream outlets showed little interest in examining potential viewpoint discrimination. The theater manager’s inability to screen the documentary illustrates how corporate control over distribution channels enables effective censorship without formal government involvement, a scenario the Founders would have viewed with deep suspicion. Sources: Oregon theater marquee joked about ‘Melania’ movie, and manager says Amazon pulled the film – GeekWire