Rep. Ilhan Omar’s Net Worth Jumped from $51K to $30 Million in One Year

Democrat “Squad” member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) has denied being worth millions of dollars, but her latest financial disclosure tells a different story.

In February, she said people were falsely claiming she was worth millions, the Washington Free Beacon reported on Monday.

However, the Beacon’s article shows her net worth in the multimillion range. The outlet, citing a financial disclosure report, continued:

Omar reported in her latest financial disclosure that she and her husband, former political consultant Tim Mynett, accumulated a net worth at the end of 2024 ranging from at least $6 million to $30 million. Their wealth is derived almost entirely from the value of Mynett’s ownership stake in his two companies that, together, were worth no more than $51,000 at the end of 2023. The exact value of Omar’s personal fortune at the end of 2024 is unclear — lawmakers disclose the value of their holdings and debts in ranges. Still, the figures in Omar’s latest disclosures show that her and her husband’s net worth skyrocketed by at least 3,500 percent in just one year.

The Democrat’s surge in wealth is due to Mynett’s two businesses which are a winery and a venture capital firm, per the New York Post.

In February, Omar claimed that conservatives were unfairly targeting her over her finances, the outlet said.

“Since getting elected, there has been a coordinated right-wing disinformation campaign claiming all sorts of wild things, including the ridiculous claim I am worth millions of dollars, which is categorically false,” she stated, adding, “I am a working mom with student loan debt. Unlike some of my colleagues — and similar to most Americans — I am not a millionaire and am raising a family while maintaining a residence in both Minneapolis and DC, which are among the most expensive housing markets in the country.”

Keep reading

‘German’ Globalist Authoritarianism: Berlin Migrant Housing Costs Skyrocket to Nearly €1 Billion, Tripling Since 2020

Berlin—Germany’s far-left globalist capital—has seen its migrant housing bill explode, becoming a symbol of everything Germans, particularly the AfD, warned about but which most chose to ignore.

Newly released government figures have revealed the capital spent nearly €900 million ($9.8 million) in 2024 alone to house migrants, many of which do not have any kind of status in the country, almost triple the cost from just four years earlier, Die Welt reports.

Internal Senate data confirms that accommodation expenses for foreign nationals reached €883 million last year, compared with €312 million in 2020, an increase of 183%.
The numbers expose the real cost of mass migration policies pushed by Berlin’s left-liberal globalist political class.

Mega-sites like Tegel and Tempelhof have become financial black holes for German workers. Tegel alone swallowed roughly €260 million ($280 million) in 2024, more than many German cities spend on public services altogether.

These costs arrive as Berlin plunges deeper into debt and slashes funding elsewhere—and as other German cities are headed toward insolvency, according to some sources. Universities, cultural institutions, transport projects, and basic city services are all being cut to patch a budget hole nearing €3 billion.

Between 2022 and 2025, total spending on migrant accommodation, care, and so-called integration nearly doubled to €2.24 billion. At one point, city leaders even discussed declaring a financial emergency to unlock special loans to cover the costs.

Now the ruling, anti-European, globalist CDU–SPD coalition claims the costs are “manageable,” setting aside up to €870 million annually in reserve funds for 2026 and 2027, while German pensioners go broke and middle-class lifestyles are increasingly out of reach for young people. For ordinary Germans facing rent hikes and service cuts, that reassurance rings hollow, obviously.

For years, Berlin prioritized migrant housing while native citizens were priced out of their own neighborhoods. Luxury container villages and converted hotels appeared, enriching owners willing to make shady government deals, while Germans sat quietly in line for the ever-shrinking social housing stock.

Only recently has the globalist, anti-German coalition paused plans for new migrant facilities, quietly admitting the system is destroying the German taxpayer. This comes after approving projects like a container complex for over 1,000 asylum seekers just months earlier.

There is one statistic officials now eagerly highlight, claiming new arrivals dropped in 2024. Berlin took in ‘just’ over 21,000 migrants last year, about a third fewer than in 2023.
That decline continued into 2025, with roughly 11,700 arrivals recorded by October. But even with fewer newcomers, the financial burden remains crushing. The damage has been done.

As of mid-November, nearly 37,000 people were still housed in state-run migrant facilities. They occupy emergency shelters, container units, dormitories, hotels, hostels, and former office buildings across the city.

Meanwhile, homelessness among Germans is rising, and working families are being pushed out of urban housing markets. The false promise that mass immigration would pay for itself has collapsed under the weight of hard numbers.

Public opinion is shifting fast, and voters are no longer buying the slogans. Polls show growing resistance to both legal and illegal immigration nationwide.

The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), the only party that has long warned that unchecked migration would drain public finances,destroy social cohesion, and make Germany and Europe weaker. Berlin’s €900 million migrant housing bill now stands as proof that the AfD was right all along.

Keep reading

Extrajudicial Killings From Barack Obama to Donald Trump

In May 2013, as President Barack Obama delivered a major foreign-policy speech in Washington, I managed to slip inside. As he was winding up, I stood and interrupted, condemning his use of lethal drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

“How can you, a constitutional lawyer, authorize the extrajudicial killing of people – including a 16-year-old American boy in Yemen, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki – without charge, without trial, without even an explanation?”

As security dragged me out, Obama responded, “The voice of that woman is worth paying attention to.” Perhaps my questions touched a chord in his conscience, but the drone attacks did not stop.

Just before that incident, I had returned from Yemen, where a small delegation of us met with Abdulrahman’s grandfather, Nasser al-Awlaki – a dignified man with a PhD from an American university, someone who genuinely believed in the values this country claims to represent. He looked at us, grief etched into his face, and asked, “How can a nation that speaks of law and justice kill an American child without apology, without even a justification?”

Keep reading

United States Designates the Gulf Clan as a Terrorist Organization: A Forceful Shift in the War on Drugs

The United States Government announced the decision to officially designate the Clan del Golfo as a foreign terrorist organization, a measure that raises the level of confrontation against drug trafficking in Hispanic America.

The announcement, made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, marks a profound shift in U.S. strategy by equating this criminal group with international terrorist organizations.

The Gulf Clan, considered the most powerful illegal armed group in Colombia, has for years been identified as responsible for large-scale drug trafficking to North America, as well as for systematic acts of violence that have affected entire communities.

This designation opens the door to far more severe legal, financial, and operational actions by Washington.

Keep reading

Bill To Block Trump From Launching War With Venezuela Fails in the House

The House on Wednesday voted down a War Powers Resolution meant to block President Trump from launching a war with Venezuela without congressional authorization, as required by the Constitution.

The bill failed in a vote of 211-213, with nine representatives not voting. Just three Republicans joined Democrats in supporting the bill: Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA), and Don Bacon (NE). One Democrat, Henry Cuellar (TX), voted against the legislation.

The legislation would have directed the president to remove “United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.”

Before the Venezuela bill, another War Powers Resolution aimed at stopping President Trump’s bombing campaign against alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and the Eastern Pacific Ocean also failed. That bill failed in a vote of 210-216, with two Republicans (Massie and Bacon) voting in favor and two Democrats (Ceullar and Vicente Gonzalez (TX) voting against.

The votes came a day after President Trump declared a “complete and total blockade” on “sanctioned” tankers going into and leaving Venezuela, an action that’s widely considered an act of war under international law. President Trump and his top officials have also been clear that their goal is regime change.

“Do we want a miniature Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere?” Massie, a co-sponsor of the bill, asked on the House floor before the vote.

“If that cost is acceptable to this Congress, then we should vote on it as a voice of the people and in accordance with our Constitution,” Massie continued. “And yet today, here we aren’t even voting on whether to declare war or authorize the use of military force. All we’re voting on is a War Powers Resolution that strengthens the fabric of our Republic by reasserting the plain and simple language in the Constitution that Congress must decide questions of war.”

Keep reading

Why the Syrian Government Blames Its Own Security Personnel for the Attack on U.S. Soldiers

On December 13, 2025, a joint patrol of U.S. and Syrian forces near Palmyra, Syria, was ambushed by a suspected Islamic State (ISIS) gunman. The lone attacker opened fire on the convoy before being killed by American and partner forces. Two U.S. Army soldiers from the Iowa National Guard and an American civilian interpreter were killed in the assault, and three other U.S. service members were wounded.

The U.S. military and President Donald Trump blamed the Islamic State for the attack and vowed serious retaliation, a position initially echoed by Syrian authorities, who also announced the arrest of several suspects. However, a Syrian government spokesperson later acknowledged that the attacker was a member of state security forces who had been radicalized by ISIS.

Al-Sharaa, the country’s new leader, was formerly the founder of an extremist group that pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda. He is now seeking to rebrand himself as a legitimate statesman to secure sanctions relief, U.S. trade, and foreign investment. To that end, he has prioritized normalizing relations with the Trump administration through intelligence-sharing on ISIS and Iranian proxies, joint counterterrorism efforts, and broader international legitimacy.

He recently became the first Syrian leader hosted at the White House, and Syria formally joined the international coalition fighting ISIS just one month before the attack. Against that backdrop, the question is why the Syrian government admitted that a member of its security forces carried out the attack on U.S. soldiers.

The first reason is that it would have been difficult to claim otherwise because U.S. forces were present and witnessed exactly what happened. The second reason is that Syrian security personnel were also present and witnessed the entire incident. The attack targeted a joint U.S.-Syrian patrol, with members of the Syrian Internal Security Forces directly involved. Two Syrian service personnel were wounded, underscoring their proximity to the attack. Syrian forces were on site, responded to the gunfire, and killed the attacker.

Multiple Syrian officers were present as part of a “key leader engagement.” The Pentagon and CENTCOM stated that the attack occurred during a meeting between U.S. troops and Syrian Interior Ministry officials who had traveled from Damascus to coordinate with local counterparts in Palmyra.

Keep reading

UK Parliament Rejects Petition to Repeal Online Censorship Law, Calls for Expanded Censorship

This week in the UK, Parliament held a debate in response to a public petition that gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures calling for the repeal of the Online Safety Act (OSA).

It was a rare opportunity for elected officials to prove they still listen to their constituents.

Instead, the overwhelming message from MPs was clear: thanks for your concern, but we’d actually like even more control over what you can do online.

One by one, MPs stood up not to defend free expression, or question whether one of the most radical internet control laws in modern British history might have gone too far, but to argue that it hadn’t gone far enough.

“It’s Not Censorship, It’s Responsibility” (Apparently)

Lizzi Collinge, Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, insisted the OSA “is not about controlling speech.” She claimed it was about giving the online world the same “safety features” as the offline one.

This was a recurring theme throughout the debate: reassure the public that speech isn’t being restricted while calling for more mechanisms to restrict it.

Ian Murray, Minister for Digital Government and Data, also insisted the OSA protects freedom of expression. According to him, there’s no contradiction in saying people can speak freely, as long as they’re age-verified, avoid VPNs, and don’t say anything that might be flagged by a government regulator.

It’s a neat trick. Say you support free speech, then build an entire law designed to monitor, filter, and police it.

VPNs in the Firing Line

There is a growing fixation inside government with VPNs. These are basic privacy tools used by millions of people every day, often to protect their data. But several MPs, including Jim McMahon, Julia Lopez, and Ian Murray, suggested VPNs should be subject to age verification or regulatory restrictions.

It’s unclear whether these MPs understand how VPNs work or if they simply dislike the idea of anyone browsing the internet without supervision.

Either way, the intent is clear. The government wants fewer ways for people to browse anonymously.

Keep reading

“Catholic” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul Moves to Legalize State-Sanctioned Suicide

New York Governor Kathy Hochul is moving the Empire State toward legalizing medical-assisted suicide, rebranding it as “medical aid in dying.”

You don’t “aid” dying. Dying happens on its own. The state is approving of the intentional ending of human life.

In an op-ed published by the Times Union, Hochul made clear that she intends to sign the so-called Medical Aid in Dying Act, which would allow terminally ill patients with fewer than six months to live to receive drugs designed to “speed up the inevitable.”

Supporters describe the proposal as “compassionate.” Opponents describe it far more bluntly: state-sanctioned suicide.

In her op-ed, Hochul attempted to wrap the legislation in lofty language about America’s founding principles, claiming that “limited government and broad individual rights” somehow justify empowering doctors to help patients end their lives.

She framed the issue as one of “bodily autonomy,” placing assisted suicide alongside abortion, LGBTQ ideology, and other far-left priorities New York Democrats have aggressively pushed for years.

For the modern Left, “choice” is the ultimate moral trump card, even when that choice involves ending a human life.

Keep reading

5th person arrested in NYE bombing plot is a ‘trantifa’ Marine vet out to ‘recreate Waco’ on ICE: complaint

The fifth person arrested over an alleged New Year’s Eve bombing plot by a far-left terrorist group is a transgender Marine veteran who wanted to “recreate Waco” on ICE agents, according to a criminal complaint unsealed Tuesday.

Micah James Legnon, 29, was arrested in Louisiana on Saturday after being tied to chats with suspected members of the far-left terrorist group Turtle Island Liberation Front as they allegedly plotted to plant pipe bombs on businesses and then ICE agents, according to the FBI investigation.

Legnon — who went by “Kateri TheWitch” and “DarkWitch She/Her” in chat groups — appeared to be planning an attack in New Orleans to coincide with others attacking southern California, the complaint alleged.

Legnon shared pictures of assault rifles and body armor — and federal agents “found sniper training manuals, SWAT training manuals, assault rifles, and multiple rounds of ammunition” in a raid on the suspect’s home in New Iberia, the complaint said.

Keep reading

Faith on Trial in Canada as Parliament Moves to Rewrite the Rules of Speech

A Canadian parliamentary committee has set in motion a change that could recast the balance between expression and state control over “hate speech.”

Members of the House of Commons Justice and Human Rights Committee voted on December 9 to delete a longstanding clause in the Criminal Code that shields religious discussion made in good faith from prosecution.

The decision forms part of the government’s Combating Hate Act (Bill C-9), legislation that introduces new offences tied to “hate” and the public display of certain symbols.

The focus is on Section 319(3)(b), which currently ensures that “no person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)…if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text.”

That safeguard would vanish if the Bloc Québécois amendment approved this month survives the remaining stages of debate.

Liberal MPs backed the Bloc’s proposal, which Bloc MP Rhéal Éloi Fortin introduced after his party leader, Yves-François Blanchet, made its passage a precondition for Bloc support of the bill.

Fortin argued that the religious exemption could permit “someone could commit actions or say things that would otherwise be forbidden under the Criminal Code.”

The amendment was adopted during a marathon session that came only after the committee chair, Liberal MP James Maloney, abruptly ended an earlier meeting and canceled the next one to allow MPs time to “regroup.”

On December 9, the committee returned for an eight-hour clause-by-clause review, with government members determined to complete key sections of the bill before the winter recess.

The broader legislation targets intimidation around religious institutions and bans the display of defined “hate” and “terrorism” symbols.

Yet most debate now centers on whether the change to Section 319(3)(b) opens the door to criminal proceedings against clergy or believers discussing moral or scriptural teachings.

As reported by The Catholic Register, Justice Minister and Attorney General Sean Fraser alleged that the measure poses no threat to religious freedom. “The amendment that the Bloc is proposing will … in no way, shape or form prevents a religious leader from reading their religious texts,” Fraser said. “It will not criminalize faith.”

Keep reading