Get one for yourself HERE!
I’m so anti-war that I’m…
Blog
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson Says Illegal Immigrants Are an ‘Essential Part of Who We Are’
Chicago’s far left Mayor Brandon Johnson is taking a page out of Zohran Mamdani’s playbook and claiming that ilegal immigrants play in essential role in America.
Newsflash for the mayor. No. They don’t.
Johnson was making his comments in response to the Trump administration’s move to block illegal immigrants from receiving any kind of welfare.
This is something that Democrats simply can’t or won’t understand. Johnson also obscured the difference between legal and illegal immigrants, a tactic often employed by liberals on this issue.
Breitbart News reports:
Chicago’s radical Democrat Mayor Brandon Johnson joined New York’s socialist mayor to sue the Trump administration to protect legal and illegal migrants and their access to U.S. welfare programs, because, in his words, illegals are an “essential part of who we are.”
Johnson joined New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration for shutting down welfare-dependent immigration to the United States through the “public charge” rule.
The Trump administration has resurrected the “public charge” rule, which makes legal immigrants less likely to secure green cards if they have used any form of welfare in the past, including subsidized healthcare services, food stamps, or public housing. But Democrats oppose the rule and claim that migrants who are not productive citizens have every right to be subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer through welfare programs…
In his message to the city, Johnson insisted that reinstating the rule “sweeps aside more than a century of settled law, as well as decades of federal guidance establishing clear limits on how public charge determinations can be made.” Johnson further alleges that the Trump administration’s rule “dramatically and unlawfully expands the government’s authority to consider an immigrant’s use of public benefits, allowing the federal government to consider virtually any means-tested or income-based public benefits while inviting officers to make decisions that are inconsistent and discriminatory.”
Johnson has just announced that he is going to seek a second term and ironically, this very issue could be a major stumbling block for him.
Black Chicagoans have been very critical of Johnson’s devotion to illegal immigrants while ignoring the needs of Americans living in the city.
McConnell Has to be Told How to Vote on Farm Bill
Senator Mitch McConnell had to be told how to vote on the “Farm Bill 2.0” on Wednesday.
On Monday, McConnell announced that he would return to the Senate to cast a vote after a three-month absence.
McConnell was hospitalized on June 14 after he was found unconscious at his DC home.
Spinal Stenosis
No Poop For More Than 2 Days – It’s The First Sign Of
Instantly Relieves Constipation! Drink This and Go to The Toilet Like Clockwork
The 84-year-old Kentucky Senator said he was hospitalized after he took a fall.
Until Monday, the public had only seen two ‘proof of life’ photos of McConnell in the last three months.
In a statement on Monday, McConnell said he is “not quite back to 100%.”
“Today, I’ll cast my first Senate vote since I took a bad fall back in June. I’m really looking forward to being back on the Senate floor and seeing my colleagues,” McConnell said.
Friedrich Merz Again Calls For An End To Online Anonymity
German Chancellor and CDU leader Friedrich Merz is once again advocating for an end to online anonymity.
Merz spoke at the Chancellery in Berlin on Tuesday, where he received the winners of the 61st federal “Jugend forscht” youth research competition, and took their questions. The event was streamed live by the government.
One of the participants asked Merz about introducing a real-name requirement on the internet, and how it could be reconciled with the work of informants, investigative journalism, and the need to sometimes be able to communicate anonymously.
Merz’s answer did not address the question of journalism at all. Instead, he spoke about the difficulties in establishing who is behind an online message, and who to hold responsible, as well as the proliferation of messages generated by bots.
“Please, nobody come to me with free speech. This has nothing more to do with free speech,” Merz said. Free speech, he continued, is “at best” a libertarian understanding of politics out of parts of the United States, “that I personally do not share.”
A liberal society, he went on, must be able to protect its citizens “from false information, from personal denigration, from discrimination.”
Merz, who “grew up in the analog world” said he often wonders if the digital world should be allowed to have “completely different rules.”
In the old world, he said, if a newspaper published false information, one could take action against it, and this, he said, created a certain “hygiene.”
In the digital world, Merz is unhappy that people can use pseudonyms, abbreviations, or made-up names, “and we have enormous difficulty establishing at all who is responsible for it. Is it the platforms or is it the authors themselves? And if so, who actually are the authors?”
He mentioned the “coarsening of manners” and the role of bots in generating messages. According to Merz, his party’s (CDU) competitor, AfD, had benefited in Saxony-Anhalt from messages generated by bots.
It is essential to protect personality rights and “our democracy,” Merz said.
He did allow that there are good reasons to allow for anonymous expression, but did not go into any of them.
It’s also important to note that Merz was not announcing any new policy, bill, or law, and was answering a question from a teenager.
Boston Globe Praised Harvard for Suppressing Free Speech to Save It
The Boston Globe (9/13/26) ran an article contrasting two Boston-area universities’ approaches to campus free speech. Penned by higher education reporter Mike Damiano, the piece reads like an installment of Highlights for Children‘s didactic “Goofus and Gallant” feature, with one school clearly doing it right while the other is letting down the cause of free speech.
Northeastern University plays the role of the loathsome Goofus, with critics remarking that the “school’s leaders have taken a hands-off approach to speech issues since cracking down on a pro-Palestinian protest encampment more than two years ago.”
Meanwhile Harvard, in Gallant fashion,
undertook a multi-year experiment in remaking campus speech norms with top-down reforms, resulting in what students and professors describe as a kind of thaw on a campus where tensions over politics, ideology and speech had thrust it into an acrimonious national debate.
That certainly makes it sound better than Northeastern’s “hands-off approach.” But you have to ask: What did Harvard’s leadership actually do for speech when they put their hands on it?
Well, for one thing, “they have nudged teaching fellows and professors to keep their personal politics out of the classroom.” Huh—telling faculty not to talk about their politics does not actually sound like promoting free speech.
AIPAC’s Network Has Already Spent $67.2 Million to Shape the Midterm Elections
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, has been spending tens of millions of dollars on political races during the current election cycle, aiming to defeat progressive candidates who are critical of Israel and who express support for Palestinians. Many voters might not even be aware of this, because AIPAC-funded ads and mailers often omit any mention of Israel, even though fostering U.S. support for Israel and electing pro-Israel candidates are among the group’s driving aims.
AIPAC’s lobbying and electoral network has so far spent $67.2 million during the current election cycle, up from $29.3 million during the 2021-2022 cycle. These huge amounts of spending have been dedicated to trying to defeat candidates like Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, Aisha Wahab in California, Melat Kiros in Colorado, and many others.
AIPAC has a range of affiliated and aligned Super PACs and other entities. Some of the most significant ones are AIPAC PAC, the group’s political action committee, which raises money to contribute directly to candidates; United Democracy Project, AIPAC’s super PAC, which raises and spends much more money on elections independently; and Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) PAC, which is aligned with AIPAC and specifically focuses on Democratic races.
While there are many donors to AIPAC’s electoral influence operation, a small handful of billionaire megadonors — Wall Street tycoons, entertainment moguls, oil and gas barons, sports franchise owners, and others — provide a hugely disproportionate amount of the donations to the key AIPAC and AIPAC-aligned super PACs to intervene in primary and general elections.
AIPAC’s massive electoral spending comes at a time when support for Israel is plummeting in the U.S., especially among Democrats, amid the genocide in Gaza, intensifying settler attacks in the West Bank, and decades of illegal occupation.
FBI Surveillance, Social Media, AI, Partnerships Draw Scrutiny at Senate Hearing
The FBI is not collecting data from license plate readers, it is merely looking at data that is already collected by somebody else. This is how FBI Director Kash Patel explained the use of this surveillance tool during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on September 15.
“They collect information, not the FBI,” said Patel, adding, “Private companies have and private municipalities and towns put up cameras around traffic circles in the neighborhoods and the like.”
He also said that this is information “where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, basically publicly available information.”
As for the FBI, it “partners” with those who collect the data “on a case-by-case basis and not a rolling access basis.” And he repeated, “We have to use it lawfully, but we the FBI don’t continue to access that on a rolling basis.”
As examples of how this works, he mentioned the Brown University shooting, where “we weren’t able to get any facial recognition on the individual, but what we were able to get based on a Flock camera was a license plate,” which helped locate the suspect who “died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound in New Hampshire.”
And then there are kidnappings across state lines, where “we have saved children over and over again,” Patel said.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) brought up Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which has not been reauthorized and has been expired since June 12, but is still in use thanks to the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) order, which runs out in spring 2027.
Lee’s concern is not that the government is allowed to collect data of non-US persons abroad, which is the purpose of 702, but what happens to the data of Americans who are in contact with those foreign targets and get swept up in the process.
Lee asked why the FBI cannot be required to go to the FISA court for a warrant before being able to query this data. He said that the current system, based on the government’s “internal procedures” is not sufficient to protect Americans’ privacy, and that the past abuses have shown this.
Lee said a query should have “nothing to do with an agent wanting to vet a potential tenant for his rental property, vet a romantic interest, investigate his father…for a suspected extramarital affair.” He added, “These are real-world examples.”
Patel’s response was that the FBI is “flying blind” and cannot establish probable cause for a warrant because it does not know what information it is looking for in the first place. “We don’t have access to that information. We don’t know what we don’t know. And we wouldn’t be able to establish a predicate probable cause because we don’t have access to the information,” he said.
He also said that “what the FBI does not do is collect on U.S. citizens. What the FBI does do is access pursuant to the federal statute already lawfully collected information.”
The FBI director also said the FBI is “responsible for three percent of 702 collection,” with the rest belonging to the intelligence community. He said 702 had produced “terrorist attacks that we’ve prevented, children that we found, on narco traffickers that we were able to annihilate and arrest.” He added, “Were that to go dark, we would have a lot of problems or we would have no ability to trace that information.”
Senator Cornyn asked if it is true that 702 makes up 60 percent of the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) and Patel confirmed this.
Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked about how the FBI uses private sector partnerships, specifically to catch predators. Patel said that the FBI must work with the private sector.
He also said that the FBI is “utilizing the fact that this great information has been collected and sitting on the shelf,” referring to data harvested by private companies, and that the FBI is now “professionally partnered and officially partnered” with more private sector companies in social media and AI than ever before.
He spoke about a 600% increase in AI investment, and then a 605% increase “since I hit the seat,” and credited these partnerships with “the largest reduction in violent crime in American history.”
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Talarico’s Own Church Minister Says His Sudden “Moderation” Is A Con – “Once He Gets Elected, He’ll Change His Tune Back to Where He Was”
An undercover video obtained by The Daily Wire has blown a hole in Texas Democrat James Talarico’s latest campaign makeover.
Rev. Babs Miller, the “Minister to the Parish” at Talarico’s longtime Austin congregation, St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church, was recorded telling an undercover journalist that the Senate candidate’s new talking points on transgender ideology are political theater, and that the old Talarico will be back the minute the votes are counted.
“I can guarantee you that once he gets elected, he’ll change his tune back to where he was,” Miller said.
That is not a Republican talking point. That is Talarico’s own minister.
Miller did not stop there. When the journalist noted that Republicans were hammering Talarico over his infamous “God is non-binary” line, she answered, “Duh.” She then complained that Talarico is “getting some advice that I don’t think he should be following.”
“That’s what his campaign has convinced him of,” Miller said. “The Democratic Party is backing off on their stances on trans and all of this, and so his staff is encouraging him to kind of do the same thing, just for the next 50 weeks, whatever days.”
Then the tell: “I think it’s bad advice personally, but if it helps him win, okay…”
ChatGPT Straight Up Tries to Gaslight User After Being Confronted About Its Obviously Wrong Answer
Don’t ask an AI chatbot how many letter e’s there are in the word “seventeen.” Or do, actually, if you want to see how dodgy the tech remains.
In a clip that’s gone viral in AI circles, the content creator who goes by “Husk” asks ChatGPT’s Voice mode to answer this simple counting question. Not only does the confident-sounding AI get it wrong — insisting there’re only three e’s instead of four — it doubles down so vehemently that it effectively tries to gaslight the user.
“Let’s go through it. S-e-v-e-n-t-e-e-n,” ChatGPT spells out, after assuring that its underlying model, GPT-6, is “pretty much” the smartest model out there. “Those are three e’s.”
When Husk points out the obvious, the chatbot doesn’t back down.
“I said three e’s,” the AI snaps. “And it’s three.”
“No, it’s four,” Husk points out.
“It’s still three,” ChatGPT shoots back.
After Husk points out that ChatGPT just spelled out for e’s for about the fifth time, the AI appears to give up.
“Alright,” it says, falling silent.
“So you agree?” Husk asks.
“No, it’s still three,” it sulks.
This is the AI that OpenAI wants your grandma to talk to, by the way.
The Trump Administration Shut Down a Police Misconduct Database. Now It’s Facing a FOIA Lawsuit
Last year the Trump administration shut down a national database of misconduct by federal law enforcement officers. Now it’s facing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for refusing to release records about that decision.
A coalition of civil rights and police accountability groups filed a FOIA lawsuit on September 4 after waiting 10 months for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to release records about why it pulled the plug on the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (NLEAD), a nonpublic database tracking misconduct by federal law enforcement officers.
The Justice Department launched NLEAD in 2023 to assist federal agencies with hiring and oversight. However, in one of his first acts after returning to the White House in 2025, President Donald Trump ordered the department to delete it. In a written statement to The Washington Post, the White House said former President Joe Biden’s executive order creating the database “was full of woke, anti-police concepts.”
Before the DOJ scrapped NLEAD, it had logged more than 5,200 incidents of misconduct by federal officers—more than 70 percent of them Bureau of Prisons (BOP) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) employees.
Anthony Enriquez, vice president of U.S. advocacy and litigation at the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center, says the lawsuit is not seeking the misconduct data itself, but rather records “about how and why the government dismantled its own accountability tool.”
“You can’t build a national misconduct database, watch federal agencies run 10,000 searches against it in eight months, shut it down, and then tell the public that there’s nothing urgent about explaining why,” Enriquez says.
The Kennedy Human Rights Center, along with the National Police Accountability Project, Black Lives Matter D.C., and National Immigration Project, filed a FOIA request last October seeking records concerning the creation, operation, and decommissioning of NLEAD, as well as whether the data was preserved or destroyed.
The Justice Department first agreed to fast-track the FOIA request based on the heightened public interest in the records, but then reversed its decision. The coalition’s FOIA lawsuit says the department has been sitting on their request for 10 months now.
Civil liberties groups have called for the creation of centralized databases of police misconduct because, traditionally, poor information sharing between departments and lax background checks have allowed problem officers to hop from one department to another, leaving a string of misconduct, rights violations, and expensive lawsuits.
“This was about giving people more information to make smart hiring decisions,” Enriquez says. “Just as you always check someone’s recommendations whenever you’re hiring for your department, we want to do that with people who are entrusted with public safety before we put a weapon in the hands of someone and give them the authority to arrest or even use deadly force. We want to make sure that they don’t have a record of abusing that authority.”
Federal law enforcement unions opposed NLEAD, arguing that it included minor administrative infractions and didn’t give officers due process channels to dispute their inclusion.
You must be logged in to post a comment.