Blog

Yes, The Trump Administration Has The Power To Deport Mahmoud Khalil

Federal authorities arrested Mahmoud Khalil, one of the leaders of the pro-Hamas coalition at Columbia University, last weekend on the charge that he “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization,” and posed a threat to national security and foreign policy.

Since that time, politicians and pundits, particularly on the left, have tried to lionize this anti-West terror-supporting radical as some kind of liberal icon and have questioned whether the government has the right to deport someone of his ilk. For the record, of course it does.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) codified at 8 U.S. Code § 1182 applies to all aliens, meaning “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” This term includes both visa holders and green card holders like Khalil. 

The INA contains a number of activities for which a person can be deemed ineligible based on security and related grounds. The relevant subsection contains nine grounds related to terrorism, the majority of which are not controversial at all: members of terrorist organizations, people engaging in terrorism, etc. 

The current debate concerns § 212(a)(3)(b)(i)(vii), which allows for the deportation of any alien who “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.” Some have claimed that deporting someone for these reasons violates the First Amendment. That is incorrect.

The premise of the question rests on the assumption that an alien (even a legal alien) has First Amendment rights that are exactly the same in every situation as the rights of a U.S. national or citizen. That is not the case. As the Supreme Court has made clear, sometimes the government may impose distinctions and conditions.

See, for example, Citizens United v. FEC (2010):

The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees. When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily raise constitutional problems. … [T]he constitutional rights of certain categories of speakers, in certain contexts, ‘are not automatically coextensive with the rights’ that are normally accorded to members of our society. (Emphasis added.)

The question then becomes, how might speech rights be applied differently to foreigners? For example, could such a condition involve not advocating for certain groups that the government, for good reason, considers dangerous and a threat to national security? 

Keep reading

InfoWars Host Swatted 2x in past Day in Texas, Comes after Another Journalist Murdered

Chase Geiser is a host on Alex Jones’ InfoWars and the author of the book “The Rise of American Populism.” Geiser has appeared on various platforms, including “The Alex Jones Show,” “Timcast,” and “Newsmax.”

Geiser said on X today that he has been swatted twice in the past 24 hours.

SWATing is a criminal harassment tactic in which an individual makes a false emergency report—often involving claims of a hostage situation, active shooter, or other violent threat—to provoke a heavily armed police response to a victim’s home or workplace. The goal is to intimidate, harass, or retaliate against the target by causing them to face a dangerous law enforcement encounter.

SWATing can result in serious injuries or even death, as officers responding to the fabricated threat arrive expecting a high-risk situation. The practice has been used against journalists, politicians, activists, and online personalities, especially in politically charged environments.

Law enforcement agencies across the U.S. have begun treating SWATing as a serious federal offense, with perpetrators facing charges such as false reporting, fraud, and making terroristic threats, carrying severe legal penalties.

Online, some have speculated that the responding police were negligent in responding to his address in the same charged way, twice in the same 24 hour period. They note that his address should have been flagged as a potential political target.

The militant political left has regularly used domestic terrorism tactics like these against the right. Rarely does law enforcement take action to prosecute the offenders.

Alex Jones is claiming Gen. Mike Flynn warned him that he’s on a Ukrainian Hit list.

Ukraine is also accused of killing right-wing journalist Gonzalo Lira in January 2024, while Lira was in custody of the country’s law enforcement.

The right-wing internet personality Phillip Buchanan, known online as “Catturd,” was also swatted in 2023.

This comes in the wake of InfoWars reporter Jamie White’s murder on the streets of Austin, Texas outside of his apartment complex Chandelier Apartments at 2336 Douglas St., Austin, in a parking lot. The suspects fled, and the police do not have anyone yet in custody.

Jones has said that he believes White was on a “Ukraine Hit List.”

Keep reading

Trump Backpedals On Controversial Plan: ‘No One Is Expelling Anyone From Gaza’

President Trump in a Wednesday press conference while hosting Irish prime minister Micheál Martin at the White House appeared to backpedal on his plan to turn Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” by expelling all Palestinian inhabitants. 

Trump told reporters “Nobody is expelling any Palestinians” in response to a question on whether he still stands by his ultra-provocative remarks which were tantamount to calling for ethnic cleansing of the enclave.

“We’re working hard with Israel… to see [how] we can solve the problem,” Trump explained. 

The fresh remarks stand in stark contrast with his earlier February words spoken alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which he said, “The US will take over the Gaza Strip… I see it as a long-term ownership position.” He had explained that Palestinians in Gaza would have to leave and be resettled elsewhere.

In the Wednesday back-and-forth with reporters he actually again called Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer a “Palestinian” and then quipped “He used to be Jewish. He’s not Jewish anymore.”

The White House position on Gazans being expelled to other countries is based on the prior explanation that “Gaza is currently uninhabitable and residents cannot humanely live in a territory covered in debris and unexploded ordnance,” in the earlier words of US National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes.

But even many Republicans see the plan as completely unrealistic and absurd, given that for starters it would ensure years more of brutal war, and the likelihood that conflict would spiral over into other Arab countries.

Removal of the debris which has piled up in the demolished Strip could take years or even decades…

Keep reading

Fiery But Peaceful: MSNBC Describes Violent Attacks On Tesla Dealerships As ‘Protests’

MSNBC had its own ‘fiery but peaceful’ moment when anchors claimed that violent attacks on Tesla facilities are perfectly legal ‘protests.’

Attackers have put staff in danger and even set fire to Tesla dealerships and charging stations, but the MSNBC hosts were visibly annoyed that President Trump agreed the actions could constitute domestic terrorism.

One of them whined “you have this post claiming that protests at Tesla dealerships are illegal.”

She added that Trump “said today he would label violence against dealerships as domestic terrorism… So just to be clear, you protest a private company, you are labeled by this administration a domestic terrorist.”

Keep reading

EU Accuses Trump of ‘Blackmailing’ Zelensky!

Yesterday’s pacifists are today’s Rambos, it seems: 442 lawmakers in the 720-seat European Parliament just agreed to a joint declaration that “strongly deplores any attempts at blackmailing Ukraine’s leadership into surrender to the Russian aggressor for the sole purpose of announcing a so-called ‘peace deal.’”

It passed via landslide: 61%.

Not all EU politicians supported the measure:

Melonian Nicola Procaccini, co-chair of the Conservatives (ECR), had tried to delay the vote arguing that a strong stance by the chamber would risk undermining the delicate ongoing discussion between the United States and Russia on the conditions of the ceasefire that were agreed yesterday in Jeddah — on which the Kremlin has yet to officially comment — casting a negative light on the efforts of the star-studded administration.

But the parliament rejected his request, and thus the joint resolution submitted by EPP, S&D, ECR, Renew and Greens (which followed a debate last February) passed with 442 votes in favor, 98 against and 126 abstentions.

Which means, less than 14% of our “friends” in the EU had the testicular fortitude to oppose this brazenly anti-American statement. Thanks, guys.

But perhaps we’re being unfair. Perhaps the EU genuinely, sincerely opposes browbeating a democratic nation — especially one that was just invaded and attacked! — into accepting a permanent, immediate, and unconditional ceasefire. Perhaps this isn’t another example of our European “friends” acting selfishly and cowardly, but a heartfelt moral position.

Nah:

Fun Fact: Just one year ago, this is the same European Parliament that demanded Israel commit to a ceasefire in Gaza!

Keep reading

Moral Bankruptcy: Justifying the Ukraine War as Good for the US Economy

Supporters of the U.S.-NATO proxy war in Ukraine employ a range of dubious justifications.  One is a refurbished version of the old domino theory used during the Cold War – if the United States and its allies don’t help Ukraine expel Russian occupation forces, the victorious Kremlin will then launch offensives against other European countries and eventually dominate the Continent. Another popular rationale is that what might appear to be a mundane struggle between two authoritarian regimes is actually an existential conflict between democracy and autocracy, with Ukraine representing the former and Russia the latter.

Both cases are fallacious. The neo-domino theory wildly overrates Russia’s geostrategic prowess. A military that has encountered trouble subduing Ukraine poses no credible threat to larger, more powerful potential adversaries, such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, or even smaller powers such as Poland, Italy, or Turkey. Likewise, the attempt to portray the fighting in Ukraine as a crucial struggle between democracy and authoritarianism falls flat. Ukraine is not a democracy, even if the most expansive, generous definition is used.

Still another frequent argument that American proponents of backing Ukraine use is that sending arms to Kyiv is good for the U.S. economy, not a multi-billion dollar financial drain on taxpayers.  Officials in Joe Biden’s administration, including the president himself, increasingly resorted to that justification as domestic discontent mounted regarding Washington’s Ukraine policy. Administration policymakers proudly insisted that most of the aid money ended up remaining in the United States.

During a February 20, 2024, speech at a new General Dynamics factory outside Dallas Texas, Biden made the alleged “economic benefits” argument explicitly. A supplemental spending measure pending in Congress at the time contained a total of $95 billion in foreign aid, including money for Ukraine, Israel, and other countries. Of the $60.7 billion for Ukraine, $38.8 billion would go to U.S. factories that made missiles, munitions and other gear. “While this bill sends military equipment to Ukraine,” Biden emphasized, “it spends the money right here in the United States of America in places like Arizona, where the Patriot missiles are built; and Alabama, where the Javelin missiles are built; and Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Texas, where artillery shells are made.”

Republican pro-Ukraine hawks embraced similar “logic” about why billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine were not only necessary from the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy, but also beneficial to the U.S. economy.  Then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) “repeatedly implored his colleagues to understand that the funds from the package are for historic investments “’right here in America.’”

“This is about rebuilding the arsenal of democracy,” McConnell said in a floor speech during the long days of debate, “and demonstrating to our allies and adversaries alike that we’re serious about exercising American strength.”

Keep reading

JUDICIAL TYRANNY: Radical Judge Tanya Chutkan Allows States Attorneys General to Unveil the Names of DOGE Employees

Corrupt U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan has unleashed a legal assault on Elon Musk and the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), greenlighting a fishing expedition that threatens to expose DOGE employees to the wrath of left-wing bureaucrats.

On Tuesday, radical left Judge Tanya Chutkan, a disgustingly dishonest Trump-hater who believes she was elected to lead this country and take down Trump, issued an order today in State of New Mexico, et al. v. Elon Musk, et al. that demands Musk and DOGE cough up sensitive documents and data within a mere 21 days—all to appease a coalition of Democrat-led states desperate to undermine President Trump’s agenda.

Chutkan’s order mandates that DOGE disclose sensitive information and internal documents concerning employees, contracts, and federal engagements directly linked with states participating in the lawsuit.

Chutkan justified the plaintiffs’ aggressive interrogatories, ruling they sufficiently targeted “parameters of DOGE’s and Musk’s authority”—an issue central to plaintiffs’ claims under the Appointments Clause.

“Again, subject to a minor amendment, Plaintiffs have sufficiently tailored their interrogatories and requests for admission as well. Those requests seek to identify DOGE personnel and the parameters of DOGE’s and Musk’s authority- a question central to Plaintiffs’ claims,” Chutkan wrote.

This decision dangerously opens the door for politically motivated activists and partisan actors to weaponize personal information against private citizens simply doing their jobs.

What a sick and dangerous woman!

Keep reading

Canada’s Navy Sails With US Ships as Trump Talks Annexation

As Donald Trump seeks to cripple Canada economically to pursue annexation, the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) is assisting the US bid to stoke war with China. With far-right Trump supporters calling for the US to invade, Canada continues to assist US belligerence in Asia.

Last month HMCS Ottawa transited through the Taiwan Strait with a US warship. It was the first non-US warship to make the provocative move in 2025. A Chinese Navy commander claimed Canada’s actions “deliberately disturbed the situation and undermined the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait.”

It’s the sixth time an RCN vessel has transited through the waterway since Canada released its Indo Pacific Strategy in November 2022. The Indo Pacific Strategy calls on Canada to augment the regular number of warships in east Asia from one to three vessels.

A few days before traversing the Taiwan Strait HMCS Ottawa participated in a joint exercise with US and Filipino ships in the Philippines Exclusive Economic Zone. They said it “underscores our shared commitments to upholding the right to freedom of navigation…as well as respect for maritime rights under international law as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).”

A month ago the Associated Press reported that Ottawa and Manila are in the final stages of negotiating a defense pact to boost joint military exercises. Canada’s ambassador in the Philippines David Hartman said the agreement “will enable us to have even more substantive participation in joint and multilateral training exercises and operations with the Philippines and allies here in the region.”

Keep reading

Trade War: Tariffs Are Needed To Defeat Globalism But They Come With A Cost

Ever since the days of Herbert Hoover and the official start of the Great Depression the concept of trade tariffs has been readily demonized across most of academia and among the majority of modern economic ideologies. Is is actually one area where globalists and free market economists tend to align (though each group has very different reasons).

Proponents of Adam Smith’s free market philosophy or Ludwig Von Mises and his Austrian school are Just as likely to be opposed to Donald Trump’s tariff plans as any globalist from the halls of Davos.

First and foremost we have to make it clear what tariffs are: Tariffs are taxes on international companies importing goods from other nations. These taxes are designed to force companies to import from countries outside of the tariff list or produce goods domestically. The primary targets of tariffs are actually corporations. The secondary targets are countries on the tariff list.

Austrian economists in their opposition to tariffs operate on the assumption that large corporations are “free market” entities. They also assume that globalism is a product of free markets.

Adam Smith might have witnessed the corruption of mercantalism, but he had no inkling of the monstrosity of modern globalism and how it would ultimately pervert the free market ideal. The same goes for Mises. Their support for global trade was contingent on the idea that government interference is always the root problem, the fly in the ointment.

They did not take into account the blurring of lines between corporations, governments and NGOs – They did not consider the corporate shadow government of Davos and the manipulation of markets in the name of “free trade”. They couldn’t have even fathomed the creation of organizations like the IMF, World Bank, the BIS, etc. at the time they came up with their economic theories.

Keep reading

Once Again, Zelensky Shows He’s Not Serious – Says Ukraine Will Not Recognize ANY Territory Occupied by Russia

Once again, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky proved on Tuesday that he is the obstacle to peace for Ukraine and Russia.

Zelensky said he would agree to a ceasefire but he would NEVER ceed territory to Russia.

Someone needs to tell him, he’s not the one holding the cards right now.

When you lose a war, have marched hundreds of thousands of young men to their death, and have lost battle after battle to the opposing forces, you don’t get to call the shots.

President Zelensky: As far as red lines, I as president, and Ukrainians as citizens of their country, will not violate their constitution. And will accept our sovereignty and independence. Protecting people and our land. It’s not easy for us to accept fighting such an enemy. This is understandable. But today we are fighting for our independence. Therefore we will not recognize any occupied territories by the Russian Federation.

This is a fact. Our people fought for it. Our heroes died for it. How many wounded. How much has passed. That’s why no one will forget about it. And when I say no one will forget about it, this is the most important red line. We will not let anyone forget about this crime against Ukraine.

Here is another translation from a different source.

President Zelensky: We don’t accept any occupation of Russia. We don’t accept. It’s a fact. Our people were killed for it. Our heroes were killed. How many of my country, will not violate their Constitution, but will defend our sovereignty, our independence, protecting our people and our land.

It’s not easy to fight such an enemy, that’s clear, but today we are fighting for our independence, and therefore, to recognize any occupied territory of the Russian were killed? How many of them were killed? So no one will ever forget about it. When I say no one will ever forget about it, it’s not going to be. This is the main point. We will not let anyone forget this crime against Ukraine.

Keep reading