Tag: donald trump

 Biden Judge Rules Trump’s Policy of Deporting Illegal Aliens to ‘Third-Party Countries’ is Unconstitutional

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that President Trump’s policy of deporting illegal aliens to ‘third-party countries’ is unconstitutional.

The Trump Administration has been deporting illegal aliens to countries where they are not citizens.

US District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, sided with a group of illegal aliens who filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration and said that the Trump Administration cannot deport illegals to ‘third countries.’

Judge Murphy halted his decision for 15 days so the Trump Administration can appeal.

CBS News reported:

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a Department of Homeland Security policy that allows immigration authorities to deport migrants to “third countries” that are not their own, without first giving them notice or the opportunity to object, is unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts sided with a group of noncitizens who filed a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security last year. He ruled that the Trump administration’s policy regarding third-country removals must be set aside.

Murphy paused his ruling for 15 days to give the Trump administration time to appeal.

Under the policy issued last March and reaffirmed last July, immigration officers did not need to give notice or an opportunity for migrants to contest their removal to third countries, so long as the government had received word from that country that deportees would not be persecuted or tortured.

Third countries are those other than the ones designated on an immigrant’s order of removal.

Keep reading

Trump Claims Iran Developing Missiles To Hit US, Contradicting Intel Reports

With nuclear talks hanging in the balance, and the potential for yet another US war of choice in the Middle East, President Donald Trump escalated the rhetoric Tuesday night, warning that Iran is moving beyond just regional missile capabilities and setting its sights farther west by developing missiles capable of hitting the United States.

During his State of the Union address Tuesday night, Trump claimed, “They’ve already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they’re working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.”

It seemed a transparent attempt to make the American people believe they are under direct threat from Tehran, in order to justify potential near-future strikes, however flimsy the case might be. So far Washington’s main talking point has been that Iran simply can never have a nuclear weapon and so something has to be done – and this actually does resonate with some sectors of the American public.

But Tehran setting its sites on directly attacking the US homeland is a huge stretch, with no serious analyst so much as suggesting the Islamic Republic has the capability or is even close.

US intelligence assessments have been very conservative on this. For example, in 2025, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) stated that Iran could potentially field a militarily viable intercontinental ballistic missile by 2035 “should Tehran decide to pursue the capability.”

Given US intelligence also has not concluded that such a decision had been made, this means Iran is likely at least a decade away from even being close to possessing such an ultra long range missile.

The US mainland is some 6000 miles away from western Iran, and currently Iran’s longest range missile is said to reach just under 1900 miles – a huge gap.

Iran’s ballistic missile focus has always been developing with an eye on the country’s number one nemesis in the region: Israel. 

There’s a broad understanding even among the Western public that in reality Washington’s anti-Iran stance has much more to do with defending Israel than the US homeland, which is clearly not under immediate threat from Tehran. There’s not so much as been a terror attack carried out by a single Iranian Shia operative on American soil in all of history.

Keep reading

Is the Cartel Uprising in Mexico a Pretext for a U.S. Resource Grab?

Coordinated outbreaks of cartel violence have struck parts of western Mexico, particularly in the states of Jalisco, Guanajuato, and Michoacán. According to statements from Mexico’s Secretariat of Security and citizen reports carried by national outlets, armed groups set fire to cargo trucks and private vehicles, blocked major highways linking Guadalajara to Puerto Vallarta, and exchanged gunfire with federal security forces. Authorities confirmed multiple fatalities, including suspected cartel members and security personnel, while local governments urged residents in affected municipalities to remain indoors as a precaution.

Commercial flights at Puerto Vallarta International Airport experienced temporary delays amid road blockades, though federal officials said core infrastructure remained operational. Security analysts described the unrest as consistent with past cartel retaliation tactics designed to demonstrate territorial control rather than sustained combat. Reports of kidnappings, however, such as a group of tourists from Mexico City abducted in Mazatlán, underscore the human toll.

Setup for U.S. Supply Chains?

This turmoil is unfolding against a backdrop of critical mineral production. Mexico holds vast reserves of lithium, silver, and other critical minerals essential for batteries, electronics, and the Western surveillance capitalism economy — think data centers, electric vehicles, and AI infrastructure. The U.S. Geological Survey identifies Mexico as a top producer of eight critical minerals; it is the world’s largest silver producer and boasts untapped lithium deposits in Sonora. CJNG [i.e., Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación] territories overlap key mining areas, like silver-rich Guanajuato and Jalisco, where cartels extort operations and kidnap workers.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated calls to deploy U.S. military to “sweep away the cartels” may mask deeper concerns about securing supply chains and defending them from China. Echoing historical interventions, such rhetoric recalls propaganda expert Edward Bernays’ campaign in the 1950s, portraying Guatemala’s Jacobo Árbenz as a communist threat to justify a CIA-backed coup over United Fruit Company interests — creating the “banana republic” trope.

Today’s media frenzy over cartel violence, amplified by outlets framing Mexico as a narco-state, could serve as similar propaganda to rationalize invasion. Corruption plagues Mexico, with cartels infiltrating politics. President Claudia Sheinbaum, rejecting Trump’s offers, argued that aggressive tactics against narcos violate legal frameworks and human rights, and prioritized due process over confrontation. Yet, her administration faces criticism for leniency, as violence surges despite claims of restored normalcy. Amid unconfirmed evacuation rumors — amid her appeals for calm — the cartels’ real grip on Mexico could provide the U.S. with a modern “banana republic” excuse.

Keep reading

Cuba Says It Killed Four People Who Opened Fire From a US-Registered Speed Boat

The Cuban government said on Wednesday that its coast guard killed four people who opened fire from a US-registered speedboat that entered Cuba’s territorial waters, an incident that comes amid a ramped-up US oil embargo on the country that’s meant to bring about regime change.

The Cuban Interior Ministry said in a statement that the vessel approached within one nautical mile northeast of the El Pino channel north of Corralillo, a town in the central Cuban province of Villa Clara. As the Cuban coast guard vessel approached, the Interior Ministry said the people on the foreign boat opened fire, injuring the commander of the Cuban boat.

“As a result of the confrontation, at the time of this report, on the foreign side, four aggressors were killed, and six were injured, who were evacuated and received medical assistance,” the statement said.

The ministry said the boat was registered in Florida, just 90 miles from Cuba. So far, there’s been no comment from the US about the incident.

The Trump administration recently cut off Venezuelan oil shipments to Cuba and pressured Mexico to end its oil exports, causing severe fuel shortages in the country. Last week, President Trump boasted of the impact his embargo is having on Cuba.

“Cuba is right now a failed nation, and they don’t even have jet fuel for airplanes to take off, clogging up their runway,” he said, adding that he wanted a “deal” with Cuba, but in the meantime, “there’s an embargo. There’s no oil, there’s no money, there’s no anything.”

It’s unclear what sort of “deal” President Trump wants with Cuba, and whether talks between Washington and Havana are underway. Drop Site News recently reported that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been blocking negotiations with Cuba while telling President Trump they were ongoing, while Axios reported that Rubio has held some talks with the grandson of Raul Castro.

Keep reading

Pelosi Loses It – Starts Chomping Her Dentures After Trump Calls Her Out for Insider Trading

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi was caught on camera playing with her dentures on Tuesday after President Trump called her out for insider trading during his SOTU Address.

President Trump roasted Democrats during his State of the Union Address for standing up against insider trading.

Trump called out crooked Nancy Pelosi: “Did Nancy Pelosi stand up for this?

Keep reading

US Military Boards 3rd Sanctioned Oil Tanker on the Indian Ocean, Pentagon Announces

U.S. military forces boarded a third sanctioned oil tanker on the Indian Ocean after it was tracked from the Caribbean Sea, officials announced Tuesday.

The Pentagon stated that U.S. military forces boarded the Bertha vessel overnight without incident, according to a post on X. Video footage included in the post shows military helicopters flying around the vessel.

“Three boats ran and now all three have been captured,” the Department of War stated. “The vessel was operating in defiance of President [Donald] Trump’s established quarantine of sanctioned vessels in the Caribbean and attempted to evade. From the Caribbean to the Indian Ocean, we tracked it and stopped it. No other nation has the global reach, endurance, or will to enforce sanctions at this distance.”

The post added that the military would continue to “deny illicit actors and their proxies freedom of maneuver in the maritime domain.”

The Bertha, which flies under a Cook Islands flag, is linked to Shanghai Legendary Ship Management Company Limited and falls under sanctions imposed in January 2020, according to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.

Following the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in Caracas by U.S. forces in January, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the Trump administration would move to enforce a quarantine of sanctioned oil tankers operating to and from Venezuela.

Keep reading

Another Undeclared Unconstitutional War?

From the New York Times this morning:

In Israel, the two defense officials said that significant preparations were underway for the possibility of a joint strike with the United States, even though no decision has been made about whether to carry out such an attack. They said the planning envisions delivering a severe blow over a number of days with the goal of forcing Iran into concessions at the negotiating table that it has so far been unwilling to make.

The U.S. buildup suggests an array of possible Iranian targets, including short and medium range missiles, missile storage depots, nuclear sites and other military targets, such as headquarters of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The ultimate decision on scope of targets is largely up to Mr. Trump, U.S. officials said.

Strangely, nowhere in this article is it mentioned that U.S. military attacks on Iran legally require a Congressional declaration of war. Apparently, it’s all up to Mr. Trump and Israel whether Iran gets hammered soon.

We the people have absolutely no say. The U.S. Constitution simply doesn’t matter.

Iran poses no direct threat to U.S. national security. There is no clear and present danger; no defensible reason to launch yet another attack on Iran. Yet it seems those attacks will soon be coming, as long as Israel has something to say about this (and that country most certainly does).

Why war with Iran? Apparently for “regime change,” apparently for the oil, and apparently for Israel.

A diplomatic settlement appears to be a long shot here. Perhaps more like a “Hail Mary” pass.

No matter how unconstitutional, no matter how unnecessary to national defense, war always seems to find a way. I sure hope I’m wrong here.

Keep reading

War Propaganda and Iran: The Exact Script Used for Every Failed US War Is Hauled Out Again

When President Lyndon B. Johnson decided in 1965 to significantly increase the number of American troops to fight the growing war in Vietnam, he felt obligated to justify this major escalation to the American people (this was from a quaint, obsolete era when Washington believed public support was mildly important for starting or escalating American wars). On April 7 of that year, Johnson went to Johns Hopkins University to present his definitive case for why the U.S. must fight a war on the other side of the world, against a country that had not attacked and could not meaningfully threaten the U.S.

Johnson presented the American war as one of benevolence, selflessness, and a noble desire to liberate the world’s oppressed peoples from a uniquely murderous, tyrannical regime. “Tonight Americans and Asians are dying for a world where each people may choose its own path to change,” Johnson proclaimed. He compared American motives in Vietnam to those of the freedom-craving American Founders who waged the Revolutionary War to liberate themselves from the British Crown: ”This is the principle for which our ancestors fought in the valleys of Pennsylvania. It is the principle for which our sons fight tonight in the jungles of Viet-Nam.”

While Johnson invoked some geo-political justifications, he emphasized that the U.S. was deploying and putting at risk tens of thousands of young American soldiers in Vietnam simply because we wanted to help the Vietnamese people be free. “We want nothing for ourselves — only that the people of South Viet-Nam be allowed to guide their own country in their own way,” Johnson said.

Central to this propagandistic narrative was the repeated parading around by the American media of a handful of South Vietnamese activists with deep connections to the West. These camera-ready “natives” assured Americans that the Vietnamese people — on whose behalf they claimed to speak — desperately craved American invasion and bombing of their country in order to liberate them. Individuals like Phan Quang Da, a Harvard-educated physician, and CIA-fronted groups, like The American Friends of Vietnam, were used as battering rams against American opponents of the war to accuse them of being indifferent, even contemptuous, of the desire of the Vietnamese people to have the U.S. military free the population. “The Vietnamese people are asking for this, but you do not care about them,” was the refrain war opponents invariably confronted.

Keep reading

Trump quietly got Mexico to hand over 100 cartel leaders — including El Mencho’s brother — before Jalisco raid

Mexico has quietly shipped nearly 100 suspected cartel drug traffickers to the US to stand trial after President Trump branded the groups foreign terrorist organizations last year — and pressured the Mexican government to cooperate.

The suspects include the brother of Nemesio “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes — the brutal Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) leader who was killed by the Mexican army on Sunday.

The Justice Department said many of the 92 defendants released to the Americans had US extradition requests that were not honored during the Biden administration.

“As President Trump has made clear, cartels are terrorist groups, and this Department of Justice is devoted to destroying cartels and transnational gangs,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said of the first round of transfers, which kicked off last February.

“We will prosecute these criminals to the fullest extent of the law in honor of the brave law enforcement agents who have dedicated their careers — and in some cases, given their lives — to protect innocent people from the scourge of violent cartels.”

Keep reading

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Don’t Join ‘Em

2026 marks yet another year Americans find themselves watching Washington and its media surrogates prepare the country for war in the Middle East. Speaking on Iran, President Donald Trump said that “either we reach a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough.” He has deployed what he called a “massive armada” to the region and insisted that Iran has only a month to capitulate or face a “very difficult time.” His demands no longer focus solely on the nuclear program; Trump now insists on ending all uranium enrichment, severing Tehran’s ties to regional militias, and placing strict limits on Iran’s ballistic‑missile stockpile. He said a fair agreement would mean “no nuclear weapons, no missiles.” Such conditions, issued by a nation with an arsenal of its own, amount to complete disarmament and have led observers to conclude that the administration is setting Iran up to fail so it can justify another round of attacks. Last June he authorized the bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities, yet he now argues that more force will be needed if Tehran refuses to accept total capitulation.

Hard‑line commentators have joined the chorus. Conservative media host Mark Levin spoke gleefully about the United States organizing a major attack on Iran and that “this regime must be destroyed,” even issuing a direct threat to Iran’s supreme leader. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has adopted similar maximalist rhetoric. Netanyahu has signaled he favors the use of force to topple Iran’s government or at least cripple its missile defenses and that he and his advisors believe Washington should exploit Iran’s recent unrest to end the Islamic Republic’s 47‑year rule. At a February conference he demanded that all enriched uranium be removed from Iran and that any deal include dismantlement of enrichment infrastructure and resolution of the “ballistic‑missile issue” – conditions that would leave Iran defenseless. Tehran has said its ballistic‑missile program is a “firmly established” part of its deterrence and not open for negotiation, but Trump echoed Netanyahu’s stance, saying a fair deal means “no nuclear weapons, no missiles.” These extreme and shifting demands appear less about arms control than about engineering an impasse that can be used to rationalize war.

Keep reading