Supreme Court Rejects Radical Far-Left PA Judge’s Appeal After He Was Suspended For Hyper-Partisan Pro-Biden Facebook Posts

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear former Philadelphia Judge Mark B. Cohen’s last-ditch bid to undo his suspension for turning a public Facebook page, one that identified him as a sitting judge and showed him in his robes, into a Democrat cheering section for Joe Biden, Josh Shapiro, and the party line.

The justices denied certiorari without comment. Cohen, a Democrat who spent more than four decades in the Pennsylvania House before winning a Court of Common Pleas seat in 2018, had asked the high court to rule that the First Amendment shielded dozens of partisan posts he made while on the bench. It did not.

As The Hill reported, Pennsylvania’s judicial discipline system suspended him in 2024 over posts praising Democrats, including Biden and Gov. Josh Shapiro, and pushing policies such as raising the minimum wage.

That suspension was not a close call, and it was not a surprise.

The Judicial Conduct Board charged Cohen over scores of posts on a page that advertised his status as a Family Division judge.

The record, laid out in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January 21, 2026, opinion and in the board’s filings, shows a longtime Democratic operative who never really left the campaign.

He called Biden an excellent president. He boosted Shapiro. He backed Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner.

Keep reading

President Trump Calls for Mandatory Prison Sentences for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security Fraudsters – Says Crooked Politicians Who Cover It Up Must Face Real Consequences

President Donald Trump is calling on Congress to finally put real teeth behind the government’s war on fraud, mandatory prison sentences for criminals caught stealing from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

In a video released Saturday, Trump demanded legislation establishing mandatory minimum sentences for fraudsters who loot the federal programs millions of Americans depend on.

Under Trump’s proposal, probation would no longer be an option for covered fraud offenses.

“Today, I’m calling on Congress to pass legislation to address fraud in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security programs,” Trump said.

“First, Congress must impose mandatory minimum sentences on fraudsters who steal from critical benefit programs designed to take care of the sick, feed the hungry, care for our children, and protect our senior citizens’ retirements.”

“Under our proposal, probation is no longer an option for the fraudsters. If you steal from the American people, you will go to prison and for a long period of time. And the more you steal, the longer you’ll stay in that prison,” he said. “If you’re a convicted fraudster who gets caught stealing from the American people a second time, your sentence will be doubled.”

Then he went after the politicians.

“Second, Congress must make sure that crooked and corrupt politicians who willfully turn a blind eye to fraud finally face real consequences,” Trump said.

“Under our proposal, if a state or local politician knows about fraud and has the ability to stop it, but does nothing about it, they can be personally liable for the full loss of the American taxpayers’ money that they should have stopped and they should have saved.”

The White House published the president’s announcement Saturday under the title “Minimum Sentences on Fraudsters.”

Keep reading

Jasmine Crockett In Hot Water Legally After Boneheaded Move

Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s campaign-funded merchandise website advertised more than political swag: It offered lobbying services while the Texas Democrat was still serving in Congress, according to Zeteo.

The listing disappeared after the outlet contacted her office. Crockett’s spokesperson said she had not instructed anyone to put it there.

The offerings raised questions about congressional ethics and potential legal violations, experts told Zeteo.

Visitors to the website for Crockett’s merchandise line, “The Clapback Collection,” could find a button near the bottom that read “Political Consultant- Book Now,” according to the report.

Clicking through brought up options ranging from campaign strategy and management to government relations and lobbying. The menu also included communications and public relations, digital and social media work, and political risk management.

Crockett’s office said the site’s purpose was to sell campaign merchandise.

“This website is and has always been focused on selling campaign merchandise,” a Crockett spokesperson told Zeteo. “The Congresswoman has only advertised it for merchandise and did not build it,” they continued. “She never directed anyone to add the button you are inquiring about.”

The solicitation appeared by May, roughly two months after Crockett lost her Senate bid in March, according to Zeteo.

The report also drew a jab from progressive commentator Ryan Grim.

“Not waiting until you leave congress to start lobbying is impressive,” Grim wrote on X.

Keep reading

Crooked, Partisan Former Special Counsel Jack Smith Spotted Wearing ‘No Kings’ Shirt at Anti-Trump Festival as Foo Fighters Dedicate Song to Him

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith turned up at a left-wing political music festival Saturday wearing a “No Kings” shirt.

Smith attended the “Power to the People” festival in Columbia, Maryland, which featured performances from Bruce Springsteen, Foo Fighters and other anti-Trump activists.

Photos from the event showed Smith wearing a shirt emblazoned with “Bruce Springsteen & E Street Land of Hope and Dreams American Tour No Kings.”

Foo Fighters frontman David Grohl even gave the former prosecutor his own rock-star treatment from the stage.

“This one goes out to my new friend Jack,” Grohl said before the band launched into its hit song “My Hero.”

Smith was appointed special counsel by the Biden Justice Department in 2022 and subsequently brought two federal criminal cases against Trump around the January 6th protests with a view to derailing his presidential campaign.

Both cases were ultimately abandoned after Trump defeated Kamala Harris.

Smith’s festival appearance came just days after he perjured himself while testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his investigations into Trump.

Keep reading

Fire Fighters Union in Michigan Quietly Pulls Endorsement of Abdul-El Sayed Then Scrubs Website

A fire fighters union in Michigan has yanked their support for far left Democrat Abdul El-Sayed in the race for U.S. Senate.

They’re now chalking the original endorsement up as a clerical error. Either way, it’s not a good look for El-Sayed, who has come under increased scrutiny in recent months.

The people who run big unions often endorse Democrat candidates, but the rank and file members tend to vote Republican. We have seen this happen again and again.

The Midwesterner reports:

Michigan fire fighters union calls Abdul El-Sayed endorsement ‘clerical error’ — quietly erases from slate of supported candidates

The Michigan Professional Fire Fighters Union quietly removed U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed from its slate of endorsed candidates.

MPFFU President Matt Sahr told The Midwesterner the union’s slate of endorsed candidates initially went out to members on Sept. 11 or 12 with an endorsement for El-Sayed’s campaign prominently displayed at the top alongside Jocelyn Benson for governor and endorsements for the Michigan Supreme Court.

Fifteen days later, on Monday, MPFFU leaders sent out a revised slate of endorsements that replaced El-Sayed with an endorsement for Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist for Secretary of State.

“Our intention was to stay out of that race,” Sahr said, adding the initial slate of endorsements “got distributed out before it got approved” and dismissed it as a clerical error.”…

At least one MPFFU member disputes that.

“This was not a clerical error. What we are seeing now is MPFFU leadership trying to sweep this under the rug. If rank-and-file members had not voiced our concerns, I have no doubt this organization would still be supporting Abdul El-Sayed over Mike Rogers,” a MPFFU fire fighter from southern Michigan told The Midwesterner.

Keep reading

Burchett Plans to Block Socialist Chevalier from Congress over Flag Desecration Post

Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) said he plans to block New York Democratic Socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier from being seated in Congress if she wins the Nov. 3 election, citing a resurfaced post in which she said she wiped her hand on an American flag.

Burchett told the New York Post he intends to make the move when the new Congress convenes in January, using a simple-majority vote to prevent newly elected lawmakers from being seated before they take the oath of office.

The Tennessee Republican argued the flag comment is disqualifying for anyone about to swear the oath.

“You take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and and [sic] you’re pretty much disavowing it right there. I just think we’ve lost our compass,” he said.

Burchett called the comment an affront to his own family’s military service. His father was a World War II Marine, and his maternal uncle, Roy Hicks, was wounded shortly after D-Day battling German forces in the Normandy hedgerows. The congressman keeps the flag that covered Hicks’ coffin in his Knoxville office.

“I’m looking at a 48-star flag that hung on my uncle’s casket and [he] died fighting the Nazis, and then see somebody going to get elected to Congress in New York who said they use that flag for a napkin,” he said.

Burchett said he will offer the motion whether Republicans hold the House or fall into the minority. The congressman flew with President Donald Trump on Air Force One to Tennessee last week.

Chevalier, who faces Republican Jomo M. Williams in the general election, made the comment in a December 2019 post on X that has since been deleted: “I forgot to get napkins so I just wiped my hand on the American flag behind me.” She later said she regretted it.

The 32-year-old Democratic Socialist upended five-term Rep. Adriano Espaillat in the primary for the 13th Congressional District, covering northern Manhattan and the western Bronx, after an endorsement from New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. She co-founded a group that once described itself as “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization,” and maintained a deleted account that hyped communism and Marxism. Asked whether she is a communist, she said, “I’m not. I’m a democratic socialist.”

The plan faces long odds. GOP operative John Feehery, a former senior House leadership aide, said the chamber could not function under such a standard.

“If we refused to seat folks in Congress who said things that we strongly disagreed with, nobody in the House would be seated,” Feehery said.

The Constitution makes each chamber the judge of its members’ elections and qualifications. The Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the House had exceeded its authority in excluding Rep. Adam Clayton Powell (D-NY), who had been duly elected and met the constitutional qualifications for office.

Keep reading

DOJ Hits Gallego’s PAC with Grand Jury Subpoena in Slush Fund Probe

The Justice Department subpoenaed Sen. Ruben Gallego’s (D-AZ) leadership PAC as part of a federal criminal investigation into the Arizona Democrat’s use of campaign cash to fund a luxurious lifestyle, according to a copy of the subpoena obtained by POLITICO.

The grand jury subpoena went out Aug. 21 to Gallego’s Juntos PAC, POLITICO reported Saturday. Its existence had not been reported before. It sought records tied to “activities on or about” Sept. 9, 2025. It also demanded the statements Gallego gave the Senate Ethics Committee during its own misuse-of-funds probe, the one the panel dismissed in June.

A spokesman for the senator said the PAC turned over everything it was asked for.

“The leadership PAC has complied with and responded to the Trump DOJ subpoena because it has nothing to hide,” spokesman Jacques Petit told the outlet. Petit did not say whether Gallego himself, his family, or any of his staff had also been subpoenaed.

The subpoena states that it relates to an “ongoing criminal investigation” and that the records will be handed to a grand jury. Its deadline was Sept. 4.

The probe grew out of reporting on how the senator spent donor money. POLITICO documented a string of family trips to Disneyland, Disney World, Miami, and Chicago. It also found more than $18,000 in childcare reimbursements since 2019, including $400 that went to his mother-in-law. One source put it bluntly, calling the account his “personal slush fund.”

The record also pulls in disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA). The two established a joint committee in October 2022, the “Swallego Victory Fund,” and used it the following year to buy Super Bowl LVII tickets in Glendale, Arizona. CBS News reported the fund burned through more than $37,000 on tickets and meals before being terminated, sending roughly $7,600 to each of their campaigns.

The California Democrat left Congress in April, abandoning a run for governor as multiple women came forward with misconduct accusations. He has denied the allegations.

The subpoena builds on earlier reporting. Breitbart News noted in June that federal prosecutors moved in a day after the Ethics Committee wrapped its inquiry, a sequence the senator’s office dismissed as “politically motivated.” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) filed the complaint that prompted the Senate ethics inquiry.

Keep reading

Far Left UK Green Party Wants The Words ‘Mother’ And ‘Father’ Erased

The Green Party is going to war against language, having decided the words “mother” and “father” are no longer fit for its members.

Ahead of its conference in Brighton this weekend, Zack Polanski’s party has circulated an ‘Inclusive Terminology Guidance’ telling activists to drop “mothers and fathers” for “parents and carers”, and warning that the wrong vocabulary can create “unwelcoming or exclusionary” environments and feed into bullying and harassment under the party’s own code of conduct.

The Telegraph reports that the document, already in use as equalities training, brands a run of ordinary English “unacceptable”, then tells members what to say instead. ‘Sexual preference’ is out because it “implies that attraction is a choice”. ‘Transsexual’ is out because it “does not encompass non-binary people”. ‘Homosexual’ is discouraged for the same reason.

‘Lunatic’ and ‘nutter’ are non-compliant because they “reinforce negative stereotypes and stigma about mental health”. ‘Elderly’, ‘youngster’, ‘able-bodied’, ‘sex-change’, ‘female politician’ and ‘lady doctor’ are all on the discouraged list. Gendered job titles go too: ‘chair’, not ‘chairman’; ‘police officer’, not ‘policeman’.

The race section is the same project in different clothes. Members are steered toward “global majority”, described as an umbrella for people of Black, Asian, Brown, Indigenous and Latin American heritage, on the grounds that these groups are most of the world’s population and are “often minoritised” in countries such as the UK.

‘Brown’ should be “used with caution,” while “racially minoritised” is preferred because it “emphasises that minority status is created by social and power structures, rather than being inherent”. “Black, Asian and minority ethnic” is to be handled carefully, because “many people are uncomfortable with grouping diverse experiences under a single label”.

Keep reading

Clinton-Era Laws Passed 30 Years Ago Enabled Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Agenda. Here’s How We Turn the Page.

The more the American public sees of President Donald Trump’s hardline, anti-immigrant policies in action — the deaths, military-style invasions of neighborhoods, and mass detention and deportations — the more his approval on the issue drops.

If this trend sounds familiar, it’s because a similar wave of disapproval played out in Trump’s first term. Despite that backlash, Trump returned to office embracing even more extreme measures.

We must finally confront and uproot the core of the U.S.’s anti-immigrant underbelly, which is largely reflected in the racially motivated notion of criminalization.

Trump was not the first politician to exploit the concept of criminality, and he certainly won’t be the last. Criminalizing narratives are deeply planted in the American psyche, and they have commonly acted as the vessel through which white supremacist rhetoric and policy are ingrained into our culture and laws.

In the late 1980’s, criminalization went mainstream in the form of racist dog whistles, particularly those hinging on vile anti-Blackness deployed by politicians seeking to activate white voters. In the decades since, conservative and liberal leaders alike more purposefully extended this criminality framework to immigration — so much so that it’s now perhaps the primary driver of the public immigration debate.

Consider how Americans of all political stripes are often presented with the binary choice of supporting the “right” type of immigrant. In this oversimplification, immigrants fall into categories like “good” or “bad,” “legal” or “illegal,” “deserving” or “undeserving.”

Trump did not invent these narratives. They’ve underpinned both major parties’ politics of immigration for several decades, despite their basis in fiction and fear-mongering rather than evidence and compassion, or the fact these narratives are weaponized against non-white immigrants who for centuries have disproportionately faced restrictive and punitive policies for the act of seeking relief in this country.

But Trump’s partisan opposition, despite its massive opportunities in the face of unpopular, hardline policies, has repeatedly failed to capture the public’s long-term support on immigration. Too often, Democrats repackage the same old criminalizing narratives — often in softer terms, but always in line with the oversimplified good-or-bad thinking. This lack of imagination is reflected in the nearly annual bipartisan votes to increase funding for federal enforcement agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection, as well as Democratic leaders’ messaging and policies.

Take, for example, former President Barack Obama’s push to deport “felons, not families”; Joe Biden squandering his mandate to reverse the cruelty of Trump’s first term by continuing many Trump policies, like Title 42 and the backing of for-profit immigrant detention; or Kamala Harris, in her presidential bid, focusing much of her immigration rhetoric on “securing” the border.

It’s a toxic cycle: The public rightfully disapproves of the atrocities of anti-immigrant policies; in response, liberals roll out unimaginative plans hinged on outdated narratives; and finally, in the vacuum created by the lack of any tangible, pro-immigrant vision, the right recaptures the public’s attention with fear mongering and a sensationalist focus on crime and the border.

Keep reading

More of Connecticut’s AI Law Takes Effect. Lawmakers Already Say It Doesn’t Regulate Enough

More provisions of Connecticut’s artificial intelligence (AI) law, Public Act 26-15, take effect today (Oct. 1), with broader workplace requirements scheduled to begin next year. 

While Connecticut is still implementing the law, legislators are already considering another round of AI regulations. Legislative leaders want tougher rules for AI developers, while labor unions are seeking additional protections for workers affected by the technology. 

Connecticut could be writing another set of AI rules before the largest provisions of its current law have had a chance to take effect. 

What Takes Effect October 1 

The first change concerns large layoffs. Under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, certain employers must give advance notice of a mass layoff or plant closing. Starting today, an employer sending that notice to Connecticut’s Department of Labor must also disclose whether the layoffs are related to its use of AI or another technological change. 

The requirement does not prevent a layoff. It could, however, give the state a better record of where technology is changing employment. 

Employers also remain responsible for discriminatory employment decisions made with automated technology. If a company uses software to screen applicants, it cannot dismiss a discrimination claim by saying the computer made it do it. 

For consumers, companies that make generative AI systems with more than 1 million monthly users and sell subscriptions in Connecticut must spell out key terms, including limits on use and whether they can reduce or cut off access. Customers must accept those terms in writing when they sign up or renew.

Large AI providers face another rule. When technically and commercially reasonable, they must include information that helps identify certain images, audio and video as computer-generated. 

State agencies can still put AI to work, but they must follow state standards when using it to deliver public assistance or perform work that could significantly affect residents’ rights, safety or welfare. Agencies authorized to purchase AI must complete an impact assessment.

Software helping staff answer routine questions is one thing. Software involved in a family’s benefits is another. 

Keep reading