Conservative Blogger
Saturday, February 14, 2026
Rubio Strikes Constructive Tone but Persists in US Criticism of European Allies
Secretary of State Marco Rubio cast the United States as the "child of Europe" in a message of unity on Saturday, offering some reassurance as well as leveling more criticism at allies after a year of turmoil in transatlantic relations. Rubio was addressing the annual Munich Security Conference, where
Europe's leading powers have tried to project their own independence and
strength while straining to keep an alliance with the U.S. under
President Donald Trump alive.
The speech delivered a degree of reassurance to European countries who fear being left in the lurch on anything from the war in Ukraine to international trade ructions in a rapidly shifting global order. But it was short on concrete commitments and made no mention of Russia, raising questions on whether Rubio's more emollient tone than that of Vice President JD Vance at the same event a year ago would change the underlying dynamics. "In a time of headlines heralding the end of the transatlantic era, let it be known and clear to all that this is neither our goal nor our wish, because for us Americans, our home may be in the Western Hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe," Rubio said. "For the United States and Europe, we belong together," he said in a speech that drew a standing ovation at the end. While European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said she was "very much reassured" by the speech, others struck a more cautious tone. "I am not sure that Europeans see the announced civilisational decline, supposedly caused mainly by migration and deindustrialisation, as a core uniting interest. For most Europeans, the common interest is security," said Gabrielius Landsbergis, former foreign minister of NATO member Lithuania. "This was not a departure from the general position of the (Trump) administration. It was simply delivered in more polite terms," he said on X. Vance's address last year dressed down European allies, arguing that the greatest danger to Europe came from censorship and democratic backsliding rather than external threats like Russia. While praising Europe's cultural achievements from the artist Michelangelo to the poet William Shakespeare, Rubio also touched on themes that have raised hackles, including criticism of mass migration and zealous action on climate change. "We do not want our allies to be weak, because that makes us weaker," he said. "For we in America have no interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West's managed decline, we do not seek to separate but to revitalize an old friendship and renew the greatest civilization in human history." A European diplomat said there was a sense of relief that Rubio had not directly attacked Europe and used the personal story to link the two sides. But, the diplomat added, "how you deliver the message makes a difference, but on the fundamentals the message is similar to Vance." The Munich conference of top security leaders has been dominated this year by how countries are scrambling to adjust to a year of confrontations with Trump on anything from tariffs to his threat to wrest Greenland from fellow NATO member Denmark. Asked about Russia after his speech, Rubio said the United States would not ditch its commitment to working on a peace deal with Ukraine but that it was not clear whether Moscow was serious about achieving this. Speaking directly after Rubio, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned on Saturday against "knee-jerk" calls for the United States to distance itself from China and said that despite some positive recent signs from the White House, some U.S. voices were undermining the relationship. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz had in his opening address on Friday called for a stronger Europe to reset ties with the U.S. in a dangerous new era of great power politics, while stressing the need for Europe to beef up its own defenses. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has similarly sought a reset in relations with Europe after Brexit, on Saturday stressed the need to bolster the UK's "hard power" and military readiness plus more defense integration with Europe. He also hinted at further alignment with the European Union's single market - which allows goods, services, capital and people to move freely across member states - and deeper economic integration, six years after Britain left the EU. "We are not at a crossroads today, the road ahead is straight, and it is clear we must build our hard power, because that is the currency of the age," Starmer said. "We must be able to deter aggression, and yes, if necessary, we must be ready to fight." |
Democrat Lawfare Is Helping China Prosper
 |
A federal judge’s decision last Monday to let Democratic state attorneys general depose the Trump administration officials who approved a routine merger that the U.S. intelligence community insisted was needed for national security reasons tells us just how divisive the U.S. political system has become. The case, which involves the merger of two telecom companies, HPE and
Juniper, is being framed as just a quest for answers — as a simple
transparency measure to ensure no funny business occurred from the Trump
White House. In reality, it’s anything but that. It’s the latest episode of selective outrage — another instance where normal, routine governance becomes “lawfare” the moment the Trump administration issues a press release. When the suit to stop the HPE-Juniper merger first landed, Letitia James, Keith Ellison, and the rest of the Democratic attorneys general sat it out. They refused to sign onto the Justice Department’s suit. Only after the Trump administration reviewed the facts, weighed the national security implications, and backed a settlement allowing the merger to proceed did they rush in and cry Trump cronyism. This proves that they aren’t really fighting a merger; they are fighting Trump. Which is a shame because this merger was a strategic response to a genuine national security challenge. The United States is in a global technology competition with China, and telecommunications infrastructure is one of the main battlefields. READ MORE: Trump’s China Strategy Is Working - Here’s the Proof Huawei, Beijing’s crown jewel in telecom, has been widely recognized as a national security threat. Congress has effectively banned it from U.S. networks. The Department of Defense has designated Huawei a Chinese military company. U.S. allies have restricted it for fear of state subsidies, coercive market practices, and the risk of built-in surveillance. China’s goal is to dominate the global telecom standards and infrastructure and make the world dependent on its services, so it can control the backbone of the 5G and AI-enabled future. We can’t let this happen, and the idea that the United States should hobble its own companies in the name of abstract antitrust theory is absolutely ridiculous. That’s why the Trump DOJ moved to greenlight the HPE–Juniper challenge and allow the merger to go forward under a settlement. According to reporting, senior figures in the U.S. intelligence community personally communicated to DOJ how important the deal was from a national security standpoint. When intelligence professionals who spend their careers assessing foreign threats say a merger strengthens America’s competitive position against China, that should matter. Yet now Democrats are shouting “corruption,” alleging “Trump backroom dealmaking” and claiming the administration is “open for business for the highest bidder.” Give me a break. The same people who spent years insisting we must “listen to the experts” are suddenly deaf when the intelligence experts draw conclusions that help their leading political opponent (President Trump). This whiplash reveals a deeper hypocrisy that has come to define the post-Trump Democratic Party. Before Trump, intelligence agencies were treated as sacrosanct. Their assessments were beyond partisan dispute. After Trump - when intelligence officials say a merger advances national security - Democrats shrug and change the subject. Before Trump, Democrats talked tough on China - about issues as unfair trade, industrial espionage, and the need to defend American technological leadership. After Trump, any policy that confronts the Communist regime in Beijing, is rebranded as xenophobia or fearmongering - especially if it might benefit U.S. industry. Before Trump, Democrats argued for controlled immigration to protect American workers and wages. After Trump, every attempt to enforce borders or prioritize domestic labor is smeared as bigotry. This pattern is not about policy but about posture. Everything Trump touches must be suspect, even when it aligns with long-standing bipartisan goals like countering Chinese state capitalism and protecting critical infrastructure. According to Democrats, if a decision benefits Trump politically, it must be investigated, litigated, and delegitimized, no matter how strong the substantive case. Talk about reckless. America cannot afford these political games. We are competing with a strategic adversary that coordinates state power, capital, and industry without apology. We need to take them head on, not cower because of Democratic outrage. Democratic AGs, pretending this deal was about corruption-after sitting on the sidelines until Trump backed the deal-only confirms what many Americans already suspect: for some on the left, the real crime to The Left is allowing Trump to be right. Col. Robert L. Maness (Ret), host of The Rob Maness Show on X, is a 32-year United States Air Force combat veteran, where he served as commander of the 377th Air Base Wing, Kirtland Air Force Base. He was a member of the Trump Campaign’s Veterans and Military Families for Trump Coalition. Follow him on X @RobManess. |
Virginia Supreme Court Hands Dems Huge Win, Allows Outrageous Gerrymander to Move Forward
 |
Democrat-led gerrymandering lives to see another day in the Old Dominion after the Supreme Court of Virginia (SCOVA) ruled Friday that a redistricting referendum can proceed on April 21.
Republicans had argued that the referendum should be paused following a lower court ruling that found Democrats had "failed to follow their own rules for adding the redistricting amendment to a special session; failed to approve the amendment before the public began voting in last year’s general election; and failed to publish the amendment three months before the election, as required by law." The Supreme Court of Virginia has taken over the redistricting amendment case — and refused to stop the April 21 referendum.
As RedState has previously reported, the referendum in question seeks to replace an existing amendment to the state constitution that gives authority to redraw congressional boundaries to a redistricting committee – this amendment was approved by Virginians in 2020 – with an amendment that gives that power, instead, to lawmakers. Democrats control both houses of the General Assembly, so that essentially means the amendment would empower them to set the congressional map. READ MORE: (Updated) Virginia Democrats Just Engineered the Most Extreme Gerrymander in the Country Democrats Are One Step Closer to Nuking Most of Virginia's GOP Congressional Seats To get here, Democrats defied a state law that requires proposed amendments be published at least three months before an election. They, instead, published it mere days before the November 2025 election; they are now seeking to redefine that law and make it retroactive to all the way back to 1971, when the law was first passed. Democrats released their gerrymandered map last week. Their proposed map, which they will adopt if the April referendum is approved by voters, will eliminate most of the congressional seats currently held by Republicans. The 6-5 split that currently favors Democrats would turn into a 10-1 split that would neuter the GOP and disenfranchise large swaths of voters in the red parts of the commonwealth. Democrat leaders, needless to say, are thrilled with SCOVA's ruling and are taking a victory lap.
The commonwealth's new governor is also reported to be "happy" over the development.
There is a silver lining in SCOVA's ruling: they have indicated they will decide the merits of the lower court ruling after the referendum takes place. |
Trump Indicates That One Hero From the Maduro Raid Will Receive the Medal of Honor
 |
President Donald Trump has suggested that one of the American service members who took part in the daring raid to capture former Venezuelan head-of-state Nicolas Maduro would be receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor for their heroics during the operation. 🚨
BREAKING: President Trump just revealed one of the American heroes who
helped capture Maduro in Venezuela will be awarded the Congressional
MEDAL OF HONOR
The raid was wildly successful, with no losses to American life or equipment. Trump has largely credited the strength of the American military and a device he has dubbed the “discombobulator” for the ease of the victory against Venezuelan forces.
Trump made the announcement while visiting Fort Bragg in North Carolina, where he met and spoke with the troops who carried out Operation Absolute Resolve, making jokes and partaking in his now-iconic Trump dance to an amused crowd. Trump also made sure to celebrate the reversal of the Biden-era decision to change the name of Fort Bragg to ‘Fort Liberty.”
|
GOP Secures Votes Needed to Pass the SAVE Act
 |
Senate Republicans have secured the needed votes to pass the SAVE Act after Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) confirmed that she would sign on as a co-sponsor of the bill late Friday afternoon. 🚨 BREAKING: SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-ME) is a YEA on the SAVE America Act, a HUGE victory!
With that, Republicans have reached 50 votes, with Vice President JD Vance serving as the tie-breaking 51st vote to pass the bill. The ordeal is not yet over, however. Republican leadership would still need to bring the bill forward, voting Democrats to utilize a “standing” filibuster rather than the more typical “silent” filibuster used when a measure has fewer than the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture.
Conservative Republicans have strongly advocated for leadership to pursue this path, as they see it as the only way forward for advancing President Trump’s agenda, with Democrats being unwilling to be reasonable in negotiations. The SAVE Act was recently passed in the House 218-213 with bipartisan support, with Democrat Henry Cuellar being the lone Democrat to vote in favor of the bill. The vast majority of the electorate supports the contents of the SAVE Act, but Democrats almost unanimously rejected the GOP’s effort to enhance election integrity.
Passing the SAVE Act remains Republicans’ top priority ahead of the midterm elections. |
DOJ ousts judge-appointed U.S. Attorney hours after swearing-in, as Blanche declares ‘Judges don't pick U.S. Attorneys, POTUS does’
 |
In a dramatic escalation of the power struggle between the White House and the federal judiciary, the Department of Justice (DOJ) fired a newly appointed U.S. attorney on Wednesday, just five hours after he was selected by a panel of federal judges. The appointee, Donald T. Kinsella, a 79-year-old litigator and former
federal prosecutor, was named by judges of the Northern District of New
York to lead the office in an interim capacity.
Kinsella’s tenure began and ended on Wednesday. After a private swearing-in ceremony in Albany, the White House responded with a swift dismissal delivered via email. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche also later confirmed the firing in a blunt post on social media.
The move reflects the Trump administration’s defense of the Constitution’s separation of powers, asserting that executive authority rests with the president — not the judiciary — and that only the elected U.S. Commander-in-Chief can hire or remove officials enforcing federal law. The judges in Albany acted under a rarely invoked federal statute (28 U.S.C. § 546(d)), which they argue empowers district courts to appoint a U.S. attorney to fill a vacancy if an interim appointment by the attorney general expires without a Senate-confirmed successor. The vacancy arose after John A. Sarcone III, a former campaign attorney, was disqualified by a court in January. Judge Lorna Schofield ruled that Sarcone had been “serving unlawfully” for months after the administration allegedly used “procedural maneuvers” to bypass the 120-day limit on interim appointments. Before his disqualification, Sarcone had been leading an investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James, a prominent critic of President Trump. In October 2025, James was indicted on federal charges by a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia. The standoff in New York is not an isolated incident, as the GOP administration has faced similar judicial rebukes in other “progressive” districts as well. In the Eastern District of Virginia, a judge recently tossed out indictments brought by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-approved interim prosecutor, after ruling her appointment “invalid.” In New Jersey, courts also blocked the appointment of Alina Habba, a former personal lawyer for the president. While the law allows judges to appoint in a vacancy, Article II of the Constitution does in fact grant the president the power to remove executive officers. What Happens Next The judges of the Northern District of New York released a brief statement thanking Kinsella for his “willingness to return to public service,” but they have not yet announced if they will attempt to name another replacement. Sources say the DOJ is expected to reassign Sarcone under a different designation or name a new interim prosecutor more closely aligned with the administration’s policy priorities — an approach that could ultimately prompt a Supreme Court review. |
Watergate Files Reveal Deep State Secrets: Time for Truth
 |
The recent unsealing of old Watergate-era files, combined with the Trump administration’s earlier mass release of JFK assassination records, has thrown more fuel on the fire for Americans who do not trust the permanent Washington bureaucracy. Officials and journalists are finally being forced to reckon with documents that show the Nixon White House and intelligence agencies operated in a fog of secrecy and influence that too often served elite interests over the nation’s. Veteran
political operative Roger Stone has publicly connected the dots in
blunt terms, arguing these newly surfaced records underscore a
long-standing deep state alliance between the CIA and elements inside
the Justice Department and political class. Stone told Newsmax that
while not every paper changes his conclusions, the pattern of motive,
means, and opportunity around figures like Lyndon Johnson and
intelligence operatives deserves renewed scrutiny rather than reflexive
dismissal. Among the most consequential disclosures are Watergate-era entries showing President Nixon’s own contingency planning and rare sworn testimony, which reveal how tight the links were between the executive, covert operations, and global Cold War maneuvers. Those files even include Nixon’s rare, candid grand jury statements and internal memoranda that cast new light on how national-security claims were used to keep uncomfortable facts hidden from the American people. The CIA connection is not theoretical — archival FOIA records demonstrate that operatives and technicians later implicated in Watergate had documented ties to agency programs and capabilities, raising obvious questions about institutional overlap and accountability. Longstanding anomalies, such as celebrated agency technicians later convicted or involved in political break-ins, now sit squarely in the public record and demand explanation from agencies that once claimed minimal involvement. Conservatives should not reflexively cheer conspiracy theories, but neither should we allow intelligence agencies and a pliant political establishment to hide behind decades of convenient silence. If the documents suggest that national-security rhetoric was repeatedly used to cover political shenanigans, then transparency, oversight, and consequences are not radical notions — they are the very guardrails of a constitutional republic. This moment is a test: will Washington double down on secrecy and self-protection, or will lawmakers and the public demand real reforms to prevent intelligence powers from being misapplied for partisan ends? The right answer is clear — full declassification where possible, congressional investigations with real teeth, and prosecutions when laws were broken, regardless of party or rank. Patriots who love this country must press for truth, not tribal silence. These files are a reminder that liberty depends on an informed citizenry and institutions that answer to the people, not to hidden networks of insiders who think themselves above the law. |
Democrats' Shutdown Gamble Threatens TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard
 |
On Friday’s Finnerty, guest host E.D. Hill tore into Democrats for their role in bringing the nation perilously close to another avoidable shutdown, calling the episode the kind of hypocrisy hardworking Americans know all too well. Hill reminded viewers that while Democrats lecture about responsibility and compassion, their political posturing now threatens TSA, FEMA, and Coast Guard operations that protect our families and communities. The
immediate cause of the crisis is painfully simple: funding for the
Department of Homeland Security was allowed to lapse as Senate
negotiations stalled, setting a deadline at midnight into the weekend
that could trigger partial agency shutdowns on Feb. 14, 2026. This isn’t
abstract Washington theater — it’s a concrete threat to the security
and safety of everyday Americans who rely on federal services for
disaster response and airport security. Democrats justified their blockade by demanding sweeping changes to immigration enforcement and oversight of ICE and CBP, insisting they won’t vote for a bill they say lacks reforms. But conservatives see the calculation as raw politics: weaponize outrage over border enforcement to score headlines while holding essential services hostage. That cynical choice — putting ideological grandstanding ahead of national safety — is exactly what Hill slammed on air. Congressional dysfunction made worse by partisan theater has real costs: TSA officers and other frontline workers risk being forced to work without pay, and FEMA’s ability to respond to emergencies could be diminished just when Americans need help the most. The consequences fall on ordinary taxpayers and first responders, not on career politicians who hide behind press releases while the lights on critical programs flicker. Republicans in the House moved repeatedly to fund the government, but the standoff in the Senate and Democratic refusals to compromise left a path to a shutdown wide open. If Democrats truly cared about the people they claim to represent, they’d stop grandstanding and join a responsible funding solution instead of scoring political points at the expense of national security. E.D. Hill’s blunt assessment on Finnerty echoed the frustration felt by millions who are tired of Washington’s games. Now is the moment for Americans to put pressure on their senators and representatives to end the brinkmanship and pass clean, pragmatic funding that keeps DHS and critical agencies functioning. Patriotism means stewardship — not theatrical self-righteousness — and the men and women who keep our airports, borders, and disaster-response teams running deserve leaders who will do the simple job of funding the government on time. |
Friday, February 13, 2026
Trump's EPA Rolls Back Major Climate Change Rule
 |
The Trump administration on Thursday announced the repeal of a scientific finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health, removing the legal basis for federal climate regulations. It also ended subsequent federal greenhouse gas emission standards for all vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027.
The move represents the most sweeping climate change policy rollback by the administration to date, after a string of regulatory cuts and other moves intended to unfetter fossil fuel development and stymie the rollout of clean energy. "Under the process just completed by the EPA, we are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding, a disastrous Obama-era policy that severely damaged the American auto industry and drove up prices for American consumers," Trump said, announcing the repeal beside EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and White House Budget director Russ Vought, who has long sought to revoke the finding. Trump has said he believes manmade climate change is a hoax and has withdrawn the United States from the Paris Agreement, as well as ending Biden administration-era tax credits aimed at accelerating deployment of electric cars and renewable energy. The endangerment finding was first adopted by the Obama administration in 2009 and led the EPA to take action under the Clean Air Act of 1963 to curb emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and four other heat-trapping air pollutants from vehicles, power plants and other industries. Its repeal would remove the regulatory requirements to measure, report, certify, and comply with federal greenhouse gas emission standards for cars, but might not initially apply to stationary sources such as power plants. The transportation and power sectors are each responsible for about a quarter of U.S. greenhouse gas output, according to EPA figures. The EPA said the repeal will save U.S. taxpayers $1.3 trillion, eliminating the endangerment finding and all federal greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles. Although many industry groups back the repeal of stringent vehicle emission standards, they have been reluctant to show public support for rescinding the endangerment finding because of the legal and regulatory uncertainty it could unleash. Legal experts said the policy reversal could, for example, lead to a surge in lawsuits known as "public nuisance" actions, a pathway that had been blocked following a 2011 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gas regulation should be left in the hands of the EPA instead of the courts. Environmental groups have slammed the proposed repeal as a danger to the climate. Future U.S. administrations seeking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions likely would need to reinstate the endangerment finding, a task that could be politically and legally complex. The Environmental Defense Fund said that the repeal will end up costing Americans more, despite EPA's statement that climate regulations have driven up costs for consumers. "Administrator Lee Zeldin has directed EPA to stop protecting the American people from the pollution that's causing worse storms, floods, and skyrocketing insurance costs," said EDF President Fred Krupp. "This action will only lead to more of this pollution, and that will lead to higher costs and real harms for American families." |
Cuba's Economy Grinds to a Halt As Russia and China Make Noises About Helping, but Fear Offending Trump
 |
Russia announced it will limp to Cuba's rescue as the island bastion of communism in the Caribbean faces a complete economic breakdown due directly to President Trump cutting off black market Venezuelan oil supplies. Cuba has been an economic basketcase for decades, with its only
exports being failed revolutionaries and miserable migrants. That
situation changed markedly for the worse in early January when the U.S.
military launched Operation Absolute Resolve; see Trump Announces Venezuelan Leader Nicolas Maduro and His Wife Captured Following ‘Large Scale’ US Strike – RedState. At first, Cuba was pretty defiant, but then they all are. Cuban President Miguel DÃaz-Canel chaired a National Defense Council meeting on January 18 to prepare for worsening economic conditions and fuel shortages. This was framed as part of preparations for a "war of all the people." It was soon obvious that President Trump had no intention of violating Rahm Emanuel's axiom: "Never let a crisis go to waste." The removal of Maduro and seizure of Venezuela's oil production facilities opened the door to getting rid of Cuba and its penchant for adventurism for once and for all. On January 29, President Trump signed an executive order titled, Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of Cuba – The White House.
See Trump Hits Cuba Hard: New National Emergency Declared, Tariffs Loom for Oil Suppliers – RedState for more details. Let's keep in mind the provisions of the executive order when considering current developments. This week, Cuba entered the first stages of a failure cascade. On Wednesday, Cuba began shutting down.
Russia halted flights to Cuba and evacuated Russian "tourists" as Cuba announced that airplanes would have to bring their own gas if they expected to fly out of Havana; see Trump Oil Blockade Leaves Cuba Without Aviation Fuel, and That's a Good Thing – RedState, The UN, ever with a firm grasp of the obvious, warned of an economic and "humanitarian" collapse. The UN might do well to observe what this looks like as it prepares for its own collapse this summer; see UN Promises Bankruptcy by July Unless Trump Gives Lots of Cash – RedState. According to Izvestia, help, of sorts, is on the way.
Cuba requires 3 million barrels of oil per month just to sustain its existence. Domestic sources cover 30 to 40 percent of that target. Historically, the major suppliers are Venezuela and Mexico. Venezuela is not sending oil, and Mexico stopped deliveries on Monday. Russia's last oil shipment to Cuba was 100,000 barrels, delivered in February 2025. The fact is that there is little Russia can do. To make up for Cuba's deficit, Russia would have to dispatch a supertanker to Cuba every month. That could be done, but the tanker would have to come from Russia's illegal "dark fleet" and be registered in Russia to avoid seizure. President Trump has already demonstrated that he won't tolerate the fake flag of convenience ploy, even when Russia is a party to it. If you recall, the Bella 1 changed to Russian registration while being pursued by the U.S. Coast Guard, and it didn't do them any good; Trump Sends a Powerful Message by Snatching Rogue Oil Tanker Under the Nose of the Russian Navy – RedState. Beyond the risk of seizure, every barrel of oil sent to Cuba is a barrel that is not funding Russia's four-year-old war in Ukraine. Russia also doesn't seem to think the game is worth the candle. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry "Pornstache" Peskov said, "We would not want any escalation, but, on the other hand, we currently don't have much trade [with the US], that is the reality." The unstated "reality" is that Trump is very unlikely to forget the Kremlin running oil to Cuba, and while there is, indeed, very little trade between the U.S. and Russia, there is also a sanctions bill that will really hit the Russian economy, working its way through Congress. Running oil to Cuba would guarantee that Trump not only signs the sanctions package but enthusiastically implements it. China has also said it will help.
That statement and $15 will get you a good cup of "fair trade" coffee at Starbucks. The odds of China using its money to buy oil to ship to Cuba approach zero. In fact, China spending money to help anyone runs counter to the last two or three decades of Chinese behavior. I suppose China and Russia, working in concert, could send a Russian-flagged supertanker loaded with oil China paid for to Cuba monthly, but I don't see how that comes to pass. The real question is how far is President Trump willing to push the Cuban regime? In my view, he's always far too willing to make a deal, but if he feels no deal is possible, as with Maduro, he will act. The first glimpse we'll get of what happens next in Cuba will be the departure of leading political figures. Either voluntarily, or with a black bag over their head, wearing flexicuffs, and riding in an MH-47 with Delta Force troopers. |
Tom Homan Shreds Democrat Victory-Lapping Over ICE's MN Drawdown With Inconvenient Facts
 |
President Donald Trump’s Border Czar Tom Homan made one thing unmistakably clear about the ICE drawdown in Minneapolis, Minnesota: this is not the end — and federal agents can return at scale if necessary. Yes, ICE is ending its surge posture in Minneapolis. No, that does not mean enforcement is stopping. Homan addressed the transition during a television interview on Thursday night, pushing back on the idea that federal authorities are retreating and the false claims from Democrats that this was a victory for the anti-ICE Resistance movement in Minnesota: From the interview:
That is not a withdrawal. Hundreds of agents remain focused on fraud and related criminal investigations. Ongoing cases are continuing. Personnel are still on the ground. What is ending is the surge configuration, the intensified manpower spike designed to force cooperation and accelerate enforcement. Read More: Homan Nukes ‘ICE Retreat’ Narrative With 700-Agent Drawdown Announcement Independent journalist Julio Rosas reported that the Minneapolis effort brought a heavier federal footprint to the area, with a clear purpose: to get local officials to cooperate on criminal enforcement cases and ongoing fraud probes. The added manpower was a tool, not a long-term deployment. As Rosas noted, once Minnesota authorities began working more closely with federal investigators and key investigative goals were achieved, there was no longer a need to maintain surge-level staffing.
That transition is what is happening now. But the larger message from Homan was not about the past. It was about the future.
Surges end. Enforcement authority does not. ICE maintains personnel in Minneapolis. The Department of Homeland Security retains full authority to increase its footprint again if conditions warrant. The federal government has not relinquished control. Homan drove that point home with a line that sounded less like commentary and more like a warning.
That is the deterrent message. Minneapolis is not off the radar. Minnesota is not insulated from federal enforcement. The surge phase has concluded, but the federal presence remains, and the capacity to scale back up is intact. The manpower spike may have ended. But the signal from Washington is clear: if cooperation falters, ICE will be back. |
Lisa Murkowski Got Cooked by This Community Note Over Her SAVE Act Stance
 |
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) opposes election integrity. It shouldn’t come as a shock since she’s one of the most problematic members of the Republican caucus. She recently
voiced her opposition to the SAVE Act, though her reasoning was a bit
flawed. She posted her statement on Twitter, only to get slapped with a
brutal community note:
Yeah, she backed the core tenets of the SAVE Act in 2021. Murkowski isn’t alone: Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is hiding in the bunker, and Susan Collins is also dragging her feet on this bill.
|
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
How many times do we need to say this? If you’re here illegally and get caught, you’re going back. It’s the la...
-
The problem with the courts is the same as the problem with many of our other institutions. Called the Skins...
-
CNN’s Scott Jennings once again took liberals to the cleaners on the Abrego Garcia case, the ‘Maryland man...
