Muslims Must Follow US Laws, Not SHARIAH
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated on Newsmax that the state is working to prevent the enactment of Shariah law and to ensure that all residents, including Muslims, follow U.S. and state laws. Paxton made the comments during an appearance on “Rob Schmitt Tonight,” noting that the issue has become prominent in recent discussions.
The state is currently being sued by the Muslim Brotherhood after it was designated a terrorist organization by Texas officials. Paxton described the organization as a terrorist group. He cited an example in Kaufman County where a development project was halted because it sought to impose Shariah law and restrict non-Muslims from moving into the area. Paxton emphasized that the concern is not with individuals practicing their faith but with efforts to implement Shariah law in place of U.S. and state laws.
Paxton said that people are free to worship as they choose under the U.S. Constitution, but they must assimilate to American laws, including the Constitution and state statutes. He noted instances where Shariah-related practices had reportedly affected public schools, such as sporting events limited to Muslim participants, and stated that Texas officials had intervened to cancel such arrangements. He added that Texas must remain vigilant to prevent the spread of Shariah law, describing the state as a current target for testing legal boundaries.
The attorney general said that if officials become aware of practices that conflict with U.S. or state laws, they will address them. He reiterated that worship and faith are protected, but legal compliance is required. The comments come amid broader national debates over religious freedom, immigration, and the integration of diverse communities under a single legal framework. No specific lawsuits or developments beyond the Muslim Brotherhood case and the Kaufman County project were detailed in the interview.
The situation reflects ongoing discussions in Texas and other states about the balance between religious liberty and adherence to secular law. Paxton’s remarks have drawn attention from both supporters and critics of his position on religious and legal issues. The attorney general’s office has not released additional public statements on the matter beyond the interview. Legal experts note that courts have historically upheld the supremacy of U.S. and state laws over foreign legal systems in matters of public policy and governance. The developments are expected to continue generating debate as Texas and other jurisdictions address similar concerns.
JAW-DROPPING': Former Vice President Kamala Harris Stuns Americans With Radical Plan to Take Over US Government
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Former Vice President Kamala Harris outlined a series of proposed structural changes to American political institutions during a livestream discussion hosted by the “Win with Black Women” podcast. The remarks, made as Democrats continue to assess their position following recent electoral losses, included calls for Supreme Court expansion, reconsideration of the Electoral College, multi-member congressional districts, statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and stricter ethics rules for Supreme Court justices.
Harris described the current period as one requiring an “expanded playbook” for Democrats heading into the 2026 midterms and beyond. She encouraged participants to engage in what she termed a “no bad idea brainstorm,” stating that the party should invite a wide range of proposals as it regroups. Among the ideas she referenced was “Supreme Court reform, which includes expanding the Supreme Court,” a concept that has been debated within Democratic circles in recent years but has not advanced through Congress.
She also suggested that Senate Democrats should establish stricter standards for Supreme Court nominees and justices, including rules aimed at addressing potential falsehoods during confirmation processes. Harris argued that such measures could help restore public confidence in the judiciary amid ongoing debates over its role and composition.
The proposals revived long-standing discussions within the Democratic Party about institutional reform. Expanding the Supreme Court would require congressional action, as the Constitution does not fix the number of justices. Previous attempts to increase the size of the court have faced significant opposition on grounds that such changes could undermine judicial independence. Similarly, revisiting the Electoral College has been a recurring topic in national politics, with critics arguing that the system can allow a candidate to win the presidency without securing the national popular vote. Defenders maintain that the Electoral College protects smaller states and preserves the federal character of the republic.
Harris also referenced multi-member congressional districts as a potential avenue for reform. Such systems, used in some other democracies, could alter how House seats are allocated and potentially affect representation patterns. The suggestion of statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico has been part of broader debates over voting rights and congressional balance, though neither has gained sufficient bipartisan support to advance.
The comments drew immediate reactions from across the political spectrum. Conservative commentators and Republican officials criticized the proposals as attempts to reshape governing institutions following electoral defeats. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) responded online by noting, “Well, maybe a few bad ideas.” Others described the remarks as evidence that some Democrats are focused on institutional changes after losing both the Electoral College and the national popular vote in 2024.
Analysts noted that Harris’ statements occur as the party continues internal discussions about its future direction. Since leaving office, Harris has remained engaged in Democratic politics while exploring themes related to institutional reform, voting systems, and judicial oversight. The timing also coincides with ongoing national debates over redistricting, election laws, and the role of federal courts following several recent high-profile rulings.
Public opinion on these issues remains divided. Polling has shown varying levels of support for Supreme Court expansion depending on the framing of the question, with broader opposition when the proposal is described as altering the court’s ideological balance for partisan purposes. Similarly, views on the Electoral College often split along partisan lines, with majorities of Democrats favoring its abolition or reform and majorities of Republicans supporting its retention.
The remarks have added to speculation about Harris’ political future, including potential interest in the 2028 presidential race. As Democrats evaluate strategies for upcoming elections, the discussion highlighted differing perspectives within the party on whether to pursue institutional changes or focus on policy and messaging adjustments. Republicans have framed the proposals as an effort to consolidate power, while some Democrats view them as necessary responses to perceived imbalances in the current system.
The conversation around these ideas is expected to continue as both parties prepare for the 2026 midterms and beyond. Legal and constitutional scholars have noted that many of the changes discussed would require congressional approval or, in some cases, broader constitutional processes. The developments underscore ongoing debates about the balance of power among the branches of government and the mechanisms through which political representation is structured in the United States.
DEMS PANIC - Massive Update as Voting Begins in California Governor Race
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The California Secretary of State’s office has released updated figures on early ballot returns for the June primary election, indicating a notable shift in turnout patterns compared to previous cycles. According to the data, the Republican share of early voters has increased significantly, running more than 9 percent above the party’s voter registration share. This represents an 8 percent rise from early voting patterns in the 2022 primary. In contrast, the Democratic share of early ballot returns has declined by 7 percent from 2022 levels, now standing at 41 percent. The independent share has risen by 2 percent to 25 percent.
Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) described the trend as encouraging for conservatives, noting that Republicans are up while Democrats are down relative to both prior elections and registration numbers. He cautioned against over-interpreting the early data but suggested it could reflect delayed decision-making among some Democratic voters in the governor’s race. Paul Mitchell of Political Data Inc. emphasized that it remains early in the voting period and that data reporting from counties can vary in speed. He observed that older, conservative voters and landlords, who tend to vote Republican, are among the first to return ballots.
Breakdown by age shows that 4.3 percent of voters aged 65 and older have participated so far, compared to 2 percent for those aged 50 to 64, 1.1 percent for ages 35 to 49, and 0.7 percent for ages 18 to 34. By race, 2.6 percent of early voters are white, 2.3 percent Asian, 1.6 percent Black, and 1.2 percent Latino. Mitchell noted that these patterns are typical of low-turnout elections, with older voters often returning ballots early. He added that some groups, such as older Latinos, may prefer voting at polls closer to Election Day.
The primary features a competitive governor’s race under California’s “jungle” primary system, in which the top two vote-getters advance to the general election regardless of party. Leading Democratic candidates include former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, progressive billionaire Tom Steyer, and former Orange County congresswoman Katie Porter. On the Republican side, former Fox News host Steve Hilton appears to hold a lead over Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Most polls indicate Becerra and Hilton as the likely top two finishers advancing to November.
The early voting data has drawn attention as both parties prepare for the 2026 midterm elections. California remains a heavily Democratic state, but turnout patterns and the jungle primary system can influence outcomes in competitive races. Analysts note that early voting trends do not always predict final results, particularly in a state where many voters return ballots closer to the deadline. The Secretary of State’s office continues to update figures as more ballots are processed.
The developments occur against a backdrop of national redistricting battles and broader discussions about voter participation. Both parties are monitoring turnout closely as they finalize candidate slates and campaign strategies. The June primary will determine which candidates advance in key races, including the open governor’s seat and various congressional and local contests. Officials have encouraged all eligible voters to participate, noting that the final outcome will depend on total participation through Election Day.
Senate Confirms Another Top Trump Nominee
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Senate voted 62-30 to confirm John Phelan as the next Secretary of the Navy. Phelan, the founder of a private investment firm and a major donor to President Donald Trump’s campaign, secured bipartisan support despite having no prior military experience. The confirmation advances the administration’s efforts to reshape leadership at the Pentagon.
Phelan previously served as managing partner of MSD Capital and currently chairs Rugger Management LLC, a Florida-based private investment firm. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, he acknowledged concerns about his lack of military service or experience managing a civilian branch of the Pentagon. He argued, however, that his private-sector background uniquely equips him to address systemic challenges facing the Navy, including failed audits, workforce shortages, cost overruns, and delays in shipbuilding programs.
Phelan identified shipbuilding as the top priority, noting that the Navy is years behind schedule on key projects, particularly submarines and large capital warships such as aircraft carriers. He committed to conducting a comprehensive review of existing contracts upon taking office and pursuing a clean audit for the Department of the Navy. He told the committee he would examine contract terms for flexibility and determine what changes may be necessary. Phelan also emphasized the need to move beyond “stability and tradition” when it stifles adaptability, innovation, collaboration, and trust.
The nominee highlighted specific programs, including the delayed Constellation-class frigate program, stating that he planned to evaluate its issues quickly and report back to the committee. Retiring Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) questioned Phelan on the frigate program, which is being built at a shipyard in his home state. Phelan expressed respect for operational expertise within the Navy and Marine Corps and said his role would be to strengthen that expertise while taking decisive, results-oriented action.
The confirmation is viewed as a significant win for the Trump administration’s efforts to install aligned leadership across the Department of Defense. Phelan’s private-sector experience was cited by supporters as an asset for addressing long-standing management and fiscal challenges at the Navy. Critics, however, raised questions about the suitability of a nominee without military or Pentagon experience for such a key national security role.
The vote reflects continued Republican control of the Senate and the administration’s success in advancing nominees despite some internal concerns. The position of Secretary of the Navy is responsible for overseeing the Navy and Marine Corps, including strategy, acquisition, and personnel matters. Phelan’s confirmation comes as the Navy faces ongoing scrutiny over readiness, shipbuilding delays, and fiscal accountability.
The developments are part of a broader pattern of personnel changes within the Trump administration as it seeks to align federal agencies with its policy priorities. No further details on Phelan’s immediate plans upon assuming office were provided beyond his hearing testimony. The confirmation process for other high-level defense and national security positions continues in the Senate.
L.A. Mayor’s Latest Effort to ‘Thwart ICE’ Just Got Put On Notice By the DOJ
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) signed Executive Directive 17 in February, directing city departments to prevent federal immigration agents from using city-owned or controlled property for staging areas, processing locations, or bases of operation. The directive also requires the posting of signs stating that such property may only be used for its intended city purpose and not for immigration enforcement activities. Physical barriers, such as locked gates and doors, are to be used where feasible to limit access to non-public portions of city facilities.
According to local reports, more than 450 signs have been installed at parks, libraries, parking lots, and transit hubs, including MacArthur Park, Lafayette Park, and the Los Angeles Zoo. The estimated cost to taxpayers is at least $250,000. Bass stated that the directive is intended to set clear boundaries and prevent federal agents from using neighborhoods as staging grounds for operations that she described as causing fear and intimidation.
First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli responded that the signs have no legal weight, force, or effect on federal law enforcement activities. He stated that federal agents will go anywhere necessary to enforce federal law, including city property, and described the directive as “silly.” Essayli emphasized that the signs are null and void from the perspective of federal enforcement.
The directive is part of broader efforts by some Democratic-led cities and states to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Bass had previously confronted ICE and Border Patrol agents at MacArthur Park during a major enforcement action last summer, telling them to leave after their operations were completed.
The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have not issued formal statements on the specific directive beyond Essayli’s comments. The situation highlights ongoing tensions between federal immigration authorities and certain local governments regarding the scope of enforcement operations and the use of public property. Legal experts note that federal law generally preempts conflicting local directives in matters of immigration enforcement. No court challenge to the directive has been reported at this time.
The developments reflect partisan divisions over immigration policy and the balance between federal authority and local governance. Both sides continue to debate the appropriate role of local officials in federal enforcement actions. The directive remains in effect as implemented by the city.
PRISONER BLAME GAME: Feeding Our Future Founder Drags Ilhan Omar Into $250M Fraud!
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Aimee Bock, the founder of Feeding Our Future and a central figure in Minnesota’s $250 million COVID meal fraud scandal, has alleged that U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) helped create the environment that allowed the scheme to thrive. In an interview with the New York Post, Bock stated from Sherburne County Jail that she “struggles to believe” Omar was unaware of widespread fraud tied to pandemic meal programs.
Bock was convicted in March on conspiracy, bribery, and wire fraud charges for her role in the scandal, in which operators allegedly fraudulently billed the government for millions of meals that were not served to low-income children. She claimed Omar played a key role in helping expand federal USDA waivers during the COVID-19 pandemic that loosened oversight requirements and allowed restaurants and nonprofits to participate in meal reimbursement programs without traditional inspections.
Bock said there were instances when federal waivers were expiring, and people reached out to Omar’s office and staff to address gaps in the program. She noted that Omar’s name appeared at least six times in emails and text messages introduced during her federal trial. Bock also claimed that many of the fraudulent feeding sites were working directly with Omar’s office and that operators came from Minneapolis’ Somali community, which forms a major part of Omar’s congressional district. One of the most prominent operations tied to the fraud was Safari Restaurant, where Omar filmed a 2020 promotional video praising its food distribution efforts. The restaurant’s co-owner, Salim Said, was convicted of stealing roughly $16 million.
Bock said she warned Minnesota officials about suspicious feeding sites but was ignored. She referenced emails showing she informed state education officials in 2021 about potential issues. Omar has not been charged with any wrongdoing and has denied involvement in the fraud scandal. She has stated that the fraud stemmed from weaknesses in emergency pandemic programs that were set up quickly without adequate guardrails.
The Minnesota Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee recently urged Congress to subpoena Omar’s communications with individuals convicted in the scheme. The committee concluded that Omar, along with Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, played critical roles in creating and enabling the conditions that allowed the fraud to continue. The committee’s findings have not resulted in any criminal charges against Omar.
The Feeding Our Future scandal has become one of Minnesota’s largest public corruption cases in recent history. Federal prosecutors allege that organizers and associates diverted hundreds of millions of dollars intended for low-income children through fake meal claims, shell nonprofits, and fraudulent reimbursement requests. Dozens of individuals have been charged. The MEALS Act, which Omar sponsored, expanded access to child nutrition programs through alternative methods and eased eligibility requirements during school closures.
May you like
The developments reflect ongoing partisan divisions over pandemic relief programs and accountability for fraud in federal spending. Republicans have argued that the loosened oversight created opportunities for abuse, while Democrats have maintained that the programs were necessary to address urgent needs during the public health emergency. The situation continues to develop as federal investigations into the Feeding Our Future case proceed and as lawmakers debate the balance between rapid assistance and oversight in emergency programs.
