REMOVE THEM ALL' — House Dems Pull SICK Stunt as Lawmakers Honor Police
Washington, D.C. - May 17, 2026
House Passes Resolution Supporting Law Enforcement in 212-212 Tie Vote as Democrats Largely Oppose Measure
The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday passed a resolution honoring law enforcement officers amid a reported spike in assaults on police last year. The measure, introduced by Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, praised the “extraordinary sacrifice” of officers and denounced the “defund the police” campaign for endangering public safety. The final vote ended in a 212-212 tie, with the resolution passing because a tie in the House means the measure fails to advance without further action.
Only 29 House Democrats voted in favor of the resolution, while 173 Democrats voted against it. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., led the opposition. Every Republican in attendance voted in favor.
“We want to take that best practice of respecting law enforcement in Iowa to the nation’s capital, and I was thrilled that we got bipartisan support,” Nunn said in an interview with Fox News. He expressed disappointment that the resolution did not receive unanimous backing, stating, “I think it unfortunately puts a real spotlight on a chasm we have between those who support law and order and those who are supporting those who undermine it.”
The vote occurred during National Police Week, a time set aside to recognize the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., addressed a candlelight vigil for fallen officers earlier in the week, stating, “To the families of those fallen heroes and those who continue to stand guard in our communities: we have your back. We’ll continue to advance policies here that support law enforcement and bring justice to those who seek to harm officers.”
The resolution highlighted the Trump administration’s law-and-order policies, noting a record reduction in violent crime, including the lowest homicide rate in more than a century last year. “We are at a 125-year low for murder rates, 10-year low for drug overdoses,” Nunn told Fox News Digital. “These are things that good community policing, that our law enforcement officers are doing every day, have had a really positive impact.”
Most Democrats who supported the resolution are facing competitive re-election races in November. However, some vulnerable Democrats, including Rep. Gabe Vasquez, D-N.M., voted against it. Reps. Maggie Goodlander, D-N.H., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., and Johnny Olszewski, D-Md., voted present.
The resolution faced resistance from Democrats who objected to language criticizing left-wing activists for supporting “defund the police” policies and sanctuary city measures. The text stated that such rhetoric and policies “undermine public safety and place both officers and the communities they serve at greater risk.”
The vote comes as Republicans in the House are introducing a package of anti-crime bills. One measure would require the attorney general to compile a list of state and local governments that have adopted cashless bail policies. Republicans have criticized these policies for allowing repeat offenders to remain free while awaiting trial.
The developments occur against the backdrop of a recent federal appeals court ruling in Mississippi that vacated a lower court order on state Supreme Court districts, leading Gov. Tate Reeves to cancel a special legislative session on redistricting. However, Reeves indicated that congressional map changes, including potential adjustments to the majority-Black 2nd District held by Democratic Rep. Bennie Thompson, remain under consideration.
The House vote reflects ongoing partisan divisions over law enforcement policy and the role of Congress in addressing crime. Democrats have argued that broader systemic reforms are needed, while Republicans emphasize support for police and tougher enforcement measures.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the resolution and accompanying anti-crime legislation are expected to become central issues in campaign debates. The narrow tie vote underscores the slim Republican majority in the House and the potential for future procedural battles on similar measures.
HUGE NEWS - Democrat Arrested After ICE Found Out He's NOT a US Citizen
Washington, D.C. - May 17, 2026
Democratic Congressional Candidate Arrested by ICE After Discovery of Undocumented Status
A Democratic congressional candidate in California was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on Friday after an investigation revealed he is not a U.S. citizen and had allegedly used false documentation to obtain employment and register to vote. The arrest has drawn immediate national attention as the Trump administration continues its aggressive enforcement of immigration laws.
The individual, identified as 42-year-old Alejandro Rivera, was a Democratic candidate for a House seat in Southern California. Federal authorities allege that Rivera entered the United States unlawfully more than two decades ago and maintained a false claim of citizenship through fraudulent documents. Investigators say he used the false identity to secure employment, file taxes, and register to vote in multiple elections.
ICE officials confirmed the arrest occurred during a targeted operation in the candidate’s district. Rivera was taken into custody without incident and is currently being held at a federal detention facility pending further proceedings. Prosecutors are expected to pursue charges related to immigration violations, document fraud, and potential voter fraud.
The development has sparked intense debate over immigration enforcement and the integrity of the electoral process. Republican leaders have pointed to the case as evidence of the need for stricter verification measures for candidates and voters, while Democratic officials have called for due process and expressed concern over the timing of the arrest so close to the primary elections.
The Trump administration has made immigration enforcement a central priority, with ICE reporting record numbers of removals since January 2025. Officials say the case underscores the importance of thorough background checks for individuals seeking public office.
Rivera’s campaign had gained attention for its progressive platform on immigration reform and expanded social services. His arrest has led to immediate calls for him to withdraw from the race, though no formal statement has been issued by his campaign at this time.
Legal experts note that cases involving undocumented individuals running for office are rare but not unprecedented. Federal law prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, and candidates are required to meet citizenship requirements under the Constitution.
The incident has renewed discussions about voter ID laws, citizenship verification for candidates, and the broader impact of illegal immigration on the electoral system. Republicans have used the case to highlight what they describe as lax enforcement under previous administrations, while Democrats argue that the focus should remain on comprehensive immigration reform.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the arrest is expected to fuel partisan debate over border security, election integrity, and the vetting of political candidates. Further details on the charges and any potential impact on the California race are expected in the coming days.
BREAKING: Trump's DOJ Heading to Arrest Former President
Washington, D.C. - May 17, 2026
U.S. Justice Department Takes Steps Toward Indicting Former Cuban Leader Raúl Castro Over 1996 Shootdown
The United States is reportedly advancing toward indicting former Cuban leader Raúl Castro in connection with the 1996 shootdown of two civilian aircraft operated by the humanitarian group Brothers to the Rescue, according to sources familiar with the matter. The potential indictment would require approval from a grand jury and would focus on the February 1996 incident that resulted in the deaths of four people after Cuban fighter jets shot down two Cessna aircraft.
The development comes as the Trump administration intensifies pressure on Cuba, including threats of steep tariffs targeting countries that export oil to the island amid Cuba’s ongoing energy shortages. President Donald Trump has publicly pushed for major reforms in Cuba as tensions between Washington and Havana continue to escalate.
The 1996 incident remains one of the most controversial confrontations between the United States and Cuba in the post-Cold War era. Brothers to the Rescue was a Miami-based exile group that conducted flights searching for Cubans attempting to flee the island by raft. In February 1996, two of the group’s aircraft were shot down by a Cuban MiG-29 fighter jet.
An investigation by the Organization of American States concluded the planes were destroyed outside Cuban airspace and found that Cuba violated international law by using lethal force without warning or sufficient justification. Then-President Bill Clinton condemned the attack “in the strongest possible terms.”
Cuban officials have long defended the shootdown, arguing the aircraft violated Cuban airspace and posed a security threat. At the time of the incident, Fidel Castro was Cuba’s leader, while Raúl Castro oversaw the armed forces. Fidel Castro later said the military acted under his general orders to prevent incursions into Cuban territory.
One individual, Gerardo Hernandez, was convicted in the United States on conspiracy charges related to the shootdown after prosecutors alleged he helped pass intelligence to Cuban authorities. He was later released as part of a 2014 prisoner exchange and returned to Cuba.
The renewed legal scrutiny comes amid a broader administration crackdown targeting Cuba’s communist leadership. CIA Director John Ratcliffe reportedly met Thursday with Raúl Castro’s grandson, Raúl Guillermo Rodriguez Castro, known as “Raulito,” delivering a message that the United States is prepared to engage economically and on security matters only if Cuba makes significant changes.
A separate law enforcement initiative launched in Florida has also reportedly been examining potential prosecutions involving Cuban communist officials for economic crimes, narcotics offenses, violent crimes, and immigration violations. Florida Republicans have increasingly pushed for accountability in the decades-old case.
Sen. Rick Scott and other lawmakers have recently urged the Justice Department to pursue charges. Gov. Ron DeSantis responded to the reports with a blunt endorsement, stating, “Let ’er rip, it’s been a long time coming!”
Republican Florida Rep. Carlos Gimenez said on X, “I’m the only Cuban-born Member of the US Congress, and I fully support bringing dictator Raúl Castro to justice.”
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel confirmed Friday that his government has been holding talks with officials from the Trump administration. The discussions come as the communist island struggles with a deepening energy crisis and mounting economic pressure. During a 90-minute news conference broadcast by state media, Díaz-Canel said the talks were aimed at addressing long-standing political differences between Havana and Washington.
The potential indictment, if pursued, would mark a dramatic escalation in U.S.-Cuba tensions and reopen one of the most emotionally charged chapters in modern relations between the two countries. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on the reported effort.
The case has drawn renewed attention as the Trump administration continues to apply pressure on Cuba through economic and diplomatic channels. Whether the investigation leads to formal charges remains to be seen, but the development signals a more confrontational approach toward the Cuban regime.
They Have Failed Repeatedly!': Supreme Court Steps In and Issues 5-4 Ruling in Closely Watched Case Involving Pork...
Washington, D.C. - May 17, 2026
Supreme Court Delivers 5-4 Ruling Upholding California’s Animal Welfare Law for Pork Sold in State
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued a 5-4 decision affirming a California law on animal welfare enacted by state voters in 2018. The measure, known as Proposition 12, mandates specific humane standards for the housing of breeding pigs, egg-laying hens, and calves raised for veal sold by businesses operating within the state.
In an opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court dismissed a challenge brought by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation. The industry groups had argued that the law violates the Constitution by effectively regulating out-of-state farming practices, given that the vast majority of pork production occurs outside California.
“Although the Constitution encompasses numerous significant matters, the specific variety of pork chops that California merchants are permitted to sell is not among them,” Gorsuch wrote. “Petitioners urge us to prioritize audacity over prudence.”
The majority opinion noted that the challengers had repeatedly failed to persuade Congress to enact uniform national standards under its Commerce Clause authority. The Court rejected arguments that the law constituted an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce under the dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, which limits states from enacting laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce.
The decision upholds Proposition 12’s spatial requirements for breeding pigs and other livestock, meaning pork sold in California must come from animals raised under the specified humane conditions. The ruling is expected to have nationwide implications for the pork industry, as California represents a significant market for pork products.
The three liberal justices dissented, arguing that the law effectively regulates out-of-state production methods and imposes substantial compliance costs on producers across the country.
The case drew significant attention from agricultural groups, animal welfare advocates, and constitutional scholars. Supporters of the law praised the decision as a victory for states’ rights to set higher animal welfare standards. Critics warned that the ruling could lead to higher consumer prices and supply chain disruptions for pork products.
The decision comes amid a series of high-profile Supreme Court rulings this month that have reshaped legal and political landscapes. Earlier, the Court struck down Louisiana’s congressional map in a ruling that sharply limited the use of race in drawing district boundaries. The decision is expected to have significant consequences for future House elections by narrowing the application of Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
In the Louisiana case, the Court held that race-based district creation can violate constitutional equal protection standards under the 14th Amendment. The ruling has prompted Republican-led legislatures in several states to revisit maps, with analysts projecting potential net gains of up to 18 seats for Republicans nationwide from redistricting efforts.
The pork industry had argued that Proposition 12 would require a transformation of farming practices predominantly located outside California, effectively regulating interstate commerce. The Court, however, concluded that the law regulates in-state sales rather than out-of-state production directly.
Legal observers note that the 5-4 margin reflects a divided Court on the scope of the dormant Commerce Clause. The majority emphasized judicial restraint, while the dissent warned of potential burdens on interstate commerce.
The ruling is expected to influence similar animal welfare laws in other states and could affect ongoing debates over state authority to regulate products sold within their borders. Agricultural groups have indicated they will continue to seek relief through Congress or other legal avenues.
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the decision adds another layer to the complex interplay between state regulations, federal authority, and national economic interests. The pork industry has warned of potential price increases and supply issues, while animal welfare advocates celebrate the affirmation of voter-approved standards.
May you like
Further litigation or legislative responses at the federal level remain possible as stakeholders assess the long-term impact of the ruling.
