Congresswoman Lauren Boebert's latest financial move has raised eyebrows among voters and watchdogs alike. Her campaign's decision to fund a Texas getaway tied to a rodeo event begs questions about priorities in a time of economic strain for many Americans.
Boebert's re-election campaign shelled out $925 for event tickets at the Dallas Cowboys' AT&T Stadium in May, during the weekend Kid Rock hosted his Rock N Rodeo to launch the Professional Bull Riding Championship World Finals, the Daily Mail reported.
Additionally, records from the Federal Election Commission reveal a $2,455 expense for a hotel near the venue, fueling speculation about the trip's purpose. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, campaign contributions are strictly barred from personal use. Boebert’s office has remained silent on inquiries regarding any political justification for this expenditure, leaving room for doubt about accountability.
Critics have pounced on the spending as a symbol of misplaced focus. Democrat Eileen Laubacher remarked, “Americans are tired of the circus they're seeing from Washington, with politicians spending more time focusing on flying around going to concerts than passing solutions to lower costs.”
Laubacher’s jab cuts to the heart of voter frustration with leaders who seem detached from kitchen-table issues. When Coloradans are grappling with rising bills, a rodeo jaunt funded by donors feels like a slap in the face.
Another challenger, Trisha Calvarese, echoed the sentiment, calling this “even more proof that she needs a new job.” Her blunt assessment underscores a broader demand for lawmakers to adhere to the spirit of campaign finance laws, not just the letter.
Boebert’s financial history adds fuel to the fire of skepticism. Back in 2020, she reimbursed herself over $21,000 for mileage, an amount critics calculated as equating to driving one-and-a-half times around the globe, raising red flags about accuracy and intent.
That same year, allegations surfaced that she might have used campaign funds to settle personal tax liens tied to her restaurant business. Though the Federal Election Commission dismissed a related complaint due to a deadlocked vote, the episode left a lingering whiff of impropriety.
In 2021, her campaign reported four Venmo payments totaling $6,650, initially labeled as personal expenses billed in error. Even with reported reimbursement, election-law experts point out that such transactions violate rules against using donor money for personal needs, repaid or not.
Boebert’s public image has taken hits beyond her financial decisions, often tied to personal controversies. Her rumored connection with Kid Rock, sparked by late-night sightings after a party celebrating Donald Trump’s inauguration and reinforced by their joint appearance at the rodeo, keeps gossip mills churning.
Her personal missteps, like the 2023 ejection from a Denver theater performance of “Beetlejuice: The Musical” for inappropriate behavior, have also dented her credibility. Initially denying the incident, she later apologized when video evidence emerged, highlighting a pattern of reactive rather than proactive accountability.
More recently, her Halloween costume choice alongside boyfriend Kyle Pearcy, depicting a Mexican migrant and an ICE agent, drew sharp criticism from Latino advocacy groups. Alex Sanchez of Voces Unidas condemned it as “racist” and “unbecoming of an elected official,” pointing to a tone-deafness that alienates constituents.
As a fierce advocate for gun rights and immigration reform, Boebert remains a polarizing figure in the MAGA movement. Yet, her knack for headlines over policy wins risks overshadowing the very causes she champions.
Voters in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, where she now runs after shifting from a tougher race elsewhere, deserve clarity on whether their representative prioritizes their needs or personal pursuits. These repeated stumbles suggest a disconnect that no amount of populist rhetoric can easily bridge.
Campaign finance laws exist to ensure trust between elected officials and the public. If Boebert hopes to maintain that trust, addressing these expenditures with transparency, not silence, would be a start worth considering.
A heartbreaking loss struck Rhode Island's music community on Saturday morning as a Grammy-nominated artist met a tragic end while walking his dog.
Roderick MacLeod, a 70-year-old beloved musician from Hopkinton, Rhode Island, was fatally hit by a vehicle driven by Shannon Godbout, a 41-year-old with over 100 arrests and 82 warrants, Breitbart News reported.
At around 7:20 a.m., MacLeod was on the shoulder of Spring Street when Godbout veered out of her lane, smashing into objects and telephone poles before striking him. Chief Mark Carrier confirmed the devastating outcome, noting MacLeod was rushed to a hospital but sadly passed away from his injuries.
Shannon Godbout, found at the scene with illegal narcotics and drug distribution materials, now faces serious charges, including driving to endanger resulting in death. Additional counts may pile up as evidence is reviewed, according to police statements.
Chief Carrier revealed Godbout’s staggering record of over 100 arrests, 40 traffic citations, and 82 court warrants, including eight arrests by Hopkinton police alone. How someone with such a history was free to drive raises serious questions about accountability in our justice system.
Currently, Godbout remains in custody at Rhode Island Hospital after medical evaluations post-arrest. The Hopkinton Police Department is working with the state Attorney General’s Office to bring her before a court as a probation violator for prior offenses.
Roderick MacLeod wasn’t just a name; he was a pillar of Rhode Island’s cultural scene, inducted into the state’s Music Hall of Fame with Roomful of Blues in 2012. His Grammy nomination in the 1980s with the band marked only one highlight of a storied career.
More recently, he served as a teaching associate at Brown University, leading the Old-Time String Band with the same passion he brought to every stage. Friends and colleagues remember a man whose talent and warmth left an indelible mark on everyone around him.
“He was just always upbeat and cheerful,” said Doug James, a fellow musician who knew MacLeod for four decades. “Few people play that well on everything, and he did.”
Doug James also spoke to MacLeod’s effortless skill, noting, “He really worked hard at all the stuff he did, but it never looked like that.” The appearance of ease hid a dedication that inspired countless peers and students over the years.
The tragedy spared MacLeod’s dog, which miraculously survived and ran back to his home after the crash. That small mercy offers little comfort to a family and community reeling from such a preventable loss.
Chief Carrier expressed the department’s deep sympathy, stating, “Our thoughts and prayers are with Mr. MacLeod’s family during this difficult time following this tragic incident.” Those words echo a shared grief across Rhode Island for a man who brought harmony to so many lives.
As Godbout awaits her court appearance before a Justice of the Peace, the focus sharpens on how repeat offenders slip through the cracks of a lenient system. Public safety demands more than thoughts and prayers; it calls for consequences that stick before tragedy strikes.
MacLeod’s death isn’t merely a statistic but a piercing reminder of what’s at stake when criminal behavior goes unchecked. A man of music, kindness, and brilliance deserved far better than to be cut down by someone with a rap sheet longer than most novels.
Let this be a rallying cry to fix what’s broken in our courts and streets, ensuring artists like Roderick MacLeod can walk their dogs without fear. His melodies may have quieted, but the fight for justice in his name must play on loud and clear.
Americans are filling up their tanks with a welcome surprise this holiday season.
For the first time in four years, the cost of a gallon of unleaded gasoline in the United States has fallen below $3. As reported by Breitbart News, the national average decreased by 5 cents over the past week, reaching $2.90 per gallon.
This decline reflects a steady trend, with prices down 17.6 cents from a month ago and 7.3 cents lower than last year. Diesel, too, dropped 5.1 cents in the last week, now averaging $3.671 per gallon.
Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, captured the moment with optimism, stating, “The U.S. is now at multi-year lows heading into Christmas.” Such rosy predictions, while encouraging, beg the question of why it took so long to get here after years of pain at the pump.
De Haan also suggested prices will likely remain low into the new year. That’s a small mercy for families planning holiday travel, though many still remember the sting of higher costs under previous policies.
AAA’s Monday update aligns with this data, pegging the national average at $2.952. Just a month ago, it was $3.073, showing how quickly relief can come when market forces aren’t smothered by overregulation.
Some states are reaping even bigger savings, especially in the South and Midwest. Oklahoma leads with an average of $2.366 per gallon, while Texas sits at $2.500 and Missouri at $2.608.
Other areas like Florida, Alabama, Michigan, Ohio, and several more enjoy averages below the $3 threshold. It’s a clear sign that regions less burdened by heavy-handed state taxes and green mandates are faring better.
Contrast that with coastal strongholds of progressive policy, where California drivers shell out $4.469 per gallon, a whopping $1.57 above the national average. States like New York, Washington, Hawaii, and Nevada also hover above $3, proving once again that ideology can hit hard at the wallet.
Let’s not forget the brutal summer of 2022, when gas prices under the Biden administration skyrocketed to an all-time high of $5.016 per gallon on June 14. Diesel wasn’t spared, peaking at $5.816 just days later, a gut punch to truckers and farmers alike.
Those numbers weren’t just statistics; they were a direct tax on every American’s ability to commute, heat homes, or buy groceries. Today’s relief feels sweeter against that backdrop, though it’s a reminder of how fast bad policy can spiral.
The fall below $3 last week marked the first time in four years that Americans could breathe easier at the pump. It’s no coincidence this shift follows a return to leadership focused on energy independence over utopian climate schemes.
President Donald Trump highlighted this progress last month, pointing to falling costs in gas, groceries, and rent as evidence of a recovering economy. His administration’s push to prioritize American energy production over restrictive globalist agendas seems to be paying off.
While the current $2.90 average is a win, it’s worth asking why some states still lag so far behind. The disparity between Oklahoma’s bargain prices and California’s gouging rates shows that local policies, not just national ones, shape the burden on everyday folks.
For now, this dip offers a glimmer of hope as families gather for the holidays. Let’s hope the momentum holds, and the days of $5 gas remain a bitter memory of misguided governance.
President Donald Trump is stepping up to the plate for America’s farmers with a bold move that promises relief to a sector battered by economic storms. This Monday, a significant announcement awaits that could shift the ground for rural communities.
Trump is set to reveal a $12 billion farm aid initiative, dubbed the Farmer Bridge Assistance program, during an event attended by farmers, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, the Washington Examiner reported.
The program targets an industry reeling from low crop prices, tariff fallout, and other financial pressures. A White House official confirmed to Bloomberg News that this aid aims to stabilize a vital backbone of the nation’s economy.
Farmers have faced staggering losses, with over $50 billion gone in the past three crop years, according to John Newton, vice president of public policy and economic analysis at the American Farm Bureau Federation. His words carry weight, pointing to a crisis that demands immediate action.
“Economic aid is urgently needed in the countryside, as most farmers will begin planting their next crop early in 2026, with some crops already planted, and must have their financial commitments in place as they secure lines of credit,” Newton stated in November. If lenders won’t count federal support until it’s locked in, then dragging feet on this package isn’t just bureaucracy, it’s a gamble with people’s livelihoods.
The urgency isn’t abstract; it’s tied to real balance sheets and real families who can’t wait for progressive policy experiments to play out. This aid, while only a fraction of the total losses, offers a tangible lifeline to keep operations afloat.
The Farmer Bridge Assistance program allocates up to $11 billion directly to crop farmers in financial distress, with specific relief for producers of pork, soybeans, and other goods hit hard by retaliatory tariffs. Additional funds will cover those growing crops outside the program’s primary focus, ensuring broader support.
This initiative serves as a temporary measure, a bridge payment to carry farmers through until new programs under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act kick off in 2026. It’s a pragmatic step, recognizing that long-term solutions take time, but empty fields don’t wait.
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has been vocal about the administration’s commitment to rural America, especially after what she described as tough times under prior leadership. Her promise of recovery efforts shows a clear intent to rebuild trust with a community that feeds the nation.
Rollins, during a Cabinet meeting on Dec. 2, hinted at the forthcoming aid with a pointed remark about the challenges inherited from previous years. “We do have a bridge payment we will be announcing with you next week as we’re still trying to recover from the Biden years,” she said.
Her statement cuts to the heart of a frustration felt by many in agriculture who saw tariffs and economic mismanagement pile up costs without relief in sight. If this administration can deliver on its word, it might just restore some faith in government’s role as a partner, not a burden.
The contrast between past neglect and current action couldn’t be starker, especially when farmers are staring down the barrel of planting seasons with uncertain credit lines. Monday’s announcement could mark a pivot, proving that policy can respond to real pain instead of ideological agendas.
More details on the Farmer Bridge Assistance program will emerge during Monday’s press conference, where farmers themselves will stand alongside Trump to hear the plan. This isn’t just a policy rollout; it’s a signal of priority for an often-overlooked cornerstone of American life.
The aid package, while not erasing all losses, acknowledges the sacrifices of those who’ve weathered retaliatory tariffs and plummeting prices. It’s a nod to the reality that farming isn’t a quaint hobby but a strategic asset worth protecting.
As the nation watches this unfold, the hope is that such efforts will steady the ship for rural communities until broader reforms take root in 2026. For now, this $12 billion commitment stands as a testament to leadership that values the heartland over hollow promises.
Washington, D.C., remains a battleground, not just for crime but for legal showdowns over who gets to keep the streets safe.
In a fast-moving saga, a federal appeals court has temporarily reversed a lower court’s ruling blocking President Donald Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to the nation’s capital, following a tragic attack on two service members, while the legal fight over federal authority continues, as The Hill reports.
This drama kicked off in August, when President Trump unveiled a bold plan to bolster security in D.C., including taking control of the city’s police department alongside deploying over 2,000 National Guard troops.
Things took a grim turn last week with a violent assault on two West Virginia National Guard members, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, while they patrolled D.C. streets.
Beckstrom tragically succumbed to her injuries, while Wolfe, thankfully, shows signs of recovery as of early December, according to West Virginia’s governor. It’s a stark reminder of the risks our brave troops face, even on domestic soil.
Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who arrived in the U.S. after the American troop withdrawal from his country, has been charged with first-degree murder and other serious offenses, pleading not guilty just days after the incident. A preliminary hearing looms next month, but justice can’t come soon enough for many watching this case.
In response to the attack, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered an additional 500 National Guard troops to D.C., drawing from both local reserves under Trump’s command and units from nine Republican-led states. It’s a muscular move, no doubt, aimed at curbing the city’s spiraling crime rates.
But not everyone’s cheering -- D.C.’s attorney general launched a lawsuit in September 2025, challenging the deployment as part of Trump’s broader anti-crime push. The argument? It’s an overreach of federal power, trampling on local control.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb initially agreed, ruling that using the Guard for non-military, crime-fighting tasks likely violates federal law, and blocked the deployment -- though she paused her own order briefly to allow an appeal. Talk about a judicial ping-pong match.
Enter the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Thursday, when a three-judge panel -- two Trump appointees and one from the Obama era -- temporarily lifted Cobb’s block. They’re mulling whether to keep the pause in place longer while the Trump administration fights to uphold the deployment.
The administration argues this mission is a roaring success, claiming, “And in the name of vindicating local interests, it threatens to derail a remarkably successful mission that, with the participation and collaboration of D.C. authorities, including the D.C. Mayor, has reduced crime and improved life in our Nation’s capital.” Well, if crime’s down, shouldn’t results speak louder than bureaucratic turf wars?
D.C. lawyers fired back, stating, “Pressed below to articulate any limit on that power, Defendants identified none.” That’s a fair jab -- unchecked federal muscle in local affairs could set a dangerous precedent, even if the intent is to restore order.
For now, the Guard stays on D.C. streets, a visible symbol of Trump’s no-nonsense stance on crime, while the courts hash out whether this is a lawful flex or a federal overstep. It’s a tough spot -- safety matters, but so does keeping power in check.
Critics of progressive policies might argue D.C.’s crime woes stem from years of soft-on-crime approaches, and Trump’s heavy hand is a long-overdue correction.
Yet, even supporters must admit the legal questions here aren’t trivial -- local governance isn’t just a buzzword, it’s a principle worth defending.
President Donald Trump is swinging the wrecking ball of progress right into the heart of the White House with a bold new ballroom project.
This ambitious renovation, featuring a $300 million privately funded addition, involves tearing down the historic East Wing and bringing in a new, top-tier architectural firm to oversee the design, as Fox News reports.
Let’s rewind to the start of this grand endeavor, when the project was first unveiled with an initial price tag of $200 million, a figure that has since ballooned to its current staggering estimate.
Construction roared to life in October, with heavy machinery rolling in to begin dismantling a section of the iconic East Wing, a move that’s raised eyebrows among history buffs.
Just days later, images captured an excavator clearing rubble, marking the full-scale demolition of this storied part of the presidential residence.
It’s a dramatic transformation, no doubt, and one that signals Trump’s determination to leave a lasting architectural legacy, even if it means razing pieces of the past to do so.
Fast forward to this week, and Trump has tapped Shalom Baranes Associates, a respected Washington, D.C.-based firm, to steer the design phase of this monumental ballroom build.
This isn’t a complete shake-up, though -- McCrery Architects, who initially crafted the plans, will stay on as consultants to ensure continuity in this high-stakes project.
While some might question the need for a new lead architect at this stage, it’s clear the administration wants fresh eyes on a project of this magnitude, especially with costs spiraling upward.
Speaking on the new hire, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle couldn’t contain his enthusiasm, stating, “Shalom is an accomplished architect whose work has shaped the architectural identity of our nation’s capital for decades and his experience will be a great asset to the completion of this project.”
Well, that’s a glowing review, but let’s hope Shalom’s skills can keep this project from becoming a $300 million boondoggle -- taxpayers may not be footing the bill, but the optics still matter.
During a recent cabinet meeting, Trump himself gave an update on the construction, acknowledging the disruption it’s caused, even on a personal level.
“I wouldn't say my wife is thrilled,” Trump quipped, adding, “She hears pile drivers in the background all day, all night.”
That’s a relatable jab -- nothing says “home sweet home” like the constant clang of construction, though one wonders if the first lady’s patience will outlast the project timeline.
All jests aside, this ballroom addition is being pitched as a historic upgrade, potentially the most significant since the Oval Office itself, and it’s hard not to admire the sheer audacity of reimagining the White House for future generations, even if the cultural cost of losing the East Wing stings for those who value tradition over transformation.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has sparked intense debate with a bold new policy move on national security that promises to reshape border access.
Noem declared a sweeping travel ban on Thursday, blocking entry from over 30 countries to strengthen U.S. security, the Daily Caller reported.
This policy expands on President Donald Trump's earlier proclamation from June, which restricted entry from nations like Afghanistan, Libya, and Yemen over terrorism risks and weak vetting systems. The broadened list reflects a firm commitment to tightening control over who crosses American borders.
Noem avoided pinpointing the exact number of countries but confirmed it exceeds 30, with ongoing evaluations by the President. She stressed that unstable governments unable to assist in vetting their citizens pose a clear risk to the U.S.
"Listen, if they don't have a stable government there, if they don't have a country that can sustain itself and tell us who those individuals are and help us vet them, why should we allow people from that country to come here to the United States?" Noem asked host Laura Ingraham. Her logic cuts straight to the heart of sovereignty, questioning why America should bear the burden of foreign failures.
The administration's stance, as Noem articulated, prioritizes pushing other nations to step up on security cooperation. It's a pragmatic demand, not a diplomatic slight, aimed at protecting citizens over pleasing global critics.
Trump's latest restrictions come on the heels of alarming incidents tied to nationals from high-risk areas. The arrest of Mohamed Sabry Soliman, an unauthorized migrant who attacked a pro-Israel demonstration in Boulder, Colorado, underscores the stakes.
Even more chilling was the fatal shooting of Israeli embassy staffers Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim in Washington, D.C., by 31-year-old Elias Rodriguez, who shouted "free Palestine" during his arrest. These events, happening within weeks of each other, sharpen the administration's focus on entry controls.
Such violence on American soil isn't abstract; it's a direct challenge to public safety. The travel ban, while tough, emerges as a necessary shield against threats that have already crossed our borders.
Reports from Reuters suggest the administration is considering barring citizens from 36 additional countries, though specifics remain under wraps. This signals a comprehensive review, not a hasty overreach, to address vulnerabilities.
Noem's approach, while firm, isn't about shutting doors for the sake of isolation. It’s a calculated move to ensure that entry into the U.S. doesn’t come at the cost of unchecked danger.
Critics will likely decry the policy as harsh, but they often sidestep the messy reality of vetting failures in unstable regions. America can't afford to play catch-up after tragedy strikes; prevention must lead.
The Department of Homeland Security has yet to provide further comment on the ban's full scope or implementation timeline. Still, the message from Noem and Trump is clear: national security trumps open-border idealism.
This policy isn't about turning away from the world but about demanding accountability from nations that expect access to American soil. If a country can't guarantee the integrity of its travelers, the U.S. has every right to pause and reassess.
In a climate where threats evolve faster than rhetoric, this travel ban stands as a sober reminder of leadership's core duty: protect the homeland first. Noem's resolve, backed by Trump's decisive action, offers a framework that values safety over sentiment, a stance long overdue in an era of porous borders and rising risks.
President Donald Trump dropped a bold idea on Tuesday that has heads turning across the nation. Could Americans really see a day when income tax becomes a relic of the past?
Trump told reporters after a cabinet meeting that "at some point in the not too distant future you won’t even have income tax to pay," as reported by FOX Business. He pointed to the massive revenue from tariffs under his administration as the key to making this historic shift possible.
Trump painted a picture of financial relief, suggesting the government’s current haul is "so great, so enormous." He even mused that income tax could be kept around "just for fun" or slashed to a fraction of current rates.
Back in January, during the early days of his second term, Trump floated a plan to scrap income tax for those earning under $150,000. Tariffs, he argued, would step in to fill the fiscal gap.
He doubled down on this vision, declaring, "It's time for the United States to return to the system that made us richer and more powerful than ever before." That system, in his view, prioritizes taxing foreign nations over burdening American workers.
Trump’s logic hinges on flipping the script of global trade. Instead of wage-based taxes draining citizens, he wants import duties to fund the nation’s needs.
Interestingly, Trump hasn’t always been against taxing wealth or income. In 1999, while eyeing a presidential run with the Reform Party, he toyed with a one-time "net worth" tax on individuals with over $10 million in assets.
That earlier stance contrasts sharply with his current push to dismantle income tax entirely. It shows a pivot toward protecting everyday earners while leaning hard on trade policies for revenue.
During a podcast with Joe Rogan before taking office, Trump was asked if he meant business about axing personal income taxes. His casual reply, "Yeah, sure, why not?" hinted at confidence in tariffs as a viable substitute.
If Trump moves forward with this audacious overhaul, the road ahead won’t be smooth. With a razor-thin majority in the House, passing such a sweeping change to the tax code could hit major roadblocks.
Eliminating income tax would be the most dramatic rewrite of American fiscal policy in over a century. Lawmakers on both sides will likely spar over how tariffs can realistically sustain government operations without crushing consumers.
This isn’t just a policy tweak; it’s a fundamental reimagining of how America funds itself. Critics will question whether trade duties alone can shoulder the burden of federal budgets without unintended fallout.
Trump’s proposal carries a certain appeal for those weary of tax season’s bite. Yet, the devil lies in the details, and the White House has yet to lay out a concrete blueprint for this radical shift.
For now, the idea of ditching income tax remains a tantalizing prospect, especially for working families feeling squeezed. But replacing a century-old system with tariff revenue alone raises questions about stability and fairness in a global economy.
While Trump’s vision challenges the status quo of overreach and endless deductions, it’s a gamble that needs ironclad numbers to back it up. Americans deserve a clear look at how this would play out before celebrating the end of tax forms.
A faith-based pregnancy center in New Jersey stands at the heart of a pivotal Supreme Court battle over First Amendment protections. The case raises sharp questions about whether the state can demand sensitive donor data without immediate federal oversight.
According to Catholic News Agency, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. is challenging a 2023 subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin, which demands extensive donor details, including names, addresses, and employment information.
The subpoena, tied to Platkin’s “reproductive rights strike force” formed in 2022, targets crisis pregnancy centers like First Choice with claims they might mislead the public about abortion services. This move smells of ideological targeting, especially since First Choice openly states it neither provides nor refers for abortions on its website.
First Choice, a nonprofit offering ultrasounds, pregnancy tests, and material support under a licensed medical director, argues the state’s demands chill its freedom of association. The threat of contempt for noncompliance looms large, a hammer poised to smash a small organization’s ability to operate.
Erin M. Hawley, representing First Choice, told the justices the subpoena was issued by “a hostile attorney general who has issued a consumer alert, urged New Jerseyans to beware of pregnancy centers, and assembled a strike force against them.” If that’s not a signal of bias dressed up as policy, what is?
Platkin’s office claims donor identities are needed to check if contributors were “misled” about the center’s services. Yet, with no specific complaint against First Choice identified, this fishing expedition looks more like harassment than a pursuit of justice.
During oral arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch pushed back on the state’s defense, pointing out that New Jersey law grants attorney general subpoenas the force of law with contempt as a penalty for noncompliance. He sharply noted, “I don’t know how to read that other than it’s pretty self-executing to me, counsel.”
Justice Elena Kagan also raised doubts, questioning whether an “ordinary person” receiving such a demand would feel safe knowing it technically needs court enforcement. Her point cuts to the core: legal fine print offers little comfort when the state comes knocking.
New Jersey’s chief counsel, Sundeep Iyer, insisted the subpoena hasn’t “objectively chilled” First Choice’s rights since it isn’t immediately enforceable without a court order. That argument feels like telling someone not to worry about a loaded gun because the trigger hasn’t been pulled yet.
The case has rallied a wide coalition, from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to members of Congress and even the ACLU, all backing First Choice’s right to challenge this in federal court now. The bishops’ brief warns that forcing donor disclosure violates religious freedom and burdens anonymous giving rooted in scriptural values.
This isn’t just about one pregnancy center; it’s about whether the state can weaponize subpoenas to intimidate faith-based groups under the guise of consumer protection. When a policy seems tailored to silence dissent against a progressive agenda, alarm bells should ring loud and clear.
Platkin’s prior “consumer alert” painting crisis pregnancy centers as deceptive adds fuel to the suspicion of a targeted campaign. Without hard evidence of wrongdoing, such actions erode trust in government as a neutral arbiter.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, expected in the coming months, will set a precedent on whether federal courts can step in early to shield nonprofits from state overreach. If First Choice must slog through state courts first, as a lower federal court ruled, the delay could cripple its mission before any real defense is mounted.
For faith-based organizations across the nation, this case is a litmus test on the strength of First Amendment safeguards against ideological crusades masked as regulation. Losing this fight would embolden state officials to wield subpoenas as tools of pressure rather than truth-seeking.
Ultimately, the balance between state authority and individual liberty hangs in the courtroom’s air. First Choice’s stand isn’t just for itself, but for every small group daring to operate on conviction in a climate increasingly hostile to traditional values.
Think President Donald Trump is slowing down? Think again, as newly released Oval Office logs reveal a grueling schedule that would exhaust most folks half his age.
These previously unpublished “private narrative” documents, covering 10 weekdays from Nov. 12 to Nov. 25, were shared with the New York Post to counter claims of “signs of fatigue” published by the New York Times.
Spanning roughly 50-hour workweeks, these logs exclude weekend duties or late-night social media activity. They paint a picture of a 79-year-old leader tackling trade reforms, immigration policy, and even White House construction projects with relentless drive.
On Nov. 12, Trump’s day began at 10:30 a.m. with a staff meeting and didn’t wrap until after 10:40 p.m., logging 32 meetings and calls, including a bill-signing to end a 43-day government shutdown. His schedule included six calls to lawmakers and a late dinner with Wall Street CEOs, showing no hint of slowing down.
The following day, Nov. 13, featured 17 meetings and calls over eight and a half hours, starting with a sit-down alongside Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. From intelligence briefings to a tele-rally for a Tennessee congressional candidate, his agenda remained packed and varied.
By Nov. 14, Trump was already on the phone with foreign leaders by 8:21 a.m., addressing border tensions between Cambodia and Thailand. Eighteen additional meetings and a media interview filled his day before he headed to Mar-a-Lago for the weekend, still engaging reporters for nearly half an hour on Air Force One.
The New York Times piece, titled “Shorter Days, Signs of Fatigue: Trump Faces Realities of Aging in Office,” drew sharp criticism from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who called it a distorted take based on incomplete public schedules. “The truth is President Trump never stops working, and his private schedule, Truth Social posts, and around-the-clock engagement on every issue proves just that,” Leavitt told The Post.
Leavitt’s frustration points to a broader pattern of media outlets cherry-picking data to fit a preconceived storyline. If the goal is to paint Trump as fading, these logs, showing meetings often starting before 11 a.m., shred that narrative with raw facts.
Susie Wiles echoed this sentiment, highlighting Trump’s unmatched stamina. “I cannot imagine anybody with more dedication and focus and work ethic than Donald Trump,” she told The Post, noting how his energy seems to surge with the demands placed on him.
Trump’s international travel further undercuts any notion of diminished capacity, with recent trips across the Middle East and East Asia packed with high-stakes deal-signings. From Oct. 25 to 30, he moved through Qatar, Malaysia, Japan, and South Korea, even dancing with native performers on the tarmac after a 23-hour flight.
In South Korea, a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping was followed by a return to Washington, D.C., where he handed out Halloween candy on the White House lawn. Wiles noted, “As for Asia, he doesn’t sleep… or he sleeps minimally,” a testament to a pace that leaves staff scrambling to keep up.
Staffers take shifts on these grueling trips because, as Wiles put it, “nobody could possibly keep up with him.” The bed in his Air Force One cabin, she added, remains untouched, a small detail that speaks volumes about his refusal to rest.
At 79, Trump stands as the second-oldest president to serve, yet his actions defy the stereotypes of age-related decline that some in the press seem eager to pin on him. The contrast with past coverage of other leaders’ struggles, which often went unchallenged, suggests a double standard worth questioning.
These logs aren’t just a schedule; they’re a rebuttal to those who underestimate his resolve, whether it’s through late-night bill signings or early-morning calls to world leaders. They show a man who, far from retreating, is reshaping policy and international relations with a vigor many half his age couldn’t muster.
While critics may cling to their tired narratives, the White House’s transparency with these records invites a closer look at the reality of Trump’s commitment. For a nation facing complex challenges, having a leader who logs these hours offers reassurance that the job is in the hands that won’t quit.
