‘Moment of truth’ imminent as military brass pushed to turn of Trump: DC insider

Donald Trump’s attack on members of Congress who served in the military for advising those currently serving not to follow illegal orders could have a ripple effect that blows up on him, an expert warned Tuesday. During an appearance on MS NOW, longtime Washington D. C. observer John Heilemann suggested the president may face a reckoning now that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is going after Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), a popular former Navy pilot and astronaut. Speaking with the hosts on “Morning Joe,” Heileman made the case that it is only a matter of time before retired and active duty military personnel turn on the president, whose popularity is already slipping. Admitting that he was stunned that Hegseth is focusing on Kelly, he added that it could be the straw that broke the camel’s back within the military ranks.“The question for me is, when do we get to the point where active duty senior military officials start to speak up, because they have kept quiet?” he told the panel. “When Trump gave speeches at Fort Bragg and West Point, a lot of them were upset about it because they were so partisan and political.”“They have kept quiet in the face of the discussions of sending in the military to a place like Chicago and Los Angeles and other places, but I think there’s a moment that’s coming, and I think a lot of people in the military recognize this, where not just retired, but where current active duty senior military who are clearly, quietly troubled by everything that’s going on with this, are going to face a moment of truth where they’re either going to have to speak up, or they’re going to have to end up obeying orders that are at least questionably legal and possibly blatantly illegal.”“That’s going to be a big moment in this country. We haven’t seen anything like that from active duty military speaking out publicly, really, in our lifetimes,” he reminded the panel. YouTube youtu. be.

Schumer says Trump DOJ can’t ‘f*** around’ in releasing Epstein files: ‘I don’t trust Bondi’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) used profanity when expressing his belief in the urgency of releasing files related to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In an appearance on Meidas Media, Schumer let loose when discussing the documents, expressing distrust of President Donald Trump and his Department of Justice. “I just had a [.].

Oz says Trump administration weighing extending ACA subsidies

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz confirmed Sunday that the Trump administration is mulling the extension of Affordable Care Act premium tax credits. The premium tax credits initially drafted under the Affordable Care Act were enhanced under the Biden administration during the COVID-19 pandemic. These credits were set to expire at the [.].

The Pelosi Era Nancy Pelosi may be leaving Congress, but her brand of progressive power politics isn’t—her era is not ending, it’s only just beginning. By Stephen Soukup

The other day, Nancy Pelosi-the longtime Democratic Congressional leader and the first and only female Speaker of the House-announced that she will not seek reelection next year. Unless she retires before this term is up, Mrs. Pelosi, who is also one of the most successful investors of her generation, will be just shy of 87 years old when she returns home after 40 years in Congress and a lifetime in and around politics. Because Pelosi was the first woman Speaker and because she has been the face of Congressional Democrats for so long, many in the mainstream media are calling her decision not to run for another term the “end of an era.” I beg to differ. While Nancy Pelosi’s tenure in office may be coming to a close, the era in American politics that she helped inaugurate is nowhere near finished. Indeed, after this past week’s off-year elections, it has new life and new momentum. Pelosi may be leaving Congress, but this is not the end of her era. It is, rather, the end of the beginning of her era-“the Pelosi Era.” Just over three months ago, I used this space to heap considerable scorn on former President Barack Obama, whom I blamed for helping to inaugurate the “total state” in American politics. “In 2008,” I wrote, “Americans were given implicit permission to hate one another for their differing ‘values’ and to see one another exclusively as friends or enemies in accordance with those values.” Obama, I continued, “took the political and cultural degeneration of the previous two centuries and made the acknowledgment and application of that ‘ruin’ socially acceptable, if not socially mandatory.” It is important to note, however, that Barack Obama and his divisiveness did not emerge onto the political scene fully formed, like Athena springing forth from the forehead of Zeus. They were part of an overarching trend in American politics that began in earnest a full six years before his election. Dating the beginning of a historical epoch is always difficult, often far more so than identifying its end. Nevertheless, the current epoch can likely be said to date from November 14, 2002. On that day, the House Democratic Caucus convened to choose a new leader.

Young voters are growing more tolerant of political violence

A rising number of young people are embracing the idea that political violence is acceptable, thanks in part to increasingly hysterical Democratic rhetoric and the tolerance of blatant acts of violence on the national stage. A Politico-Public First poll found that 36% of adults aged 18 to 24 believe “there are some instances where violence is justified” when [.].