How Florida’s Cuban Diaspora and the Israeli Lobby Came Together — and Are Coming Apart

Radicals beware: Florida to hit top Islamist and leftist groups with new 'terrorist' label

Florida is taking action against nearly 100 organizations that will likely soon have a new "terrorist" designation under Florida law.On Wednesday, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announced that some significant legislation, which provides a stronger framework for declaring groups terrorist organizations, took effect on the first day of the month. 'We are not going to fund terrorism in our great state.'During his announcement, DeSantis said that officials "are not going to waste any time" before beginning the "initial tranche" of domestic terrorist designations in Florida, suggesting more to come in the future as well. "Based on the recommendations of Florida's domestic security professionals and the authority, the newly established authority in law, my office and the [C]abinet are poised to officially designate the first slew of terrorist organizations under the new law," DeSantis said in the announcement.RELATED: Florida AG calls for impeachment after judge acquits mother who killed baby and blamed COVID Anna Moneymaker/Getty ImagesAmong those organizations designated, DeSantis named familiar Islamic groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, but also mentioned the addition of Antifa to the list. He also named a couple of groups affiliated with drug cartels, like Cartel de Sinaloa and Tren de Aragua.Notably, DeSantis added that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran would also be added to the list among "more than 90 Foreign Terrorist Organizations."Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner Mark Glass, who also serves as the state’s chief domestic security officer, explained that the new law gives more tools to prevent taxpayer dollars from reaching those organizations that have been designated as terrorist groups, Florida's Voice reported."We are not going to fund terrorism in our great state," Glass told Florida's Voice. "We’re just not going to do it."Glass added that the new framework will allow greater transparency for the public to see where taxpayer dollars are being distributed: “It’s actually even a public service campaign to ensure that you know where you’re receiving dollars or you’re giving dollars."These actions, however, have been under legal threat for months, dating back to before the legislation was signed. DeSantis acknowledged to Florida's Voice that "we'll definitely get sued," though he believes the outcome "will be beneficial." The new law, which went into effect on Wednesday, builds upon an executive order from DeSantis on December 8, which laid the groundwork for legislation to be drafted and signed by the governor in early April. The December executive order singled out CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood. As a result, CAIR sued the administration over the executive order, arguing that its rights had been violated.On March 4, United States District Judge Mark Walker granted the motion for a preliminary injunction, freezing the use of the executive order. The DeSantis administration appealed the injunction two days later in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.The law, signed almost exactly a month later, will likely be used as a new legal support in the ongoing legal fight over the executive order. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

MAGA flies into rage over air conditioners: 'Democrats are coming for your AC!'

Republicans yelped about socialism after Mayor Zohran Mamdani urged New Yorkers to keep their thermostats set at 78 degrees to ease strain on the city's power grid during a brutal heat wave.The city is expecting numerous days of extreme temperatures through the holiday weekend, and Mamdani suggested that residents conserve power where possible to prevent power outages, saying city buildings would maintain 78-degree temperatures and turn off or dim lights during peak times for electricity demand."New York: it's hot out there, and the power grid is working overtime to keep us cool," the mayor posted on social media. "Set your AC to 78 degrees, turn off lights/electronics you're not using, and unplug what you can."Donald Trump's Department of Energy recommends setting thermostats between 75 degrees and 78 degrees, but MAGA turned the recommendation into a new front in the culture war, warning that this week's Democratic primary wins by Democratic Socialist candidates could ultimately result in a ban on air conditioning."First AOC tried to come for your steak and ribs and now the Socialist Democrats are coming for your AC," warned Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), referring to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). "This is the future that WOKE Democrats want not just for NYC but for South Carolina too!""In a first-world country, you could turn on the A/C," sneered Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)."This one is for you @ZohranKMamdani," gloated the Manhattan Institute's Daniel Di Martino, posting a video of himself turning a thermostat down to 67 degrees."No thanks. This is America. We crank our A/C down to 60 whenever we please," boasted Trump envoy Nick Adams."78?! Get lost," huffed podcaster Connor Crehan, who goes by Captain Cons."This is what socialism looks like, folks," barked Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. "The right answer isn’t restrictions or mandates. It’s drilling, fracking, coal, & nuclear. That’s how we’ll roll in Ohio. (And he sounds eerily just like Amy Acton during Covid).""Welcome to socialism, where the government demands you turn your house into a sauna because they can't plan for the super unpredictable fact that it tends to get hot in the summer," pontificated Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX)."78 degrees??? Welcome to communism people! Hope you enjoy!" belched Barstool Sports' Dave Portnoy."Is this what was meant by the warmth of collectivism?" smarmed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Trump's 'making everybody chumps': President torn apart by MS Now panel

President Donald Trump’s corruption — from awarding no bid contracts to cronies to having his sons make tungsten mining deals with Kazakhstan — is so brazen that “he’s making everybody chumps,” according to a panel of experts.“I think it’s so unprecedented that our laws don't really contemplate a level of corruption at the presidential level like this,” Brendan Ballou, the former Special Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, told MS NOW anchor Nicolle Wallace on Wednesday. “So we really have to develop laws around unjust enrichment, civil RICO, and so forth, in order to be able to attack some of this stuff.”Ballou added that Trump’s corruption, in addition to occurring in plain sight, has had important consequences in terms of US policy.“You think about the picture of the new Qatari-gifted jet that he received — it's now Air Force One,” Ballou said. “Well, shortly after he received that gift, he made a unilateral security guarantee to Qatar. So it's entirely possible that American soldiers might fight and die in defense of a country that has gotten an enormous benefit shortly after giving a private jet to the President.”He added, “Similarly, you know, the UAE — so much of this money coming from crypto, they invested 500 million dollars in Trump's crypto business, a business that, as far as I can tell, provides no value whatsoever. But after investing half a billion dollars, Donald Trump approved the sale of 35,000 extremely rare, extremely expensive AI chips. So if you're wondering why the cost of technology, microchips, and computers in the United States is going up, in part you can potentially thank this investment from the UAE and what the President saw. So it's so unprecedented, to such an extent, that our legal infrastructure didn't even contemplate that this could occur.”Wallace then discussed a recent Wall Street Journal report that Trump earned $263 million connected to the sale of equity in his cryptocurrency business, World Liberty Financial. After the deal was signed, the UAE was granted access to tightly guarded American AI chips.“The challenge you've got here is: Donald Trump is presumably going to pardon himself on his last day in office, and we have a Supreme Court that is extraordinarily solicitous to this President,” Ballou told Wallace. “So we need to be figuring out — okay, how can we get justice, and how can we stop this stuff from happening while he's still in office? What we really need to be thinking about is: who are the people harmed by these extraordinary instances of corruption?”He continued, “If you are, for instance, an AI researcher who is now paying more for your chips because of the UAE's potential investment in World Liberty Financial, you need to be bringing a lawsuit to try to enjoin this, so that these people are not getting the fruits of their corrupt actions. And if we can stop people from getting the benefits of corruption, they're going to have fewer incentives to be corrupt in the first place — not Donald Trump, but the people trying to influence him.”Wallace then pointed out that, whereas Trump had scandals during his first term, during his second the scandals are bigger because they inflict economic pain on all Americans, including his own voters. She added that Trump’s indifference is evident by referring to a bipartisan affordable housing bill on Tuesday as a “yawn.”“The mechanisms of accountability — the Republican Party, the larger media apparatus, in this case Fox News and the right-wing echo chamber — his media apparatus, they're protection rackets,” Angelo Carusone, president of Media Matters for America, a nonprofit media watchdog, told Wallace. “They've basically said, ‘We're not going to just turn a blind eye here — we're going to actively make sure you don't face any accountability for this.’ The Republicans who have spent years complaining about Hunter Biden have said nothing. They don't talk about this. We know what it looks like when they're making noise about things that even whiff of corruption when it's in their political interest. But in this case, he is doing something so brazen, so explicit, so transactional, so corrupt that we can't even really paint a picture — we can't even come up with an evocative response to it, because it's on such an industrial scale. It's like thinking about the universe — it's hard to imagine because of how big it is — so we can't even get the right response out of people. And part of the mechanisms of accountability said, ‘You know, we're going to be a protection racket.’”Carusone added, “He is making everybody chumps. He's not just doing the corruption — he's doing it in such a brazen and explicit way, and he's not even sharing the wealth. A lot of people who do this at least share it with a couple of people close to them — the people participating in it.

New futuristic supercity coming to California aims to solve the housing catastrophe

California’s newest master-planned community aims to tackle the affordability crisis by building homes, a college, and creating jobs all in one location that relies solely on electricity.

Jesse Watters Just Predicted Exactly How the Democrat Party Tears Itself Apart

He Spent Over 80 Days in Jail After Florida Cops Arrested Him on Faulty Facial Recognition

Police have arrested at least 15 people in recent years based on bad facial recognition hits.

The Supreme Court came to the wrong conclusion on the 14th Amendment

Chief Justice John Roberts begins the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship opinion in Westminster in 1608 with Calvin’s Case and the English law of royal subjectship.I would begin in Philadelphia in 1776.English law rested upon allegiance to the Crown. The American Republic would rest upon the consent of a self-governing people.Between those two places — and those two moments — lies the American Revolution. And the Revolution changed more than who governed America. It changed the very foundation of political membership.That is the central problem with the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Barbara. The court’s opinion is learned, careful, and historically rich. Chief Justice Roberts traces the English doctrine of jus soli through Calvin’s Case, Blackstone, a substantial body of antebellum American authorities, and finally United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It may well become the definitive defense of the conventional understanding of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. But it answers the wrong question.The issue is not whether America inherited English legal language. It plainly did. The issue is whether America also inherited England’s understanding of political membership.The majority assumes that the American Revolution left the English understanding of political membership largely intact. The dissents argue that the Revolution rejected that understanding and replaced it with an American conception of citizenship grounded in the consent of the governed. That is the real disagreement in this case.A new creedUnder English common law, nearly everyone born within the king’s dominions became a natural-born subject. Birth within the sovereign’s territory created permanent allegiance to the Crown because the child was born under the king’s protection. That doctrine made sense in a monarchy. It reflected a world of subjects, sovereigns, dominions, and perpetual allegiance.But the United States is not a monarchy.The Declaration of Independence did more than announce separation from Great Britain. It rejected the political philosophy upon which English subjectship rested. Jefferson’s words — that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed” — were not mere rhetorical flourishes. They announced a new theory of political legitimacy. The Declaration’s closing words made the rejection of perpetual allegiance explicit: The new states were “absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown.”English law rested upon allegiance to the Crown. The American Republic would rest upon the consent of a self-governing people.That revolutionary transformation should have been central to the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.Instead, the majority largely assumes that English subjectship and American citizenship belong to the same constitutional lineage. Roberts proves an important proposition: England recognized birthright subjectship. But he does not prove the decisive one: that Americans who had repudiated monarchy intended, less than a century later, to constitutionalize the English law of royal subjectship as the definition of citizenship in a republic.Mere obedience to law is not the same thing as complete political allegiance.Justice Joseph Story helps explain why that distinction matters. Story was steeped in English law, but he was not merely Blackstone with an American accent. His great constitutional project was to explain how inherited English legal concepts had been adapted to the institutions and principles of an American republic. He stands as a bridge between the common-law inheritance and American constitutionalism.That is the bridge missing from the majority’s account. Roberts reads the inherited legal tradition largely as a line of continuity from Calvin’s Case to Wong Kim Ark. But the American constitutional genealogy runs along a different path: the Declaration of Independence, Story’s adaptation of inherited law to republican constitutionalism, Lincoln’s reaffirmation of the Declaration as the nation’s first principle, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment.Abraham Lincoln understood this better than anyone. He did not treat the Declaration as a mere political manifesto. Lincoln treated it as the nation’s statement of principle. In his famous meditation on the Constitution and the Union, Lincoln described the Declaration’s principle of liberty as the “apple of gold,” with the Constitution as the “picture of silver” framed around it. The frame was made not to conceal or destroy the apple, but to preserve it.That is precisely the point here. The Constitution must be read as law. But it is American law, not English law. And the 14th Amendment must be read as part of the Constitution’s effort to vindicate the principles of the Declaration after the catastrophe of slavery and Dred Scott.Preserving the cornerstoneThe Reconstruction Congress was not attempting to preserve English constitutionalism.

Senate GOP Needs To Get Its Act Together on SAVE Act

Scott Presler's SCORCHED EARTH Message to John Thune For BANNING Him from the GOP Convention and BETRAYING the MAGA Base: