![\"ll.Supreme](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/577111183-1379270986890105-9047742497888407198-n.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court has handed a major defeat to California\u2019s climate radicals, and even one liberal justice joined the conservative wing to make it happen.<\/p>\n
ruling, the court cleared the way for the state\u2019s energy producers to move forward with their lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, targeting California\u2019s extreme green energy mandates. At the heart of the case is the state\u2019s requirement that electric vehicles dominate the market by 2035, part of Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s plan to force California into \u201ccarbon neutrality.\u201d<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court has handed a major defeat to California\u2019s climate radicals, and even one liberal justice joined the conservative wing to make it happen.<\/p>\n
ruling, the court cleared the way for the state\u2019s energy producers to move forward with their lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, targeting California\u2019s extreme green energy mandates. At the heart of the case is the state\u2019s requirement that electric vehicles dominate the market by 2035, part of Gov. Gavin Newsom\u2019s plan to force California into \u201ccarbon neutrality.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
see more<\/p>\n
Zohran Mamdani, a 33-34-year-old democratic-socialist lawmaker and immigrant-background candidate, unexpectedly secured the Democratic nomination for the New York City mayoral race. His campaign emphasised affordability, tenant protections, free transit proposals, and progressive change.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Against that backdrop, Trump \u2014 who retains both personal and political ties to New York City \u2014 entered the race in force, framing Mamdani as a dangerous radical, threatening federal intervention and even law-enforcement action.<\/p>\n
Trump repeatedly called Mamdani a \u201ccommunist\u201d despite Mamdani\u2019s self-description as a democratic socialist.\u00a0Al Jazeera<\/span>+2<\/span><\/span>aol.com<\/span>+2<\/span><\/span><\/span> Trump announced that if Mamdani wins the mayoral election, New York City may receive only the \u201cbare minimum\u201d federal funds.\u00a0Al Jazeera<\/p>\n <\/span>+1<\/span><\/span> \u201cIf a communist gets elected to run New York, it can never be the same\u2026 We have tremendous power at the White House to run places when we have to.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n At a July 1, 2025 appearance, Trump told reporters in reference to Mamdani\u2019s pledge to stop masked ICE agents from deporting \u201cour neighbours\u201d that he would \u201chave to arrest him\u201d if necessary. He referenced rumours about Mamdani\u2019s immigration status and said \u201cwe\u2019re going to look at everything.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Mamdani\u2019s campaign strongly condemned Trump\u2019s remarks as intimidation and as an assault on democratic norms. He called the funding-threats illegal and unsafe for democracy.\u00a0<\/p>\n Legal analysts noted that while the president has influence, actual power to cut or redirect federal funding is largely controlled by Congress; unilaterally withholding spending the legislature has approved could raise constitutional issues.\u00a0<\/p>\n For NYC governance<\/strong>: If Mamdani wins and Trump follows through on threats, it could spark a constitutional confrontation over local vs federal authority, funding flows, and the balance of power.<\/p>\n For national politics<\/strong>: The situation underscores growing tensions between the executive branch and local governments when politics diverge. It also highlights how mayoral races are being seen through a national lens.<\/p>\n For Mamdani<\/strong>: His victory has made him a lightning rod. The threats could either galvanise his coalition (by framing him as under attack) or hamper his ability to deliver if federal cooperation is withheld.<\/p>\n For Trump<\/strong>: His heavy involvement in a city-mayoral race (especially his hometown) shows how he views local races as part of his political brand and as battlegrounds in the broader culture\/power wars.<\/p>\n Whether Trump actually moves to withhold federal funds or initiate a takeover \u2014 and how courts, Congress and legal experts respond.<\/p>\n How Mamdani performs in the general election (and if he becomes mayor) and how much he is able to implement his agenda under the spotlight of federal opposition.<\/p>\n How this fight affects wider relations between the federal government and other large U.S. cities whose leadership diverges politically from the White House.<\/p>\n Jim Jordan\u2019s \u201cBorn in the USA\u201d Bill Could Redefine Who\u2019s Allowed to Run the Country \u2014 Supporters Say It\u2019s About Patriotism.<\/strong><\/p>\n Critics Say It\u2019s About Power.In a bold new proposal that\u2019s already shaking political circles, Rep. Jim Jordan is calling for a constitutional shift: Only those born on U.S. soil would be eligible for America\u2019s highest offices \u2014 including Congress and the presidency.<\/strong><\/p>\n The bill has sparked fierce reactions. Some call it a necessary stand for national sovereignty. Others fear it opens the door to a more exclusionary politics. But one thing\u2019s clear: Jordan just took the debate over identity, loyalty, and leadership to a whole new level.<\/p>\n Could this rewrite the rules of democracy \u2014 or just the headlines? Full analysis inside\u00a0<\/p>\n Jim Jordan\u2019s \u201cBorn American Act\u201d Sparks National Debate Over Eligibility, Identity, and American Values<\/strong><\/p>\n WASHINGTON, D.C. \u2014 In a move that has electrified political discourse, Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced the \u201cBorn American Act,\u201d a bill that would dramatically tighten eligibility for the nation\u2019s highest offices.<\/p>\n Under the proposal, only individuals born on U.S. soil to at least one American citizen parent would qualify for the presidency, vice presidency, or seats in Congress. Naturalized citizens, even those with decades of public service, would be barred.<\/p>\n At a press conference on Capitol Hill, Jordan framed the measure as a safeguard of national heritage. \u201cOur leaders should have roots that run deep into the soil of this country,\u201d he declared. \u201cThey should understand\u2014not just intellectually, but instinctively\u2014what it means to live and breathe American freedom.\u201d<\/p>\n The congressman emphasized that the bill is not intended as exclusion, but as a measure to preserve the founding spirit and ensure leaders are grounded in the nation\u2019s culture and constitutional traditions.<\/p>\n However, legal experts and civil rights advocates were quick to challenge the proposal. Constitutional scholar Professor Linda Chavez of Georgetown University noted that while Congress has authority over eligibility for its own seats, changing presidential qualifications would require a constitutional amendment\u2014an arduous process requiring ratification by three-fourths of the states.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cIn its current form, the bill has no path forward for the presidency,\u201d Chavez said. \u201cIts political symbolism, though, will resonate.\u201d<\/p>\n The backlash was immediate and forceful. Civil rights groups denounced the measure as discriminatory and anti-immigrant, while Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), himself the son of Mexican immigrants, called it \u201ca betrayal of everything this nation stands for.\u201d<\/p>\n Padilla continued, \u201cWe are a country built by immigrants, defended by immigrants, and renewed by immigrants. To suggest only those born here can lead is not patriotism\u2014it\u2019s fear.\u201d The American Civil Liberties Union echoed the sentiment, labeling the bill \u201ca dangerous and unconstitutional attempt to create two classes of citizenship.\u201d<\/p>\n Political analysts suggest the bill is as much performative as practical. Dr. Nathan Klein of the Brookings Institution described it as \u201cperformative nationalism.\u201d \u201cJordan knows it won\u2019t pass in this Congress,\u201d Klein said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe point is to frame the debate, to force Democrats to take a position that can be portrayed politically as weak on immigration or soft on American identity.\u201d<\/p>\n Jordan\u2019s rhetoric underscored this narrative. Linking national pride, citizenship, and heritage, he argued, \u201cWe\u2019re losing sight of who we are. This bill is a reminder that being an American is more than paperwork\u2014it\u2019s heritage, it\u2019s sacrifice, it\u2019s home.\u201d<\/p>\n The timing of the announcement adds complexity. The U.S. now has over 45 million foreign-born residents\u2014the highest in history\u2014with many naturalized citizens serving in the military, holding public office, and contributing significantly to the economy.<\/p>\n Critics warn that the bill could deepen existing divisions in an already polarized political climate. \u201cThis is not just about eligibility,\u201d said Maria Gomez, director of the National Coalition for Immigrant Rights. \u201cIt\u2019s about who counts as fully American.\u201d<\/p>\n Even historians weighed in. \u201cIf Alexander Hamilton were alive today,\u201d one scholar quipped, \u201che\u2019d be disqualified under this bill.\u201d Others noted that the conversation raises enduring questions about American identity, loyalty, and belonging\u2014topics that have persisted since the nation\u2019s founding.<\/p>\n Jordan\u2019s proposal has ignited partisan debate and intense media scrutiny. Supporters frame it as a protective measure for the nation\u2019s constitutional heritage, while detractors see it as a symbolic message designed to energize the Republican base.<\/p>\n Social media platforms erupted with commentary, memes, and debates dissecting both the policy and the cultural implications.<\/p>\n Despite the attention, the bill\u2019s path forward appears limited. Democrats control the Senate, and any legislation is likely to face a presidential veto. Yet the symbolic impact may ripple through the 2026 election cycle, influencing campaign messaging, voter mobilization, and the framing of debates around immigration and citizenship.<\/p>\n FBI Director Kash Patel stood firm against relentless Democratic attacks during congressional hearings this week, defending the integrity of the bureau while exposing the partisan theatrics of Senators and Representatives obsessed with political theater. Democrats pressed him on the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, but Patel remained unshaken, emphasizing law, evidence, and accountability over political grandstanding.<\/p>\n During the House Judiciary Committee hearing on September 17, 2025, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) accused Patel of withholding critical information on Epstein. Patel firmly rejected the charge, stating, \u201cI\u2019m not going to break the law to satisfy your curiosity.\u201d He made clear that the FBI had released all documents allowed by law, insisting that further disclosures required judicial approval.<\/p>\n Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) tried to twist Patel\u2019s refusal into an implication of guilt, claiming it showed a \u201cconsciousness of guilt.\u201d Patel called out the baseless accusation, replying bluntly, \u201cbulls**t,\u201d leaving Democrats sputtering and highlighting the hollowness of their attac<\/p>\n In the Senate Judiciary Committee the day before, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) accused Patel of weakening national security. Patel countered, asserting, \u201cBooker\u2019s rant of false information does not bring this country together. It\u2019s my time, not yours.\u201d When Booker cried, \u201cMy God! My God!\u201d the spectacle only underscored the Democrats\u2019 desperation.<\/p>\n FBI Director Kash Patel stood firm against relentless Democratic attacks during congressional hearings this week, defending the integrity of the bureau while exposing the partisan theatrics of Senators and Representatives obsessed with political theater. Democrats pressed him on the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, but Patel remained unshaken, emphasizing law, evidence, and accountability over political grandstanding.<\/p>\n During the House Judiciary Committee hearing on September 17, 2025, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) accused Patel of withholding critical information on Epstein. Patel firmly rejected the charge, stating, \u201cI\u2019m not going to break the law to satisfy your curiosity.\u201d He made clear that the FBI had released all documents allowed by law, insisting that further disclosures required judicial approval.<\/p>\n Representative Eric Swalwell (D-CA) tried to twist Patel\u2019s refusal into an implication of guilt, claiming it showed a \u201cconsciousness of guilt.\u201d Patel called out the baseless accusation, replying bluntly, \u201cbulls**t,\u201d leaving Democrats sputtering and highlighting the hollowness of their attacks.<\/p>\n In the Senate Judiciary Committee the day before, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) accused Patel of weakening national security. Patel countered, asserting, \u201cBooker\u2019s rant of false information does not bring this country together. It\u2019s my time, not yours.\u201d When Booker cried, \u201cMy God! My God!\u201d the spectacle only underscored the Democrats\u2019 desperation.<\/p>\n Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) tried to intimidate Patel over the handling of Ghislaine Maxwell\u2019s prison transfer. Patel called him a \u201cpolitical buffoon,\u201d exposing Schiff\u2019s theatrics and partisan obsession. When Schiff suggested undue influence, Patel stood firm, refusing to bow to baseless insinuations.<\/p>\n Patel\u2019s hearings made it clear that Democrats were more interested in political attacks than justice. He repeatedly defended the FBI\u2019s swift response in the Charlie Kirk assassination, noting that a suspect was apprehended within 36 hours. \u201cOur agents acted decisively and within legal bounds,\u201d he said. \u201cThe safety of American citizens is our top priority, not political theater.\u201d<\/p>\n When Democrats tried to accuse the FBI of selectively releasing documents to shield political allies, Patel hit back. \u201cI do not engage in cover-ups, and I will not tolerate baseless attacks on my integrity or the FBI\u2019s mission,\u201d he said, demonstrating unshakable resolve in the face of partisan pressure.<\/p>\n Booker suggested political bias affected investigations, but Patel dismissed the claim: \u201cSenator Booker, your accusations are unfounded. Our focus is law enforcement, not politics.\u201d<\/p>\n Schiff attempted to leverage Epstein\u2019s connections to attack Patel personally. Patel responded, \u201cWe follow evidence, not rumors. Allegations are not facts. The FBI releases what the law allows and protects citizens\u2019 rights in the process.\u201d<\/p>\n Patel also called out Democrats for their melodrama. \u201cThis is about public safety, not spectacle,\u201d he said. \u201cThe American people deserve accountability, not a partisan circus.\u201d<\/p>\n Representative Raskin tried to paint Patel as part of a systemic problem within the FBI, but Patel pointed to arrests and prosecutions as proof of results. \u201cResults speak louder than accusations,\u201d he said. \u201cWe enforce the law impartially.\u201d<\/p>\n He addressed media spin, noting, \u201cMuch of what is being reported is sensationalized. My responsibility is to the law and the truth, not to narratives spun for political gain.\u201d<\/p>\n Conservative outlets hailed Patel\u2019s forthrightness. Fox News noted his \u201ccommitment to transparency and law enforcement integrity,\u201d highlighting that Democrats\u2019 attacks were politically motivated.<\/p>\n The New York Post highlighted Patel\u2019s calm but firm approach under pressure, quoting him: \u201cI don\u2019t give a damn about criticism that isn\u2019t rooted in fact. My duty is to enforce the law.\u201d<\/p>\n Critics focused on moments of visible frustration, but Patel\u2019s sharp rebuttals exposed the Democrats\u2019 hollow accusations and their failure to understand law enforcement priorities.<\/p>\n Patel also addressed allegations of politically motivated firings within the FBI. Former agents accused him of retribution, but Patel confirmed that all personnel actions were based on legal procedure and performance metrics.<\/p>\n He defended the FBI\u2019s communication strategy, stating, \u201cWe cannot compromise ongoing cases for political theater,\u201d emphasizing the agency\u2019s commitment to law over politics.<\/p>\n On the Kirk investigation, Patel stressed professionalism and methodical procedures. \u201cThe suspect\u2019s quick apprehension reflects rigorous investigative work, not political expediency.\u201d<\/p>\n The hearings underscored the partisan divide: Democrats attacked reflexively, while Republicans emphasized law, order, and results.<\/p>\n Patel noted that under his leadership, the FBI increased transparency where legally permissible, improving public reporting without compromising confidentiality.<\/p>\n When Swalwell tried to insinuate favoritism, Patel said, \u201cEvery decision is evidence-based. Politics has no role in law enforcement decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n The hearings drew massive public attention. Patel\u2019s firm stance became a symbol of principled law enforcement resisting political intimidation.<\/p>\n Critics accused him of politicizing the bureau, yet Patel made clear that partisan attacks would not distract him from enforcing the law.<\/p>\n Conservative voices praised Patel\u2019s assertiveness, signaling that the FBI under his guidance will prioritize law and order, not partisan politics.<\/p>\n The Epstein case remained a focal point. Patel reiterated, \u201cWe have released more than any prior administration,\u201d showing the Democrats\u2019 claims were baseless.<\/p>\n Regarding Charlie Kirk\u2019s assassination, Patel emphasized the FBI\u2019s rapid and professional response, countering criticism with facts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The U.S. Supreme Court has handed a major defeat to California\u2019s climate radicals, and even one liberal justice joined the conservative wing to make it happen. ruling, the court cleared the way…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":20031,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-breaking-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20032","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=20032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20032\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/20031"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=20032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=20032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=20032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
He questioned Mamdani\u2019s legal status, suggesting scrutiny into his citizenship and stating that he would \u201clook at everything\u201d including the possibility of arrest if Mamdani obstructed federal operations such as those by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).\u00a0<\/p>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Further, he floated the notion of a federal takeover of NYC\u2014saying during a Cabinet meeting:<\/p>\n