White House Fires Back After Dem Lawmaker Blames Trump for Guard Sh00ting
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) has stoked tensions by blaming President Donald Trump for the death of a National Guard member in Washington, D.C., arguing his deployment of military personnel to U.S. cities created unnecessary risks.
In an interview with CNN host Sara Sidner, Wasserman Schultz said Trump “should blame himself” for policies that put troops “in harm’s way,” following Wednesday’s ambush-style shooting that left two members of the D.C. National Guard dead.
The victims, identified as Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, were gunned down near the White House in an attack authorities said was carried out by an Afghan national.“The president looks everywhere except inward to blame his own policies,” Wasserman Schultz said. “We need to make sure we don’t have our military deployed in our cities handling law enforcement responsibilities.”
The Florida Democrat, who once chaired the Democratic National Committee, suggested that Trump’s “crackdown” on crime through the deployment of National Guard units had made the capital a target.
“This begs the question,” she told CNN, “would an individual have flown across the country to target law enforcement officers in Washington, D.C.? The answer is likely no. So why wasn’t the president’s first thought, ‘Maybe I should reconsider deploying military troops in the nation’s capital?’”
Trump announced the surge of federal personnel earlier this year, citing rising crime and strained police resources in major cities. The move followed violent protests and years of what Trump called “lawlessness and decay” under Democratic leadership.
The crackdown led to visible improvements in public safety — including what D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, recently described as an 87% drop in carjackings since the deployment began. But critics such as Wasserman Schultz argue the operation blurred the line between military and civilian law enforcement.
“Particularly when there hasn’t been coordination with local leadership. This administration is crossing dangerous lines,” she said.
The suspect in Wednesday’s attack, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, was described by authorities as a 29-year-old Afghan national who entered the United States under the Biden administration’s resettlement program for Afghan war allies. The FBI said Lakanwal had been on the radar of immigration officials but was never flagged as a threat.
The White House quickly rejected Wasserman Schultz’s remarks, issuing a forceful statement through spokeswoman Abigail Jackson.
“This animal would’ve never been here if not for Joe Biden’s dangerous policies, which allowed countless unvetted criminals to invade our country and harm the American people,” Jackson said. “The Trump administration is taking every measure possible — in the face of unrelenting Democrat opposition — to get these monsters out of our country and clean up the mess made by the Biden administration.”
Jackson accused Democrats of “defending terrorists instead of protecting Americans,” noting that the administration’s new ‘Reverse Migration Plan’ seeks to remove thousands of migrants who entered the country under Biden-era refugee programs.
The exchange underscored how the political debate over immigration and public safety has intensified since the D.C. shooting, which officials have described as a deliberate act of anti-American violence.
In her interview, Wasserman Schultz also pushed back against Trump’s renewed call to review and reinterview refugees admitted during Biden’s presidency, saying it risked “sweeping generalizations” that could stigmatize legitimate wartime allies.
“If there were gaps that admitted this person, they would have failed over multiple levels,” she said. “And this individual was trusted enough to participate in assisting our military during the war in Afghanistan.”
Administration officials say the president’s upcoming public safety package, expected to be announced next week, will include expanded federal authority to revoke asylum and refugee status for any foreign national charged with violent crimes.
BREAKING: Charlie Kirk’s Funeral Breaks Records, Outselling Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour Stop 
Phoenix, AZ — America has entered uncharted territory: a conservative activist’s funeral has become a stadium-filling, record-shattering cultural event. On Sunday, Charlie Kirk’s funeral in Phoenix drew such an enormous crowd that event statisticians say it not only rivaled, but surpassed Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour concert in the same city earlier this year.
Fans poured into State Farm Stadium by the tens of thousands, waving flags, holding candles, and chanting “U-S-A” in unison — a sight that left even seasoned political reporters whispering, “This is either history in the making, or the strangest music festival ever thrown.”
The Kirk family announced that 92,000 people attended the funeral, with an additional 7 million streaming the event online. That figure, they stressed, did not include “spiritual attendees” who were “with Charlie in spirit.”
To put that into perspective: Taylor Swift’s record-breaking concert at the same stadium earlier in 2023 had 72,000 fans. “She had friendship bracelets. We had patriot bracelets,” bragged one attendee, showing off a beaded band that spelled out ‘Freedom > Feelings.’
Fox News immediately declared Kirk the “posthumous king of stadium tours,” running a chyron that read: “Taylor Swift Destroyed by Patriot Angel.”
The program read less like a funeral itinerary and more like a conservative Coachella.
Donald Trump served as master of ceremonies, opening with, “This is the biggest funeral anyone has ever seen, maybe in history, people are saying it.”
JD Vance delivered what was described as a “spiritual TED Talk,” reminding attendees that Kirk “would have hated big funerals, unless they were his.”
Tucker Carlson presented a ten-minute monologue, pausing dramatically every time the crowd booed the word “Democrats.”
Kid Rock performed a mashup of “Born Free” and “Freebird,” while firing a musket into the ceiling.
The highlight, however, came when Elon Musk appeared via satellite to announce Tesla would design a limited-run “Charlie Kirk Edition Cybertruck,” complete with MAGA-red paint, a built-in Bible holder, and optional flamethrowers.
If Taylor Swift concerts are known for merch tables, Charlie Kirk’s funeral took it to the next level.
Outside the stadium, vendors sold T-shirts that read “Funeral Tour 2024” on the front and listed all the memorial stops on the back (Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and “Eternity”). Programs included QR codes linking to Kirk’s greatest debates, while MAGA commemorative hats were embroidered with his silhouette.
Fans formed mile-long lines for exclusive merchandise:
Limited-edition Kirk bobbleheads with the inscription: “Gone but still debating.”
A $199 Bible cover that doubled as a gun holster.
Resale sites later listed the bobbleheads for upwards of $1,500, with one eBay user writing: “Taylor Swift has her vinyl drops, we have this.”
Taylor Swift’s notoriously loyal fanbase didn’t take the comparison lying down.
On X (formerly Twitter), the hashtag #SwiftiesForTruth trended for 24 hours, with fans insisting Kirk’s funeral numbers were “inflated.” One user posted: “Sure, they had 92,000 people. But how many of them knew all the lyrics to ‘All Too Well (10-Minute Version)’? Checkmate.”
Others argued that attendance didn’t equal cultural impact. “Taylor’s concerts changed lives,” one fan wrote. “What did Charlie’s funeral do, other than boost Arizona’s hot dog sales?”
Still, Kirk’s backers pushed back hard, claiming Swifties “just couldn’t handle that patriotism outsold pop music.”
Demand for tickets to the funeral was so overwhelming that Ticketmaster once again collapsed under pressure, sparking comparisons to the Eras Tour meltdown.
One frustrated user tweeted: “First Taylor, now Charlie? Ticketmaster is truly the great equalizer of our times.”
Scalpers were later caught reselling “Patriot Section” seats for up to $2,000. A family of four was spotted holding a homemade sign that read: “We sold our Peloton to be here.”
Cultural critics scrambled to explain the phenomenon.
“This isn’t just a funeral,” one New York Times columnist said. “It’s part tent revival, part campaign rally, and part WWE SmackDown. The blending of entertainment and politics has reached a point where funerals are now competitive sporting events.”
A Rolling Stone writer went further, dubbing it “Funeralpalooza.”
Conservative pundits, meanwhile, leaned into the comparison. “Taylor sings about heartbreak,” said Ben Shapiro on his podcast. “Charlie Kirk was heartbreak — for every liberal he owned on YouTube.”
As night fell, drones flew overhead, arranging themselves into a massive glowing portrait of Charlie Kirk’s face in the sky. The crowd wept, many raising their phones to record the spectacle while chanting: “Thank you, Charlie! Thank you, Charlie!”
Somewhere in the stands, a man was overheard whispering: “It’s like seeing Elvis one last time — except Elvis never took down Marxism on a college quad.”
Meanwhile, Taylor Swift herself remained silent, though insiders claim she muttered to friends: “I guess I finally met my match… in death.”
By the end of the night, one thing was clear: Charlie Kirk’s funeral had shattered the line between mourning and mass entertainment.
It wasn’t just about honoring the man; it was about proving that, even in death, he could still beat cultural icons at their own game.
As Donald Trump concluded in his closing remarks, staring proudly at the packed stadium:
“Charlie Kirk had bigger crowds than Taylor Swift. Believe me. Everybody’s saying it. And Charlie’s not even alive to sing. That’s how much people loved him. Tremendous, tremendous funeral.”
And with that, fireworks lit up the desert sky, spelling the words: “Kirk Forever” above Phoenix — an ending no Eras Tour could ever hope to match.
Republicans Weigh Using 14th Amendment to Ban Mamdani From Office psss 
Republicans Weigh Using 14th Amendment to Ban Mamdani From Office
House Republicans are exploring legal and constitutional strategies to block New York City mayoral front-runner Zohran Mamdani from being sworn into office if he wins Tuesday’s election, citing the Constitution’s post–Civil War “insurrection clause,” according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.
The effort, first reported by the New York Post, is being led in part by the New York Young Republican Club, which argues that Mamdani’s past statements calling to “resist ICE” and his ties to left-wing organizations could qualify as “giving aid or comfort to the enemies” of the United States — language drawn directly from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
That provision, enacted in 1868, bars from public office any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States, or who has provided “aid or comfort” to its enemies.
The clause was originally intended to prevent former Confederate officials from holding office but has recently re-emerged in political debates over ballot eligibility.“There is a real and legitimate push to see the insurrectionist Zohran Mamdani either a) removed from the ballot or b) removed from office if he is to win on Tuesday,” said Stefano Forte, president of the New York Young Republican Club.
Several House Republicans are said to be reviewing whether the clause could be enforced through new legislation or congressional action following next week’s election. The idea mirrors the legal arguments used in Colorado last year to try to disqualify former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot — a move the Supreme Court ultimately overturned, ruling that Congress, not individual states, has the constitutional authority to enforce Section 3.
The Court’s decision has emboldened some GOP lawmakers who believe the ruling effectively places responsibility for such enforcement in the hands of Congress, where Republicans currently hold a narrow 219–213 majority in the House.
According to two congressional aides, Republican leaders may consider holding a post-election vote to declare Mamdani ineligible for office under the clause. Such a measure would face significant procedural and legal hurdles, including a likely filibuster in the Democrat-controlled Senate and near-certain court challenges.
In addition to the potential 14th Amendment challenge, House Republicans are pressuring the Justice Department to review Mamdani’s path to U.S. citizenship, claiming he may have violated the terms of his naturalization oath.
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) sent a letter Monday to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging her to investigate what he described as “statements inconsistent with the oath of allegiance required of new citizens.” Ogles cited Mamdani’s 2018 naturalization and accused him of “refusal to disavow violent anti-American rhetoric.”He reiterated those allegations in a post on X, claiming Mamdani “came to the U.S. from Uganda to turn America into an Islamic theocracy.”
In his letter, Ogles argued that Mamdani’s past remarks and political affiliations amount to a “broader pattern of conduct inconsistent with the oath of allegiance.”
He urged the Justice Department to examine whether denaturalization proceedings are warranted, referencing existing immigration law that prohibits membership in communist or totalitarian organizations for new citizens.
Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) also joined the campaign, accusing Mamdani of omitting material information from his citizenship application, including membership in the Democratic Socialists of America and comments defending the “Holy Land Five,” a group of Palestinian-American leaders convicted in 2008 for funneling money to Hamas.
“New York City falls to communism next week, and they will have nobody but themselves to blame,” Fine wrote on X, referencing the upcoming mayoral election.
Mamdani, currently a member of the New York State Assembly representing Astoria, Queens, denied the accusations and said Republican lawmakers are trying to weaponize the law against a political opponent.
“No matter how many times these Republican Congress members or the president of this country calls me a Communist, it doesn’t make it true,” Mamdani said in comments to The Post last weekend.
A Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed receipt of Ogles’ letter but said responses to congressional correspondence have been delayed due to the ongoing government shutdown.“The Department does not comment on the status of ongoing or potential investigations,” the spokeswoman said.
Harris Claims Biden Threatened Her Before Debate in New Memoir 
Former Vice President Kamala Harris has made explosive claims in her upcoming memoir, alleging that President Joe Biden personally confronted her and issued a veiled threat in the heat of the 2020 campaign.
The revelations came to light after Fox News host Jesse Watters shared excerpts from Harris’s book on his Thursday night broadcast. According to Harris, the tense exchange occurred just days before her vice-presidential debate against Donald Trump, an event she described as a pivotal moment in the race.
The Call From Biden
Harris writes that Biden phoned her after speaking with his brother, James Biden, who allegedly told him that Harris had been privately critical of the campaign. Rumors of her comments reportedly circulated in Philadelphia, causing Democratic donors there to threaten pulling financial support.
“I just couldn’t understand why he would call me right now and make it all about himself, distracting me with worry about hostile power brokers in the biggest city in the most important swing state,” Harris recalled in the book.
She went on to say that the timing of Biden’s call added unnecessary stress at a critical point in the campaign.
Harris’s View on Biden’s Reelection Run
In another striking passage, Harris wrote that she believed it was “reckless” for Biden to seek reelection, questioning whether he had the stamina to serve another term. Still, she admitted that she maintained a public front of support to avoid undermining the Democratic ticket.
Watters summarized it bluntly: “She thought he was unfit, but she smiled for the cameras anyway.”
Frustrations With Biden’s Staff
Harris also used her memoir to criticize Biden’s communications team, arguing they failed to defend her against relentless attacks.
“They had a huge comms team. They had Karine Jean-Pierre briefing in the pressroom every day. But getting anything positive said about my work or any defense against untrue attacks was almost impossible,” Harris wrote.
She noted that media outlets frequently mocked her laugh, her speaking style, and even her dating history — while the White House did little to counter those narratives.
Fallout From the Book
The memoir has already sparked pushback from Biden’s allies, many of whom accuse Harris of rewriting history to serve her own political future. Some Democrats worry the book could deepen internal divisions at a time when party unity is seen as crucial heading into the next election cycle.
Watters, for his part, suggested the former vice president was deliberately “throwing her friends under the bus” in an effort to boost book sales.
“Juicy gossip — that’s the only way,” Watters said. “Because the press tour so far is uninspiring.”
A Party Divided?
Harris’s memoir is set for release later this fall, but even the early excerpts paint a picture of a Democratic Party struggling with internal fractures. By portraying Biden as both insecure and reckless, she risks alienating longtime Democratic power brokers while potentially appealing to voters seeking a fresh start.
The book comes at a critical time: Biden allies have already been defending him after other excerpts accused Democrats of being “reckless” in leaving the party’s nomination to the now-former president.
Whether Harris’s memoir cements her as a truth-teller or a political opportunist remains to be seen — but the fallout has only just begun.