Democrats take absolute power in Virginia and the first thing they do is introduce the “Legalize Crime”, “Steal All Future Elections”, and “Duplicate Somali Daycare Fraud” Acts.
🤬48💯13
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
American law enforcement leadership isn’t failing because of a lack of training, funding, or policy manuals. It’s failing because too many leaders are structurally neutered before they ever open their mouths.
An elected Sheriff derives authority from the people. That matters more than most want to admit. A Sheriff can make hard decisions, empower deputies, and defend lawful actions without constantly checking which politician, activist, or donor might be offended. Accountability exists—but it comes at the ballot box, not through a closed-door termination meeting.
A city police chief operates under an entirely different reality. Chiefs serve at the pleasure of city managers, mayors, and councils—most of whom have never worn a badge and are guided by polling, optics, and headlines. When a chief makes a decision that is legally sound, tactically correct, and morally defensible but politically inconvenient, the clock starts ticking. One narrative gets traction, and the chief becomes expendable.
That reality poisons leadership.
Instead of courage, you get compliance.
Instead of empowerment, you get control.
Instead of public safety, you get risk management designed to protect careers—not communities.
Policies aren’t written to support officers; they’re written to shield politicians. Discipline isn’t about justice; it’s about optics. And officers learn very quickly that their chief won’t back them—not because they’re wrong, but because backing them might cost the chief their job.
So Chiefs hedge. They deflect. They sacrifice credibility internally to preserve employability externally. Deputies and officers feel it. The public eventually feels it. And the profession pays the price.
This isn’t an attack on individuals—it’s an indictment of a broken governance model. You cannot demand moral courage from leaders who live under constant threat of termination for telling the truth.
Leadership without independence is theater. Authority without security is a lie. And pretending this structure doesn’t matter is how American policing keeps eating itself from the inside out.
If we actually want leaders who will stand up, speak plainly, and protect both the Constitution and their people, we need to stop pretending all law enforcement leadership is created equal.
It isn’t.
And everyone in the job already knows it.
An elected Sheriff derives authority from the people. That matters more than most want to admit. A Sheriff can make hard decisions, empower deputies, and defend lawful actions without constantly checking which politician, activist, or donor might be offended. Accountability exists—but it comes at the ballot box, not through a closed-door termination meeting.
A city police chief operates under an entirely different reality. Chiefs serve at the pleasure of city managers, mayors, and councils—most of whom have never worn a badge and are guided by polling, optics, and headlines. When a chief makes a decision that is legally sound, tactically correct, and morally defensible but politically inconvenient, the clock starts ticking. One narrative gets traction, and the chief becomes expendable.
That reality poisons leadership.
Instead of courage, you get compliance.
Instead of empowerment, you get control.
Instead of public safety, you get risk management designed to protect careers—not communities.
Policies aren’t written to support officers; they’re written to shield politicians. Discipline isn’t about justice; it’s about optics. And officers learn very quickly that their chief won’t back them—not because they’re wrong, but because backing them might cost the chief their job.
So Chiefs hedge. They deflect. They sacrifice credibility internally to preserve employability externally. Deputies and officers feel it. The public eventually feels it. And the profession pays the price.
This isn’t an attack on individuals—it’s an indictment of a broken governance model. You cannot demand moral courage from leaders who live under constant threat of termination for telling the truth.
Leadership without independence is theater. Authority without security is a lie. And pretending this structure doesn’t matter is how American policing keeps eating itself from the inside out.
If we actually want leaders who will stand up, speak plainly, and protect both the Constitution and their people, we need to stop pretending all law enforcement leadership is created equal.
It isn’t.
And everyone in the job already knows it.
❤27👍3💯2👎1
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Mike is doing it again.....🙄
💩52🤮15🤩1🤡1
S. 128, titled the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, is a Senate bill introduced on January 16, 2025, in the 119th Congress (2025–2026) by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT).
A companion bill, H.R. 22, with substantially identical provisions, was introduced in the House on January 3, 2025, by Representative Chip Roy (R-TX). H.R. 22 passed the House of Representatives on April 10, 2025, by a vote of 220–208 and was received in the Senate the same day. As of January 19, 2026, S. 128 remains referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration with no further action taken.
The legislation amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship as a condition for registering to vote in federal elections. It shifts the current system—which relies primarily on self-attestation (checking a box affirming citizenship under penalty of perjury)—to mandatory objective verification.
Key Provisions
Acceptable Documentary Proof of Citizenship —
A REAL ID-compliant driver's license or identification card that explicitly indicates U.S. citizenship.
A valid U.S. passport.
A military ID accompanied by a record of U.S. birth.
A birth certificate, naturalization certificate, Certificate of Citizenship, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or certain Bureau of Indian Affairs/American Indian Cards.
Other government-issued photo IDs paired with supporting documents (e.g., hospital birth records or adoption decrees).
Application to All Registration Methods — The requirement applies universally, including in-person registration, mail-in applications (including the federal mail voter registration form), online registration (where offered), motor voter processes at DMVs, and registrations through public assistance or other voter registration agencies.
Alternative Processes for Those Without Standard Documents — States must establish procedures allowing applicants to submit other evidence of citizenship along with an attestation under penalty of perjury. The Election Assistance Commission is directed to develop a uniform affidavit for this purpose. States must also have processes to resolve documentation discrepancies.
State Obligations to Maintain Accurate Voter Rolls — States are required to implement ongoing programs to identify and remove non-citizens from voter rolls. This includes cross-checking against federal databases such as the DHS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, Social Security Administration records, state DMV data, and records of individuals excused from jury duty due to non-citizenship.
Federal Agency Cooperation — Federal agencies must provide citizenship verification data to states promptly (within 24 hours where feasible) and without fees. The Department of Homeland Security must notify states of new naturalizations and investigate evidence of non-citizen voting for potential removal proceedings.
Enforcement Mechanisms — The bill creates a private right of action, allowing U.S. citizens to sue election officials who register applicants without required proof of citizenship. It also strengthens criminal penalties for knowingly registering non-citizens or assisting them in registering or voting.
The core objective of the SAVE Act is to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote in federal elections by mandating verifiable evidence of citizenship at the point of registration, while providing limited alternatives to avoid disenfranchising eligible voters who lack immediate access to standard documents.
A companion bill, H.R. 22, with substantially identical provisions, was introduced in the House on January 3, 2025, by Representative Chip Roy (R-TX). H.R. 22 passed the House of Representatives on April 10, 2025, by a vote of 220–208 and was received in the Senate the same day. As of January 19, 2026, S. 128 remains referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration with no further action taken.
The legislation amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship as a condition for registering to vote in federal elections. It shifts the current system—which relies primarily on self-attestation (checking a box affirming citizenship under penalty of perjury)—to mandatory objective verification.
Key Provisions
Acceptable Documentary Proof of Citizenship —
A REAL ID-compliant driver's license or identification card that explicitly indicates U.S. citizenship.
A valid U.S. passport.
A military ID accompanied by a record of U.S. birth.
A birth certificate, naturalization certificate, Certificate of Citizenship, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, or certain Bureau of Indian Affairs/American Indian Cards.
Other government-issued photo IDs paired with supporting documents (e.g., hospital birth records or adoption decrees).
Application to All Registration Methods — The requirement applies universally, including in-person registration, mail-in applications (including the federal mail voter registration form), online registration (where offered), motor voter processes at DMVs, and registrations through public assistance or other voter registration agencies.
Alternative Processes for Those Without Standard Documents — States must establish procedures allowing applicants to submit other evidence of citizenship along with an attestation under penalty of perjury. The Election Assistance Commission is directed to develop a uniform affidavit for this purpose. States must also have processes to resolve documentation discrepancies.
State Obligations to Maintain Accurate Voter Rolls — States are required to implement ongoing programs to identify and remove non-citizens from voter rolls. This includes cross-checking against federal databases such as the DHS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system, Social Security Administration records, state DMV data, and records of individuals excused from jury duty due to non-citizenship.
Federal Agency Cooperation — Federal agencies must provide citizenship verification data to states promptly (within 24 hours where feasible) and without fees. The Department of Homeland Security must notify states of new naturalizations and investigate evidence of non-citizen voting for potential removal proceedings.
Enforcement Mechanisms — The bill creates a private right of action, allowing U.S. citizens to sue election officials who register applicants without required proof of citizenship. It also strengthens criminal penalties for knowingly registering non-citizens or assisting them in registering or voting.
The core objective of the SAVE Act is to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote in federal elections by mandating verifiable evidence of citizenship at the point of registration, while providing limited alternatives to avoid disenfranchising eligible voters who lack immediate access to standard documents.
👍27🔥9❤3
JUST IN: 🇩🇰🇺🇸 Danish pension fund AkademikerPension to sell all US Treasuries.
The $100 million divestment is negligible in the context of the $28+ trillion U.S. Treasury market
The $100 million divestment is negligible in the context of the $28+ trillion U.S. Treasury market
😁33❤1
Interview With German MP Björn Höcke: On the Decline of Elites, MAGA, Post-Democracy, and the AfD’s Path to Power
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/interview-german-mp-bjorn-hocke-decline-elites-maga/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/interview-german-mp-bjorn-hocke-decline-elites-maga/
The Gateway Pundit
Interview With German MP Björn Höcke: On the Decline of Elites, MAGA, Post-Democracy, and the AfD’s Path to Power | The Gateway…
Björn Höcke is a German and a leading figure within conservative, anti-globalist Alternative for Germany (AfD), particularly associated with the party’s right-conservative wing.
🔥13❤3
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
JUST IN - Reporter: Can you respond to Macron saying he will not join the board of peace?
Trump: Nobody wants him… I’ll put a 200% tariff on his wines and he’ll join
Trump: Nobody wants him… I’ll put a 200% tariff on his wines and he’ll join
🤣59❤8
Summary of Virginia House Bill 863 (2026 Session)
Bill Overview: HB 863, introduced on January 13, 2026, by Delegate Rae Cousins (D-Richmond), seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum prison terms for a wide range of serious felony offenses in the Virginia Code. These include:
Rape (§ 18.2-61), including cases involving victims under 13 or with aggravating factors.
Forcible sodomy (§ 18.2-67.1).
Production and related activities involving child pornography (§ 18.2-374.1), with current mandatories ranging from 5–30 years depending on victim age and priors.
Malicious wounding of law enforcement officers, firefighters, or emergency personnel (§ 18.2-51.1).
Use or display of a firearm in the commission of certain felonies (§ 18.2-53.1), a long-standing 3–5 year unsuspendable enhancement.
Other violent or sexual crimes listed across multiple code sections.
The bill repeals the "mandatory minimum" language, granting judges full discretion to suspend sentences or impose probation, even for convictions of these offenses.
Current Status (as of January 20, 2026): Newly introduced and prefiled. Committee referral is pending, with no hearings, amendments, or votes yet. The General Assembly session is just beginning, so the bill remains in its earliest stage.
Key Criticisms and Concerns: Critics, including law enforcement groups, victim advocates, and public safety organizations, argue the bill is poorly targeted and risks undermining Virginia's criminal justice system for several fact-based reasons:
Reduced Deterrence: Mandatory minimums, especially for firearm use and assaults on officers, were enacted in prior decades to ensure predictable punishment. Studies and legislative history credit them with contributing to Virginia's crime declines by removing leniency options.
Public Safety Risks: Virginia abolished parole in 1995, meaning offenders serve ~85% of sentences. Mandatories provide a guaranteed "floor" of incarceration. Removal could allow little or no prison time for violent or sexual offenders, reducing the incapacitation effect that prevents reoffending during incarceration periods.
Impact on Victims: For child exploitation and sexual assault crimes, mandatories reflect legislative consensus on severe, non-negotiable accountability due to profound victim harm. Repeal could lead to outcomes perceived as unjust.
Unlike Targeted Reforms: Recent state and federal changes have focused on rolling back mandatories for non-violent drug offenses. Extending this to violent, sexual, and armed crimes is less common and more contentious.
Supporters, such as Justice Forward Virginia, frame it as promoting individualized justice and reducing over-incarceration. However, Virginia's prison population has already declined significantly in recent years without broad repeal of these provisions.
The bill's fate will depend on committee assignment (likely Courts of Justice) and session dynamics. Track progress via the official Virginia Legislative Information System (lis.virginia.gov).
Bill Overview: HB 863, introduced on January 13, 2026, by Delegate Rae Cousins (D-Richmond), seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum prison terms for a wide range of serious felony offenses in the Virginia Code. These include:
Rape (§ 18.2-61), including cases involving victims under 13 or with aggravating factors.
Forcible sodomy (§ 18.2-67.1).
Production and related activities involving child pornography (§ 18.2-374.1), with current mandatories ranging from 5–30 years depending on victim age and priors.
Malicious wounding of law enforcement officers, firefighters, or emergency personnel (§ 18.2-51.1).
Use or display of a firearm in the commission of certain felonies (§ 18.2-53.1), a long-standing 3–5 year unsuspendable enhancement.
Other violent or sexual crimes listed across multiple code sections.
The bill repeals the "mandatory minimum" language, granting judges full discretion to suspend sentences or impose probation, even for convictions of these offenses.
Current Status (as of January 20, 2026): Newly introduced and prefiled. Committee referral is pending, with no hearings, amendments, or votes yet. The General Assembly session is just beginning, so the bill remains in its earliest stage.
Key Criticisms and Concerns: Critics, including law enforcement groups, victim advocates, and public safety organizations, argue the bill is poorly targeted and risks undermining Virginia's criminal justice system for several fact-based reasons:
Reduced Deterrence: Mandatory minimums, especially for firearm use and assaults on officers, were enacted in prior decades to ensure predictable punishment. Studies and legislative history credit them with contributing to Virginia's crime declines by removing leniency options.
Public Safety Risks: Virginia abolished parole in 1995, meaning offenders serve ~85% of sentences. Mandatories provide a guaranteed "floor" of incarceration. Removal could allow little or no prison time for violent or sexual offenders, reducing the incapacitation effect that prevents reoffending during incarceration periods.
Impact on Victims: For child exploitation and sexual assault crimes, mandatories reflect legislative consensus on severe, non-negotiable accountability due to profound victim harm. Repeal could lead to outcomes perceived as unjust.
Unlike Targeted Reforms: Recent state and federal changes have focused on rolling back mandatories for non-violent drug offenses. Extending this to violent, sexual, and armed crimes is less common and more contentious.
Supporters, such as Justice Forward Virginia, frame it as promoting individualized justice and reducing over-incarceration. However, Virginia's prison population has already declined significantly in recent years without broad repeal of these provisions.
The bill's fate will depend on committee assignment (likely Courts of Justice) and session dynamics. Track progress via the official Virginia Legislative Information System (lis.virginia.gov).
🤬36❤2