Connect with us


Greene Won’t Confirm Rumors of Her Being Kicked Out Of House Freedom Caucus



Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has refused to say whether the rumors of her removal from the House Freedom Caucus are true.

In a statement to The Epoch Times, Ms. Greene, who has represented Georgia’s 14th Congressional District since 2021, did not confirm or deny she was kicked out of the right-wing group.

“In Congress, I serve Northwest Georgia first, and serve no group in Washington,” she said.

“My America First credentials, guided by my Christian faith, are forged in steel, seared into my character, and will never change,” she continued. “I fight every single day in the halls of Congress against the hate-America Democrats, who are trying to destroy this country.

“I will work with anyone who wants to secure our border, protect our children inside the womb and after they are born, end the forever foreign wars, and do the work to save this country.

“The GOP has less than two years to show America what a strong, unified Republican-led Congress will do when President [Donald] Trump wins the White House in 2024.

“This is my focus, nothing else.”

While Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), who is on the caucus’ board, told Politico that a vote was taken just before the July 4 congressional recess to remove Greene from the group, Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho), another House Freedom Caucus member, told The Epoch Times that he was unaware of such a move.

When asked if Greene had actually been expelled from the House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) declined to comment, saying he was “not at liberty to discuss these things” since he had agreed to confidentiality.

Ms. Greene has been at odds with the House Freedom Caucus during the 118th Congress.

She heavily supported House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) from the start in order to win the gavel, but other members of the caucus showed resistance and were able to pressure Mr. McCarthy into making important concessions, such as reducing the number of House members required to file a motion to vacate the chair from five to one and requiring a 72-hour notice before a bill is read and considered by the entire body.

These and other concessions allowed Mr. McCarthy to advance to the position of second in line for the presidency.

Greene also voted in favor of the debt ceiling law, which raises the debt ceiling until January 1, 2025, in contrast to the majority of her caucus members.

Additionally, Greene has been accused of calling Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), a fellow member of the House Freedom Caucus, a “little [expletive]” during an altercation they had on the House floor on June 21.

While Greene had already proposed articles of impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, Christopher Wray, and Matthew Graves, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, it seems that Greene did not appreciate Boebert submitting one against President Joe Biden.

Congress will resume its busy agenda next week with or without Greene in the Freedom Caucus because the fiscal year ends at the end of September and because no appropriations bills have yet to pass either, much less both, chambers.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s reauthorizations to continue allowing the surveillance of foreign countries, people, and entities are up for renewal, along with a farm bill dealing with agricultural and food policy.

Furthermore, there will be important hearings the following week, including one on July 11 by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations regarding the scandalous merger of the PGA Tour and Saudi-funded LIV Golf.

Despite the subcommittee’s request, the PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan, LIV Golf CEO Greg Norman, and Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the governor of the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, which supports LIV Golf, have all declined to appear before it.

Mr. Norman and Mr. Al-Rumayyan cited “scheduling conflicts” as to why they will not appear for the hearing—according to the subcommittee’s chairman Richard Blumenthal—while Mr. Monahan has been on medical leave since June.

Instead, PGA Tour Chief Operating Officer Ron Price and PGA Tour board member Jimmy Dunne will appear before the subcommittee.

On July 12, Mr. Wray is scheduled to appear before the House Judiciary Committee in what is likely to be an explosive hearing.

Mr. Wray, a Republican, has come under fire for—among numerous issues—allegedly allowing the FBI to be weaponized against conservatives.

He is accused of failing to hold those responsible for the Steele Dossier, which led to the surveillance of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, the special counsel investigation that concluded there was no collusion between the campaign and Russia, and the FBI being called to school board meetings after parents voiced their displeasure and anger over the far-Left and explicit material being taught to children.

Additionally, Wray has come under fire from the GOP for withholding documents that are allegedly connected to the corruption of Mr. Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

Under threat of contempt, Wray allowed members of the House Oversight Committee to view in a classified setting an unclassified document alleging Mr. Biden taking a bribe from a foreign official when he was vice president.

Biden Administration

REPORT: U.S. quietly facilitated over 100 arms sales to Israel without approval of Congress



The United States has approved and delivered on more than 100 arms sales to Israel since October 7, U.S. officials recently told Congress in a classified briefing, according to a Washington Post report on Wednesday.

The report, citing unnamed US officials, revealed that thousands of precision-guided munitions, small-diameter bombs, and other weapons were sold. These sales didn’t require prior approval from Congress as each fell below the minimum amount for consideration. Former Biden administration official Jeremy Konyndyk, speaking to the Washington Post, suggested that the high volume of sales in a short period indicates Israel’s reliance on U.S. support for its operations against Hamas in Gaza. Konyndyk, now president of Refugees International, urged the U.S. to leverage weapons sales to pressure Israel into accepting a ceasefire in Gaza.

State Department spokesman Matt Miller told the Washington Post that the Biden administration has “followed the procedures Congress itself has specified to keep members well-informed, and regularly briefs members even when formal notification is not a legal requirement.”

U.S. officials have “engaged Congress” on arms deliveries to Israel “more than 200 times” since October, Miller said.

The report said a senior State Department official declined to provide the total number of all US weapons transferred to Israel, or their costs, since Oc tober 7, but said they include new sales and “active” foreign military sales or FMSs.

“These are items that are typical for any modern military, including one that is as sophisticated as Israel’s,” the official said.

In a Wednesday column, David Ignatius of the Washington Post reported that the U.S. is contemplating measures to prevent Israel from deploying American arms in an anticipated offensive in Rafah, a southern city in Gaza where over half of the territory’s population has sought refuge during the conflict. The U.S. has emphasized that Israel must demonstrate a strategy to safeguard civilians before initiating a ground operation in Rafah. While Israel has committed to evacuating residents, it has not finalized its military strategy or disclosed relocation plans for civilians.

Ignatius wrote that US President Joe Biden and other officials “haven’t made any decision about imposing ‘conditionality’ on US weapons. But the very fact that officials seem to be debating this extreme step shows the administration’s growing concern about the crisis in Gaza.”

“If Israel launches an offensive in Rafah without adequately protecting the displaced civilian population, it may precipitate an unprecedented crisis in US-Israel relations, even involving arms supplies,” former US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk was quoted as saying in the column.

Democratic lawmakers are urging the Biden administration to pressure Israel into alleviating the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. Some are considering withholding approved military aid if conditions for civilians do not improve. Senator Chris Van Hollen emphasized the need for leveraging all available influence, urging the administration to hold back military assistance unless Israel takes steps to facilitate aid shipments into Gaza.

Israeli claims that aid deliveries are hindered by logistical issues have been met with skepticism. The White House has refrained from imposing conditions on aid to Israel, prompting concerns among lawmakers about the escalating crisis. Discussions of potential actions coincide with President Biden’s upcoming State of the Union address, where policy priorities will be outlined. The possibility of withholding arms sales to Israel under US law is also being considered, though it could spark contentious debates. Additionally, House Democrats have expressed deep concern about the plight of civilians in Gaza, further underscoring the urgency of addressing the humanitarian crisis amid ongoing conflict.

Continue Reading

2024 Race

Michelle Obama’s office says the former first lady ‘will not be running for president’ in 2024



Former President Barack Obama’s vocal support for President Joe Biden’s re-election bid has sparked speculation about the potential role of his wife, Michelle Obama, in the upcoming election.

Many Democrats are eager to see Michelle Obama take on a more prominent role, with some even pondering the possibility of her replacing a politically weakened Biden on the 2024 ticket. However, supporters of Republican front-runner Donald Trump have seized on this speculation to undermine Biden’s political standing and rally GOP supporters.

In response to these rumors, Michelle Obama’s office has reiterated that she has no plans to run for president in 2024. Crystal Carson, director of communications for her office, has emphasized Michelle Obama’s support for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris’ re-election campaign, and says Michelle will not be running for president.

While Michelle Obama intends to assist the Biden campaign this fall, her involvement is expected to be limited, reflecting her existing commitments and her reluctance to fully re-enter the political arena. Sources familiar with the discussions suggest that the Biden campaign may capitalize on Michelle Obama’s star power later in the campaign, particularly when swing voters are more engaged.

The Biden campaign has expressed gratitude for the support of both Barack and Michelle Obama in previous elections. Campaign spokesperson Kevin Munoz highlighted Michelle Obama’s involvement with When We All Vote, a nonpartisan voter registration group, as an area of alignment with the Biden campaign’s goals.

Despite persistent speculation about her political ambitions, Michelle Obama has consistently downplayed the possibility of seeking public office. In interviews, she has emphasized the challenges of politics and expressed her aversion to questions about running for president.

However, some observers note instances where Michelle Obama has left the door open to the idea of holding public office in the future. Amid speculation about Biden’s potential running mate in 2020, an exchange between CNN anchor Alisyn Camerota and Jill Biden suggested Michelle Obama as a possible candidate. While Jill Biden laughed off the suggestion, Michelle Obama’s allies reportedly expressed dissatisfaction with her response, prompting discussions about crafting a more ambiguous statement regarding her future plans.

Michelle Obama’s partnership with Jill Biden during their time as first and second ladies underscores their close relationship, particularly in initiatives like Joining Forces to support military families. Despite the ongoing speculation, Michelle Obama’s intentions regarding future political involvement remain unclear, leaving room for continued speculation and discussion within political circles.

Continue Reading

Biden Administration

Supreme Court Temporarily Halts Texas Law Allowing State Immigration Enforcement



In a contentious battle between federal and state authority over immigration enforcement, the Supreme Court has temporarily halted a Texas law that permits state officials to arrest illegal immigrants. The decision comes amidst escalating tensions between Texas and the Biden administration regarding border security measures.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito imposed the stay after the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the Texas law to take effect on March 10, according to reports from NBC. This move follows U.S. District Judge David Ezra’s initial stay late last month.

Alito’s decision to grant the stay came in response to a plea from the Biden administration and will remain in effect until March 13. Texas has been given until March 11 to respond to the administration’s arguments.

Judge Ezra, in his original stay, expressed concerns that the Texas law could allow the state to override federal directives permanently. He warned against the notion of nullifying federal law and authority, which he argued is antithetical to the Constitution and has been consistently rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.

The clash between Texas and the federal government has intensified under the Biden administration, particularly concerning Operation Lone Star. This unilateral effort by Texas aims to secure the border amid what the state perceives as federal apathy toward the surge in illegal crossings.

One of the most notable points of contention has been Texas’ deployment of a buoy barrier in the Rio Grande river and its construction of concertina-wire fencing along the Mexican frontier to deter illegal entrants.

The decision by the Supreme Court to temporarily halt the Texas law underscores the ongoing struggle between state and federal authorities regarding immigration policy and enforcement. It highlights the complex legal and constitutional issues surrounding states’ rights versus federal supremacy in matters of immigration control.

While the temporary stay provides a brief respite, the underlying tensions between Texas and the federal government are far from resolved. The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for immigration policy and the balance of power between state and federal authorities in the United States. As the deadline for the stay approaches, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court and the subsequent actions of the Texas government and the Biden administration.

Continue Reading