Politics
Fake Jobs Boom Exposed: Nearly 2 Million Vanish
OPINION Let’s be real. Numbers don’t lie—unless someone in Washington is manipulating them. That’s exactly what just happened with the Biden administration’s so-called “strong economy.” For months, they bragged about booming job growth. They paraded around charts, headlines, and talking points about how many millions of jobs were being created. And now? Almost a million of those jobs never existed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) finally admitted it: from April 2024 to March 2025, the U.S. actually added 911,000 fewer jobs than we were told. That’s the biggest downward revision in history. Nearly a million jobs vanished with the stroke of a pen. Preliminary benchmark revision for March payroll employment is -911,000 (-0.6%) https://t.co/cooAntOaz6 #BLSdata — BLS-Labor Statistics (@BLS_gov) September 9, 2025 Spin First, Honesty Later Here’s the playbook. Announce good numbers early. Use them to score political points. Let the media pump out glowing headlines. Then, months later, when nobody’s paying attention, quietly slip out a revision that tells the truth. It’s dishonest, and it’s intentional. (MORE NEWS: LAPD Officers Pulled from Duties to Guard Kamala Harris) Jerome Powell at the Fed and Jared Bernstein at the White House used those inflated numbers to paint a rosy picture of Biden’s economy. They pointed to job growth as proof that things were humming along. Except it wasn’t real. It was smoke and mirrors. This wasn’t just a math error. It was a strategy: sell the sizzle now, hope nobody notices when they are heavily revised. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned Kirsten Welker last week on Meet the Press and she pushed back: .@kwelkernbc pushed back last week when I warned that the BLS jobs data would show a massive downward revision. Now it’s official: 2024 job gains were exaggerated by nearly 1M workers, and this is on top of an already reported 577K in downward revisions. This brings the Biden… pic.twitter.com/Aaz0LirOxg — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) September 9, 2025 Families Were Misled Think about what that means for everyday Americans. People decide whether to change jobs, buy a house, or start a business based on the state of the economy. Businesses plan hiring and investments based on job numbers. When Washington feeds them fake optimism, it’s not harmless—it leads people into bad decisions. The Biden administration didn’t level with the public. They wanted good headlines, so they chose spin over honesty. McEntarfer Shown the Door There’s a reason Erika McEntarfer, the BLS official is no longer on the job. Trump replaced her with economist E.J. Antoni, a guy who’s not afraid to call things like they are. Antoni has built his career on digging into numbers and telling the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. That’s exactly the kind of leadership BLS needs. McEntarfer presided over years of inflated estimates followed by embarrassing revisions. At some point, it stops looking like bad luck and starts looking like a pattern. And a pattern like that demands accountability. (MORE NEWS: Insurance Drones: Hidden Home Inspections Spark Backlash) Honesty Should Trump Spin This is the heart of it: honesty should always trump the urge to cover up failings. If the jobs numbers are soft, say they’re soft. If early estimates are shaky, admit they’re shaky. Don’t pump sunshine into the headlines and then backpedal months later when the spotlight has moved on. America needs leaders who will tell the truth, even when the truth isn’t flattering. That’s how you build trust. That’s how you lead. A Pattern of Fake Wins And let’s not pretend this was a one-time slip. Last year, the numbers were quietly revised down by 818,000. Each time, Biden’s team bragged about how great things were going, only to have the rug pulled out later. It’s a pattern of fake wins followed by quiet corrections. When you add it all up, the Biden administration wasn’t just wrong—they were selling a story they knew wouldn’t hold up. .@PressSec: “This was one of the biggest revisions, in absolute terms, in decades… the job growth was VASTLY weaker during the Biden administration than ever previously reported.” pic.twitter.com/Qqehuo6bqs — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 9, 2025 Trump’s Course Correction Trump didn’t just point out the problem; he acted on it. He brought in Antoni to restore credibility. The message is simple: the American people deserve real numbers, not fairy tales. If the job market is struggling, say it’s struggling. If revisions are coming, say revisions are coming. Antoni has already signaled that he’s going to stop the cycle of inflated estimates and shady revisions. That’s a good start. Transparency has to be the standard. The Bottom Line The Biden team used phony numbers to push a feel-good story. Powell and Bernstein played along. McEntarfer ran cover for a process that misled the country. And when the truth came out, it wasn’t shouted—it was whispered. Trump put a stop to it. He fired the official responsible and put in someone committed to honesty. That’s what accountability looks like. The lesson is simple: spin fades, but the truth always surfaces. Americans don’t need politicians telling them fairy tales about the economy. They need straight talk, real numbers, and leaders who won’t hide the ball. That’s how you rebuild trust and move forward. Forget the Headlines. Challenge the Script. Deliver the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t tiptoe through talking points — we swing a machete through the media’s favorite lies. They protect power. We confront it. If you’re sick of censorship, narrative control, and being told what to think — stand with us. Share the story. Wake the people. Because truth dies in silence — and you weren’t made to stay quiet.
Free Speech Alarm: Farage’s Wake-Up Call to Congress
Nigel Farage brought a blunt message to Washington. Speaking before the U.S. Congress, he warned that Britain is slipping into a culture of suppression, abandoning free speech. His comparison cut sharp: the nation, he said, looks more like North Korea than a free democracy. 📺MUST WATCH: @Nigel_Farage outlines the importance of free speech around the world. If we lose free speech, we lose everything. pic.twitter.com/c83XW4OFID — House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) September 3, 2025 The Reform UK leader appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on September 3, 2025. From the start, he accused Britain’s political class of betraying core democratic values. Laws written to fight “hate speech,” he argued, now crush open debate. Police enforce speech violations instead of protecting expression. Farage urged lawmakers to pay attention. What happens in Britain, he said, will not stay in Britain. Once censorship takes hold in one Western democracy, it spreads. America must recognize the danger and refuse to stand by silently. (RELATED: Court Nixes California AI Deepfake Law, Free Speech Wins) To drive home the point, he drew on history. Free nations, he explained, have always defended speech, even offensive or unpopular speech. Citing the spirit of Voltaire, he said, “We’ve forgotten the Voltarian principles that we’ll fight and defend to the death your right to say something that we fundamentally disagree with. That is the absolute foundation, if you think about it, of free speech, of democracy, of living in freedom. It’s kind of why we fought two world wars, at massive, massive cost. To defend that very principle for ourslves and for many, many others around the country.” His testimony framed censorship as a creeping threat. It rarely arrives with blunt force. Instead, it advances quietly, disguised as protection or safety. That, he said, makes it more dangerous. For Farage, the solution is clear: hold Britain accountable and defend free voices before they are silenced altogether. Linehan Arrest: A Comedy Writer in Handcuffs While Farage spoke in Washington, a separate story unfolded in London. Graham Linehan, the comedy writer behind hit shows like Father Ted, was arrested at Heathrow Airport. His alleged crime was not violence or fraud but a series of social media posts criticizing trans activism. One post claimed that if a “trans-identified male” entered a female-only space, the act should be treated as violent and abusive. He suggested that bystanders should make a scene, call the police, or even respond physically. The message drew swift attention from authorities. Police questioned Linehan over the post and banned him from using X, formerly Twitter, while on bail. For him, the arrest was absurd. He described it as a “dystopian clown show” and vowed to challenge it in court. In his view, the state had criminalized satire. This is how Graham Linehan shows up for trial in the UK just days after being arrested in the London airport for posting “offensive tweets” This is how you deal with the trans mob. Double down. We’re cheering you on, @Glinner 👏🏼🔥pic.twitter.com/vWVItcwUGK — Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) September 4, 2025 Linehan’s case exposes the tension between comedy and censorship. Once a staple of British humor, satire is now being dragged into police stations. To his supporters, this proves Farage’s point. What begins as regulation of speech can quickly become prosecution of thought. A Growing Storm Around Free Expression Farage’s testimony and Linehan’s arrest tell the same story from different angles. One shows political leaders tightening laws. The other shows police enforcing those laws on individuals. Together, they highlight a dangerous shift in how Britain treats free expression. (MORE NEWS: U.S. Strike on Venezuelan Drug Cartel Boat Signals New Era) Critics of these policies argue that governments are overstepping. They ask who decides where satire ends and offense begins. They warn that the power to punish speech can easily be abused. Defining “harm” too broadly, they say, allows almost any opinion to be silenced. Supporters of strict laws counter that hateful rhetoric poses real risks. They argue that social cohesion requires limits. Yet opponents point out that once the state defines harmful speech, political dissent often becomes the first casualty. In Washington, Farage urged Congress not to ignore the trend. He pressed lawmakers to use America’s influence to keep free speech alive in allied nations. Across the Atlantic, British citizens watched Linehan’s case unfold and asked whether their own freedoms were next. Why This Matters for the West Free speech shapes more than Britain. It defines the Western world. When one democracy clamps down, others copy the move. Farage warns that Britain could set the model — for censorship instead of liberty. Linehan’s arrest exhibits danger in real time. Police charged a comedian for satire. That action chills journalists, writers, and citizens who use humor to push back against authority. These events prove a hard truth: free speech survives only when people defend it. Laws must shield it, not crush it. Leaders must honor it, not bargain it away for peace. The debate cannot wait. Citizens, not governments, define acceptable thought. They must choose whether satire stays part of culture or becomes a crime by voting out of office those who threaten freedom. Conclusion: A Call to Defend Free Speech The message is clear. Societies that value freedom must defend speech in all its forms—serious or satirical, popular or unpopular. If they fail, censorship will not remain confined to Britain. It will spread across the democratic world. America once broke free from British control to secure liberty. Today, Britain drifts toward censorship, using “safety” and “tolerance” as excuses. Farage’s warning should not be ignored. If the U.K. can arrest comedians and silence debate, America must make sure it never follows down that path. Linehan’s arrest proves how quickly jokes and opinions can be turned into criminal offenses. Free nations survive only when debate is open and free speech is protected. America doesn’t need to repeat Britain’s mistakes. It needs to stand firm, defend its Constitution, and remind the world that freedom of speech is not…
LAPD Officers Pulled from Duties to Guard Kamala Harris
President Trump has revoked Kamala Harris’s extended Secret Service detail. The protection ended on September 1, 2025. Normally, former vice presidents receive only six months of coverage. President Biden had extended Harris’s protection for a year before leaving office. Trump ended that early, citing his authority over federal security assignments. California Scrambling For Local Solutions After the revocation, LAPD stepped in. The LAPD’s Metro Division assigned about 14 officers to guard Harris. These officers were pulled from regular duties, including gang suppression and active case work. An unmarked LAPD vehicle now sits outside her Brentwood home day and night. Plain-clothes officers rotate shifts to maintain constant watch—on the taypayer dime. The California Highway Patrol also offered help. However, deploying CHP security requires Governor Gavin Newsom’s approval. His office has not confirmed any final decision. Newsom’s spokesperson stressed that safety should not depend on politics. The state continues to review options for providing additional protection if needed. (MORE NEWS: Democrats Fume as Trump’s Crime Crackdown Delivers Results) Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass told Fox11 LA that it is political retaliation and warned that Kamala Harris’s safety was at risk: “This is another act of revenge following a long list of political retaliation in the form of firings, the revoking of security clearances and more. This puts the former Vice President in danger and I look forward to working with the Governor to make sure Vice President Harris is safe in Los Angeles.” Governor Newsom’s office echoed her concerns: “Our office does not comment on security arrangements. The safety of our public officials should never be subject to erratic, vindictive political impulses.” Both leaders promised to coordinate on long-term solutions. They argued that protection for former national leaders must never become a partisan issue. Never mind the six-month protocol that has been in place for years. (MORE NEWS: Newsom’s Press Office Attacks Victims Of Palisades Fire For Demanding Answers) A Pattern of Cuts Trump has ended protection for several Biden-era officials and allies. The list includes former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Dr. Anthony Fauci, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Biden’s adult children. Democrats say this shows a troubling pattern and claim Trump is using security assignments to punish rivals. But should the federal government waste taxpayer money on unnecessary details? Especially when the people in question are millionaires and can afford their own security. 🚨 #BREAKING: President Donald Trump terminates Dr. Anthony Fauci’s security detail – CNN It was pulled last night. Fauci will now have to pay for his own private security. pic.twitter.com/rnkxHU5GkK — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) January 24, 2025 Harris’s Book Tour Raises Stakes The timing adds to the controversy. Kamala Harris is preparing for a nationwide book tour later this month. Her memoir, 107 Days, releases on September 23. Public appearances will draw crowds and increase exposure. Without federal protection, she will have to rely on local law enforcement and possibly private contractors—which would be her obligation as a private citizen. Officers Face New Demands For now, LAPD’s Metro Division will carry the responsibility. These officers specialize in tactical response and dignitary protection. They have experience working with the Secret Service. Still, pulling them from crime suppression adds pressure on a department already stretched thin. Rising crime rates in Los Angeles make the trade-off controversial. The Debate Over Protection and Costs Democrats in Washington called the decision dangerous. They argue it undermines security norms and sets a bad precedent. Security, they insist, should never depend on partisan rivalries. Critics fear future leaders will face the same risks if protection becomes a political weapon. As the first woman and Black person elected Vice President, Kamala Harris faced elevated threats. This move by Trump is dangerous. I saw the VP last week and was grateful for her Secret Service protection. They were incredibly professional and kept her safe. Shameful. https://t.co/ttveXPDXou — Congressman Robert Garcia (@RepRobertGarcia) August 29, 2025 The controversy raises larger questions. Who decides which former leaders deserve protection? Should states carry the burden when the federal government steps away? And how should costs be divided between taxpayers and private funds? These issues will likely shape future policy. Harris’s case shows how quickly coverage can shift. Local police now fill the gap as state officials weigh their role. The outcome will affect not just Kamala Harris but every future leader navigating life after Washington. Final Word Kamala Harris now has LAPD officers parked outside her mansion while Los Angeles struggles with rising crime. Regular citizens wait longer for police response because detectives have been reassigned to protect a former vice president who chose politics over results. Trump’s critics scream about danger, but everyday Americans face danger daily in neighborhoods where crime goes unchecked. That is the real scandal. Instead of fixing broken policies or supporting law enforcement, Democrats treat Harris’s driveway like a national emergency. They demand more taxpayer money and more political theater. Meanwhile, criminals walk free, and police are stretched thin. Protecting politicians at the expense of public safety tells you everything about their priorities. The message is simple: leaders should protect the people—not the other way around. Cut Through the Noise. Slice Through the Lies. Share the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t tiptoe around the narrative—we swing a machete through it. The mainstream won’t say it, so we will. If you’re tired of spin, censorship, and sugar-coated headlines, help us rip the cover off stories that matter. Share this article. Wake people up. Give a voice to the truth the powerful want buried.
Democrats Fume as Trump’s Crime Crackdown Delivers Results
Outrage From the Left Democrats are in full meltdown mode over President Trump’s aggressive move to take on crime in Washington, D.C. They accuse him of overreach, authoritarianism, and election-year grandstanding. But beneath the outrage lies a deeper fear: that his approach might work—and that he plans to replicate it in other Democrat-run cities. From Capitol Hill to city halls in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Baltimore, Democrat leaders are scrambling to frame Trump’s actions as dangerous. Instead of celebrating safer streets in the nation’s capital, they appear more determined to deny Trump a victory than to bring relief to their own communities. (RELATED NEWS: Crime in D.C.: Trump’s Historic Action to Restore Order) Trump Points to Falling Crime Trump is already claiming success. He cites plunging homicide numbers and dramatic drops in carjackings since federal forces entered D.C. His allies argue the crackdown proves what voters have long suspected: when leaders back police and enforce the law, crime falls. That puts Democrats in a bind. Their opposition isn’t just to Trump—it looks like opposition to public safety itself. And it comes at a time when voters across the country list crime among their top concerns. HOME RULE: Democrats claimed crime was not an issue in DC, but given the fact homicides in Washington DC plummeted 71% and robberies by 60% following the takeover by President Trump i hope we can all agree they were lying. pic.twitter.com/f63wZ2hSvI — @amuse (@amuse) August 30, 2025 Expanding Beyond Washington The bigger story is Trump’s stated plan to bring the same strategy to other cities. He has publicly named Chicago, Baltimore, New York, and Los Angeles as possible targets. These are places long plagued by violent crime and failed leadership. For residents in those cities, the results in D.C. are hard to ignore. Trump’s message is simple: if Democrats won’t protect their own people, the federal government will. Democrats Circle the Wagons The response from blue-state leaders has been swift and furious. California Governor Gavin Newsom said Trump’s approach was “militarizing American cities.” Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker claimed it could be a plot to interfere with elections. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an order blocking local police from cooperating with federal troops. None of those responses directly address the falling crime numbers. Instead, they show Democrats more focused on preserving political power than on delivering peace and safety to neighborhoods desperate for both. (MORE NEWS: Minneapolis: Innocent Lives Lost and a Culture in Crisis) Mayor Bowser’s Balancing Act D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser illustrates the Democrats’ dilemma. At first, she denounced Trump’s move as authoritarian and even backed lawsuits against it. But as crime dropped, she began acknowledging the benefits of federal support. Bowser now tries to walk a tightrope—criticizing Trump’s methods while cautiously welcoming the results. “We greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been able to do in this city,” she said during a Wednesday press conference. “We know that when carjackings go down, when the use of gun goes down, when homicide or robbery go down, neighborhoods feel safer and are safer. So, this surge has been important to us for that reason.” Her shifting tone reflects what many Democrat officials likely recognize: opposing Trump outright risks alienating residents who want results, not political posturing. How Trump Did It For context, Trump invoked Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act, placing the Metropolitan Police Department under federal control. He deployed about 800 National Guard troops along with other federal law enforcement to flood the streets. Critics call it unconstitutional. Supporters call it overdue. Whatever the label, it delivered a visible law-and-order presence in the capital—something voters notice. Voters See the Contrast Polling shows most D.C. residents opposed losing local control. But nationwide, support for Trump’s move runs higher, particularly among Republicans and independents. Democrats are left trying to argue process while Trump points to outcomes. That contrast—safer streets versus political bickering—could shape how voters see both parties heading into 2026. Trump frames himself as the man who gets results. Democrats risk looking like leaders more worried about denying him credit than keeping their own citizens safe. The Bottom Line The fight over D.C. isn’t just about one city. It’s about the future of law and order in Democrat-controlled areas across the country. Trump has made it clear he’s ready to act where local leaders refuse. Democrats, meanwhile, continue to shout about overreach and lawsuits, even as the numbers in Washington shift in Trump’s favor. Voters will decide which matters more—process or results. Right now, Trump is betting that safety on the streets will outweigh partisan talking points in the minds of everyday Americans. Unmask the Narrative. Rip Through the Lies. Spread the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t polish propaganda — we tear it to shreds. The corporate press censors, spins, and sugarcoats. We don’t. If you’re tired of being misled, silenced, and spoon-fed fiction, help us expose what they try to hide. Truth matters — but only if it’s heard. So share this. Shake the silence. And remind the powerful they don’t own the story.
Texas House Passes “One Big Beautiful Map” in GOP Victory
The Texas House approved a sweeping new congressional redistricting plan on Wednesday. Republicans call it “One Big Beautiful Map.” In an 88–52 party-line vote, lawmakers passed House Bill 4, a plan designed to strengthen GOP control and deliver up to five additional congressional seats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Governor Greg Abbott praised the win on X. “Congrats to the Texas House on passing the One Big Beautiful Map. It will make Texas, and Congress, a brighter shade of Red.” House Speaker Dustin Burrows said, “The Texas House today delivered legislation to redistrict certain congressional districts to address concerns raised by the Department of Justice and ensure fairness and accuracy in Texans’ representation in Congress… This work has helped us deliver the legal, remedied maps Texas voters deserve.” Rep. Tony Tinderholt framed the outcome more bluntly: “Democrats broke quorum to try and stop us—but they FAILED. Texas now has a big, beautiful map, legally adding 5 more Republican seats.” Democrats broke quorum to try and stop us—but they FAILED. Texas now has a big, beautiful map, legally adding 5 more Republican seats. A huge win for all Republicans! #txlege pic.twitter.com/RhXvL0L191 — Rep. Tony Tinderholt (@reptinderholt) August 20, 2025 The Map Democrats Couldn’t Stop The new map redraws districts in Dallas, Houston, and other fast-growing areas. Republicans say it ensures fairness, accuracy, and compliance with federal requirements. Democrats tried to delay or derail the measure with a dozen amendments, including one pushing implementation to 2028 and another tying it to an independent redistricting commission. One amendment even attempted to block the map until the federal government released unrelated files about Jeffrey Epstein. All were defeated. (RELATED NEWS: Texas Dems Flee to Stop Redistricting Map) Republicans stayed united, rejecting every amendment and moving HB 4 to a quick vote. Conservatives say the map will “ungerrymander the gerrymandered” and help secure a stronger GOP majority in Washington. The Walkout That Backfired The vote followed the dramatic return of Democratic lawmakers who fled Texas two weeks earlier to block the bill. More than 50 Democrats traveled to Chicago to deny the House a quorum, halting business in Austin. Their absence drew national headlines, but the tactic failed. During the standoff, Speaker Burrows issued arrest warrants for absent members. He warned that Democrats who came back would only be allowed to leave the chamber under strict conditions, including release into the custody of Department of Public Safety officers who would ensure their return. Rep. Nicole Collier refused to sign the required permission slip and camped out in the chamber instead of going home. The walkout also carried financial costs. Democrats faced $500 fines for each missed day and had their pay withheld. By the time they returned, pressure from penalties and threats of arrest forced them back into the chamber, where Republicans swiftly advanced the map. Governor Abbott is now calling for added penalties and punishments for legislators who willfully leave during a session. Will they face prosecution? Attorney General Ken Paxton says, “We made that argument about 13 of the legislators… and we will be in front of the Texas Supreme Court.” WILL TX DEMS WHO FLED THE REDISTRICTING FIGHT FACE PROSECTUION?@KenPaxtonTX: “We made that argument about 13 of the legislators… and we will be in front of the Texas Supreme Court.” pic.twitter.com/Q2ymO9b6tz — The Will Cain Show (@WillCainShow_) August 20, 2025 Democrats Spin, Republicans Deliver Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu tried to cast the quorum break as a success, claiming it “rallied Democrats nationwide” and “reshaped the 2026 landscape.” But Republicans say the numbers tell the real story: Democrats delayed the inevitable and returned to pass the very map they tried to block. Conservatives frame the episode as proof of GOP discipline. Democrats relied on theatrics, while Republicans held the line, complied with legal requirements, and delivered results. What’s Next The bill still needs a vote from the full Texas Senate, but it is expected to pass overwhelmingly. Democrats will undoubtedly challenge the map in court, claiming it discriminates against minority voters. Republicans say HB 4 is constitutional, remedies DOJ concerns, and will stand up to scrutiny. (MORE NEWS: Phone Scrolling: The Top 10 States and Hidden Costs) For conservatives, the fight was about more than lines on a map. It also showed how far Democrats will go to block legislation. In the end, Republicans prevailed. For Republicans, the “One Big Beautiful Map” is a win and a promise of more victories to come. Expose the Spin. Shatter the Narrative. Speak the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t cover politics to play referee — we swing a machete through the spin, the double-speak, and the partisan theater. While the media protects the powerful and buries the backlash, we dig it up and drag it into the light. If you’re tired of rigged narratives, selective outrage, and leaders who serve themselves, not you — then share this. Expose the corruption. Challenge the agenda. Because if we don’t fight for the truth, no one will. And that fight starts with you.
Hunter Biden Mocks Melania Trump’s $1B Defamation Lawsuit
Biden Responds to Defamation Threat Hunter Biden isn’t backing down. On Thursday, the former first son responded to Melania Trump’s threat of a $1 billion defamation lawsuit. The claim stems from his statement that Jeffrey Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump. His answer was blunt: “F— that. That’s not going to happen,” he told Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan on YouTube. First Lady Melania Trump has threatened to sue Hunter Biden for $1B unless he retracts his false Epstein claims. “F**k that, that’s not going to happen.” – Hunter Biden Hunter is a low-life loser who belongs in a prison cell. Sue him into oblivion, Melania! pic.twitter.com/cTPE3aXnea — Christian Collins (@CollinsforTX) August 14, 2025 Public Challenge and Refusal to Retract “I also think they’re bullies, and they think that a billion dollars is going to scare me,” he said. “If they want to sit down for a deposition and clarify the nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein — if the president, the first lady want to do that, and all of the known associates around them at the time of whatever time that they met, I’m more than happy to provide them the platform to be able to do it.” (MORE NEWS: Kimmel’s Italian Citizenship: Turning Away From America) Biden made it clear he wouldn’t retract his comments. He brushed off Melania Trump’s warning and doubled down during the interview. He framed the lawsuit threat as intimidation and showed no signs of backing down. Legal Demands and Early Retractions Melania Trump’s legal team sent Biden a formal notice the day before the interview. The letter stated that he could be sued for defamation if he didn’t withdraw the comments. Two others also received similar warnings: James Carville and The Daily Beast. Both complied quickly. Carville deleted an episode of his podcast and issued an apology after speculating about a possible Epstein connection. The Daily Beast removed its article. Unlike Biden, they backed down immediately. Details of the Demand Letter Fox News obtained details of the August 6 demand letter written by Melania Trump’s attorney, Alejandro Brito. In the letter, Brito wrote: “Failure to comply will leave Mrs. Trump with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to her to recover the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that you have caused her to suffer.” Brito gave Biden a deadline of August 7, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. to issue a full retraction and apology. The letter also accused Biden of trying to profit off Melania’s name and reputation. “Given your vast history of trading on the names of others – including your surname – for your personal benefit, it is obvious that you published these false and defamatory statements about Mrs. Trump to draw attention to yourself,” Brito wrote. Source Material and Public Record Biden defended his comments by citing several sources. (More News: EPA Pushes Green New Deal Into Political Obscurity) “What I said was what I have heard and seen, reported and written, primarily from Michael Wolff, but also dating back all the way to 2019 when the New York Times, I think … reported that sources said that Jeffrey Epstein claimed to be the person to introduce Donald Trump to Melania at that time,” he said in the interview that dropped Thursday. Michael Wolff is known for making controversial and unverified claims about Donald Trump. The 2019 New York Times reference added more fuel to a rumor that’s long been denied by the Trumps. Competing Accounts and Escalating Stakes Both Donald and Melania Trump have firmly denied the Epstein rumor. They maintain that they met in 1998 during New York Fashion Week at a party hosted by Paolo Zampolli at the Kit Kat Club. In her memoir, Melania Trump described their first meeting. She said Trump sat down next to her and started a conversation. “I found myself drawn to his magnetic energy,” she wrote. The couple married in 2005. Despite that timeline, Biden’s remarks have put the former first lady in a defensive position. And now that the deadline has passed with no apology or retraction, it’s unclear whether her legal team will file suit. President Trump’s Reaction President Trump confirmed his support for Melania’s lawsuit on Thursday, saying her told her to “go forward.” “I said, go forward. You know, I’ve done pretty well on these lawsuits lately. Jeffrey Epstein has nothing to do with Melania and I introducing. But they do that. They make up stories,” he told Brian Kilmeade on Fox News radio. Legal Exposure and Political Implications Biden’s refusal to retract has now moved from warning to reality. He continues to dismiss the legal threat and to stand by his statements. That could bring serious legal consequences. If Melania sues and proves her case, the damages could be massive. Biden is no stranger to legal battles. In January, hs father, former President Joe Biden pardoned him before two federal judges in California and Delaware were scheduled to sentence him on separate convictions. Without the pardon, he faced significant prison time. Hunter also sued multiple people for defamation. His targets included Garrett Ziegler, founder of Marco Polo, and Patrick Byrne, former owner of Overstock.com, over the salacious content of a laptop he left with a repairman in Delaware. He allegedly dropped the lawsuits because he ran out of money to pay his attorneys. With the deadline gone and no retraction, the fight could land in court. Legal experts note that public figures like Melania must prove “actual malice” in defamation cases — meaning the defendant knowingly lied or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. That’s a high bar, but not impossible. For now, Biden shows no sign of backing down. Melania’s team is equally firm. Whether the dispute ends with a retraction or a courtroom showdown, the feud between the former first son and the former first lady is set to keep making headlines. Cut through the noise. Drown out the spin. Deliver the truth. At…
Kimmel’s Italian Citizenship: Turning Away From America
Jimmy Kimmel Chooses Italian Citizenship Jimmy Kimmel, the well-known late-night host, recently revealed that he has obtained Italian citizenship. At 57, Kimmel took this step through his grandmother, who was originally from Italy. Why? He says it’s because of President Trump and policies he strongly disagrees with. On Sarah Silverman’s podcast—Silverman is a longtime friend and former girlfriend—Kimmel shared his thoughts about the current state of America. He said things are much worse than he expected. “A lot of people I know are thinking about where are they going to get citizenship?” Silverman said. (RELATED: Trump: New Census Will Omit Illegal Immigrants) “I did get Italian citizenship,” Kimmel replied. He added, “As bad as you thought it was going to be — it’s so much worse. It’s just unbelievable. I feel like it’s even worse than he would like it to be.” See Ya! Late night host Jimmy Kimmel announces he has secured Italian citizenship – declares Donald Trump’s presidency is “so much worse” than he ever imagined. Can we hope he will ACTUALLY leave the country? pic.twitter.com/Q1cPTRlcg1 — Conservative Brief (@ConservBrief) August 9, 2025 Choosing Another Country Over Your Own Kimmel’s choice raises a serious question: why would a U.S. citizen, with every right and opportunity here, seek citizenship elsewhere? He does not have work overseas. He is a public figure who is choosing a second country because of political policies he disagrees with. This is part of a “fashionable” trend. Celebrities like Rosie O’Donnell and Ellen DeGeneres have also pursued citizenship in other countries. The message is clear: America is easy for some to give up if policies are inconvenient or uncomfortable. Instead of staying and fighting for their beliefs, they choose to leave. Dual Citizenship and Loyalty Dual citizenship has long allowed people to live, work, and vote in two countries—depending on the laws and residency requirements of the other country. But this can create a conflict of interest. If two countries have opposing policies, where does your loyalty lie? Full allegiance should always remain with the United States. Kimmel’s decision highlights this debate. When public figures turn their back on their home country, it sends a message that America is not worth defending or supporting. (MORE NEWS: SNAP Soda Ban: Ending Taxpayer Junk Food Subsidies) Immigration Rules Abroad Kimmel’s decision also underscores a reality many ignore: other countries do not welcome immigrants as freely as some assume. Many have strict guidelines for immigration—including secure borders. Many European countries actively deport illegal immigrants. Italy deports asylum seekers to Albania and strictly controls immigration. Ireland also has strict immigration laws and has deported Nigerian nationals and others. Most countries protect their borders and citizens, and some that face immigration challenges are actively working to correct them. Americans considering foreign citizenship often overlook these restrictions. Kimmel’s move benefits from his heritage and elite celebrity status. The average U.S. citizen would not find the same opportunities. Kimmel Keeping an Open Mind on Former Trump Supporters Despite his harsh views of President Trump, Kimmel defended the right to reconsider one’s stance. “Now you see these clips of Joe Rogan saying, ‘Why is he doing this? Why are you deporting people?’ And people go, ‘…you supported him.’ I don’t buy into that,” Kimmel said. “The door has to stay open. If you want to change your mind, that’s so hard to do. If you want to admit you were wrong, that is so hard and so rare to do. You are welcome.” Contrary to what this statement implies, Rogan questioning Trump’s deportation efforts doesn’t mean he is no longer a Trump supporter. People can disagree with specific policies or actions while still supporting the administration overall. The Real Cost of Convenience Policies may change, leaders may come and go, but walking away from the United States out of protest—or as a virtue signal—is not the solution. Americans enjoy freedoms and opportunities that no other country provides. Choosing another country reflects disloyalty to the very nation that gave them the platform they are now using to criticize it. Kimmel’s story is not just about one celebrity. It illustrates a larger discussion about loyalty, dual citizenship, and the responsibilities Americans have to their own country. Leaving the U.S. demonstrates that, in difficult times, some Americans prioritize personal comfort over national pride. Should dual citizenship be allowed? Some say no. And if it is allowed, should those individuals retain the right to vote in U.S. elections? If their total allegiance is not to the United States, probably not. The fact remains that only the elite can afford to pack up and move to a different country when they dislike how things are going. It’s not a realistic option for most people, and that further exemplifies the divide between Hollywood and real life. And let’s be honest—someone should probably tell him who the current Prime Minister of Italy is. Unmask the Narrative. Rip Through the Lies. Spread the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t polish propaganda — we tear it to shreds. The corporate press censors, spins, and sugarcoats. We don’t. If you’re tired of being misled, silenced, and spoon-fed fiction, help us expose what they try to hide. Truth matters — but only if it’s heard. So share this. Shake the silence. And remind the powerful they don’t own the story.
Trump: New Census Will Omit Illegal Immigrants
Welcome to The Modern Memo — where our readers expect the truth, not the talking points. We don’t regurgitate headlines or echo the approved narrative. We ask the questions corporate media won’t and expose what they’d rather you ignore. If you’re looking for clarity in the chaos and facts without the filter, you’re in the right place. Trump: Don’t Count Illegal Immigrants in the Census As national redistricting debates continue, President Donald Trump has called for a major shift in how the U.S. counts its population. He recently announced plans for a new approach to the 2030 census — one that would exclude illegal immigrants. “People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS,” Trump said. He directed the Department of Commerce to begin work on a “highly accurate” count using modern data and lessons from the 2024 election. The Constitutional Mandate vs. Modern Reality The constitutional mandate for the U.S. census began in 1790, as required by Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1788. A census has been taken every 10 years since, and helps count the total number of people living in the country. However, the Constitution does not say whether illegal immigrants should be included. Congress decides how the count is done and what rules are used. That’s where the debate begins. The U.S. Census, since it began, has counted the “whole number of persons” living in the United States: Through the 1940s the census asked about citizenship and noted whether the person was: Naturalized Born in the U.S. An alien (non-citizen) Beginning in 1950-2000, the citizenship question was on the long form of the census and most households didn’t see it. In 2010, the citizenship question was removed. In 2020, when President Trump signed a memo to add the question back to the census, the Supreme Court blocked it in 2019. President Biden revoked the memo in 2021. Today, there is no citizenship question and all people living in the country are included. BUT, with mass immigration during the Biden Administration, the U.S. has never faced this kind of threat to elections through the census. (MORE NEWS: Trump’s EPA Pushes Green New Deal Into Political Obscurity) Why the Census Matters: Power and Money The census affects many things. It helps decide: How many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives How billions of federal dollars are shared between states Where new roads, hospitals, and schools are built How voting districts are drawn If illegal immigrants are counted, areas with more of them will get more representation and more money. This would unfairly boost political power in certain areas. Immigration Surges Raise the Stakes The Department of Homeland Security reported about 11 million encounters with people crossing the border illegally during the Biden Administration. Migrant crossings are down 99.99% under the Trump Administration. Many Americans are now asking: Should people who entered the country illegally be counted the same as those who are here legally? (RELATED: ICE Cooperation Gets CO Deputy Sued By AG) Proof of Citizenship and the Push for Integrity Although the census doesn’t decide who votes, it plays a critical role in shaping the electoral map. As concerns over election integrity grow, many are calling for stronger safeguards. This includes proof of citizenship requirements in voter registration and voting. In April of this year, Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly supported enshrining voter ID requirements into the state constitution — 63% for and 37% against. (RELATED: RESULTS: Wisconsin Supreme Court Election, Voter ID – Special Election) Federal Legislation Under Debate The SAVE Act — a federal bill requiring all voters in federal elections to prove their citizenship has passed the U.S. House of Representatives. It now awaits debate in the Senate. If passed, it would establish a uniform national standard and remove confusion between states. If the bill fails, however, the responsibility will fall back on states — each left to craft their own solutions, some of which may face legal hurdles. The Need for Census Clarity and Accuracy Whether for representation or handing out federal funding, accurate census data matters. Supporters of reform believe that counting the legal population is the only way the U.S. can maintain the legitimacy of a representative system. In a democratic republic, numbers don’t just guide decisions — they shape the whole government. That’s why who gets counted, and how, remains one of the most important questions facing the country. Final Thoughts The mass immigration we saw over the last four years was never just about “compassion.” It was about manipulating the map. We can stop pretending these are random people who came for a “better life.” This was a STRATEGY. From day one, the plan was clear. Flood deep blue cities and swing states with illegals, count them in the census, and boost seats, electoral votes, and political power. Endless federal money through NGOs funded this well-orchestrated plan of attack. Once they were in, amnesty would be granted, and those same people would become voters. That was the long game. It’s the reason sanctuary cities are so important to the left. And why court dates were set years away. It’s why voter ID laws are fought tooth and nail. Political design. Every caravan, busload, red-eye jet in the dead of night wasn’t about taking care of people. It was a ballot box delivery system. It bypasses the will of American voters and uses the census as a weapon. They never counted on a Trump win in 2024. They almost had it made. ALMOST. If we don’t stand up now, support strict immigration policies, and President Trump’s plan to reform the census, illegal immigrants will be the new blue voting bloc in the years ahead. The Constitution was written to make sure the citizens of this country were represented. It was NOT meant to be a tool for political gain through population padding. If we don’t draw a line here, we may never get a fair vote again….
Texas Dems Flee to Stop Redistricting Map
In a high-stakes political standoff, dozens of Texas House Democrats fled the state on Sunday to block a scheduled vote on a redistricting proposal that could significantly favor Republicans. Their departure leaves the House without the quorum required to conduct official business and has ignited fierce legal and political backlash from state leaders. The group of Democrats flew to Chicago, where they held a press conference with Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. Over 50 members have left Texas, effectively paralyzing House operations. The redistricting plan, introduced last week by Texas House Republicans, could deliver up to five additional Republican U.S. House seats in the 2026 midterm elections by reshaping districts in key Democratic areas such as Dallas and Houston. Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas’ 38 congressional seats. The new map has already drawn national attention, including threats of legal action from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who vowed to pursue “all options” to stop the GOP redistricting plan. (MORE NEWS: ICE Cooperation Gets CO Deputy Sued By AG) Texas GOP Response Texas Governor Greg Abbott responded with a scathing letter, blasting the fleeing lawmakers for what he called a premeditated attempt to shut down the legislative process. “Real Texans do not run from a fight. But that’s exactly what most of the Texas House Democrats just did,” Abbott wrote. He emphasized that this wasn’t an unavoidable absence due to emergencies or illness, but rather a deliberate effort to obstruct the legislative process. “That amounts to an abandonment or forfeiture of an elected state office… The absconded Democrat House members were elected to meet and vote on legislation—not to prevent votes that may not go their way.” Abbott cited Texas Attorney General Opinion No. KP-0382, suggesting that Democratic members who broke quorum could be removed from office through legal action. He stated his intent to invoke his authority under the Texas Constitution to fill vacancies if courts determine the seats were abandoned. Threats of Arrest and Legal Fallout Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton doubled down, threatening to arrest the absent Democrats over what he called civil violations of legislative duty. “They should be found and arrested no matter where they go,” Paxton said. Democrats in the Texas House who try and run away like cowards should be found, arrested, and brought back to the Capitol immediately. We should use every tool at our disposal to hunt down those who think they are above the law. — Attorney General Ken Paxton (@KenPaxtonTX) August 3, 2025 The Governor also warned that Democrats fundraising to cover potential fines might be in violation of state bribery laws. According to the letter, any legislator or outside party offering or accepting money to facilitate absenteeism could face criminal charges. “Any Democrat who solicits or accepts funds to skip a vote may have violated bribery laws,” Abbott wrote. “I will use my full extradition authority to demand the return to Texas of any potential out-of-state felons.” Illinois Governor Defends Democrats At the Chicago press conference, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker pledged support for the Texas Democrats. “They’re here in Illinois. We’re going to do everything we can to protect every single one of them and make sure that — ’cause we know they’re doing the right thing, we know that they’re following the law,” Pritzker said. He also criticized Texas officials for their threats and actions. “It’s Ken Paxton who doesn’t follow the law. It’s the leaders of Texas who are attempting not to follow the law. They’re the ones that need to be held accountable.” High Stakes and Political Theater Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin expressed full support for the fleeing lawmakers, accusing Republicans of attempting to rig the system. “For too long, Donald Trump and Republicans have tried to get away with rigging the system, breaking the rules, and scheming to hold onto power,” Martin said. “We will fight alongside these legislators to stop this anti-democratic assault.” We’ve been warning Texas Republicans for weeks that if they want a showdown, we’d give them a showdown. That’s exactly what Texas Democrats did today. The DNC will proudly fight alongside them to stop this anti-democratic assault. pic.twitter.com/a66aIXaFAE — Ken Martin (@kenmartin73) August 3, 2025 Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows issued a stern warning of his own: The Texas House will be convening at 3:00pm tomorrow. If a quorum is not present then, to borrow the recent talking points from some of my Democrat colleagues, all options will be on the table. . . — Dustin Burrows (@Burrows4TX) August 3, 2025 What’s Next for Texas While the Democrats’ absence has stalled the vote temporarily, it may carry significant personal and legal consequences for those involved. If Abbott follows through with his legal threats, the walkout could escalate into a prolonged constitutional battle over quorum-breaking, legislative duty, and state power. (MORE NEWS: The Final Bell: Remembering Hulk Hogan, Legend of the Ring) Meanwhile, the redistricting proposal remains a flashpoint in a larger national battle over election control and congressional power. This is a developing story. The Modern Memo will provide updates as more details emerge. Cut Through the Noise. Slice Through the Lies. Share the Truth. At The Modern Memo, we don’t tiptoe around the narrative—we swing a machete through it. The mainstream won’t say it, so we will. If you’re tired of spin, censorship, and sugar-coated headlines, help us rip the cover off stories that matter. Share this article. Wake people up. Give a voice to the truth the powerful want buried. This fight isn’t just ours—it’s yours. Join us in exposing what they won’t tell you. America needs bold truth-tellers, and that means you.
ICE Cooperation Gets CO Deputy Sued By AG
Mesa County, Colorado, is at the center of a heated battle over immigration enforcement, law enforcement accountability, and controversial state sanctuary laws. The issue erupted after federal immigration agents detained a Utah college student who was in the U.S. illegally following a traffic stop. Instead of focusing on the individual violating federal law, Colorado’s Attorney General chose to sue a sheriff’s deputy for cooperating with ICE. This has sparked outrage across the state. The Traffic Stop That Sparked Outrage On June 5, 2025, Deputy Alexander Zwinck pulled over 19-year-old Caroline Dias-Goncalves near Fruita, Colorado. She was allegedly tailgating a semi-truck. Zwinck issued a warning and let her go. Roughly 20 minutes later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents stopped her vehicle and arrested her for overstaying her visa. Clearly, Colorado leadership should be holding non-citizens accountable for breaking U.S. law—not punishing officers for helping enforce it. This case raises a serious question that deserves repeating. How can someone trusted to handle patient medications as a future nurse fail to manage something as basic as a legal visa? Instead of holding her accountable, state leaders cast her as the victim, and punish those who did their jobs. How Information Was Shared with ICE Deputy Zwinck worked on a multi-agency drug task force. It included local, state, and federal officers such as Homeland Security and ICE agents. After the traffic stop, Zwinck shared Dias-Goncalves’ location and vehicle description in a Signal chat group used by the task force. As a result, ICE acted on that information and made the arrest. Nevertheless, Colorado’s new sanctuary law, Senate Bill 25-276, banned this kind of cooperation. It was signed by Colorado Governor Jared Polis only 13 days before the traffic stop. Many officers, including Deputy Zwinck, say they were unaware or confused about the sudden change imposed by the state. Long-standing practices conflicted with the new rules, leaving deputies exposed to legal action. Attorney General Sues Deputy for Doing His Job Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser filed a lawsuit against Deputy Zwinck for sharing information with Immigration Customs Enforcement. This move shocked many in law enforcement. They believe the unfair lawsuit is politically motivated. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Cash Flowing Into Anti-ICE Group’s Coffers Came From Chinese Gov’t-Linked Sources) To address the fallout, Sheriff Todd Rowell said in a statement, the lawsuit “sends a demoralizing message to law enforcement officers across Colorado—that the law may be wielded selectively and publicly for maximum political effect rather than applied fairly and consistently.” He asked the Attorney General to “apply the law equally to all law enforcement and government officials instead of making Deputy Zwinck an example.” Rowell revealed that other agencies in the same task force had also shared information with ICE. None of them faced lawsuits. Even the state’s governor reportedly violated a previous sanctuary law four times without consequences. Without a doubt, the actions by this attorney general show clear political bias in how immigration laws are enforced by the state. Deputies Disciplined Amid ICE – Sanctuary Law Confusion Rowell said an internal review resulted in the department disciplining all deputies involved: “Zwinck received three weeks of unpaid leave and was reassigned to patrol. Olson received two weeks of unpaid leave and the department also reassigned him. Joe LeMoine received two days suspension. Two other commanding officers received written reprimands or counseling.” Sheriff Rowell accepted responsibility for his office’s role. He admitted deputies needed more training to clarify state law changes. Sanctuary Laws Shield Lawbreakers and Negatively Impact Law Enforcement This case highlights a larger problem. Colorado’s sanctuary laws protect those breaking immigration laws while punishing those who enforce them. The laws safeguard immigrant communities, compromise public safety, and demoralize law enforcement. The facts are clear: Dias-Goncalves overstayed her visa, a federal violation. ICE agents enforced federal law. A deputy helped by sharing information. The state punished the deputy instead of the violator. The State of Colorado openly ignores federal immigration law while punishing those who assist in enforcing it. Ultimately, officers who cooperate with federal agents do so at their own peril, facing lawsuits, career damage, and public backlash. This is unfair and undermines law and order. Conflicting state and federal directives create chaos for law enforcement. Federal law is clear: overstaying a visa is illegal, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is tasked with handling such violations. Yet Colorado’s sanctuary policies block local officers from even sharing information with federal authorities. State policies force deputies to choose between upholding federal law or protecting themselves from political retaliation by the state. This climate of fear has shaken deputies across Colorado. Many now hesitate to work with federal agents. Multi-agency task forces risk falling apart if officers fear legal action for sharing basic information. These task forces are critical for combating drug trafficking and other serious crimes. Sheriff Rowell has urged Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) to release the full Signal chat from the task force. Access to this information would show that Zwinck’s actions were not unique and that multiple officers followed long-standing protocols. Yet, state officials only singled one deputy out for legal action. In the end, this legal tug-of-war leaves law enforcement trapped. As long as political agendas override federal law, cooperation between agencies will erode and public safety will continue to suffer. What Comes Next: ICE, Accountability, and Colorado’s Crossroads