Politics
Matt Van Epps Wins Decisively in Tennessee Special Election
Matt Van Epps, a West Point graduate and Lieutenant Colonel in the Tennessee Army National Guard, delivered a solid win for Republicans in the special election for Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District. Despite the race falling in an off year and just days after Thanksgiving, when turnout is typically low, Van Epps still secured a decisive and confident victory. His performance shows the GOP base remains energized and engaged. He ultimately defeated progressive Democrat Aftyn Behn by 9 points — a clear and commanding margin in any special election. The Power of a Trump Endorsement Van Epps ran with the endorsement of President Donald Trump, and that support still carries tremendous influence in conservative circles. Republican voters trust the president’s judgment, and his backing helped energize the district. Trump remains the leader of the Republican Party, and his endorsement continues to hold real power. Even so, candidates must build their own following. Van Epps showed he is well on his way with this election win. President Trump congratulated Van Epps tonight on a solid win for the Republican Party: More Stories Drowning in Bills? These Debt Solutions Could Be the Break You Need Out-of-Town Renters Are Driving Up Demand in These Five Cities Under Siege: My Family’s Fight to Save Our Nation – Book Review & Analysis Media and Polling Tried to Shape a Different Narrative Throughout the campaign, mainstream media coverage and selective polling pushed the idea that the race was neck-and-neck. Commentators repeatedly claimed Behn was within reach, creating a dramatic storyline that didn’t match the mood on the ground. When the votes were counted, that narrative collapsed. The final results made clear that the race was not the close contest the media tried to sell. Instead of a photo finish, voters delivered a confident Republican win that outpaced the predictions and undercut the polling hype. Realistic Expectations for a First-Time Candidate Some observers compared Van Epps to President Trump’s historic vote totals, but such expectations were unrealistic. Trump’s numbers are unique in modern American politics. No first-time congressional candidate — especially in an off-year special election — can replicate presidential-level turnout. Even with those inflated expectations circulating, Van Epps performed exceptionally well. He held the district with ease, energized Republican voters, and proved he can build momentum without relying on a presidential-year turnout surge. The Takeaway Matt Van Epps’ win deserves recognition for what it is: a firm, disciplined, and decisive Republican victory. He entered a uniquely timed race, faced a well-funded progressive opponent, and still delivered a strong and steady performance. Media outlets may try to downplay it, but his supporters saw a clear, well-earned win that positions him as a rising conservative voice. Republicans held the seat. President Trump’s endorsement proved influential. And Van Epps demonstrated that he has both the message and the momentum to make an impact in Congress. 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. 📩 Love what you’re reading? Don’t miss a headline! Subscribe to The Modern Memo here! Explore More News Trump Designates Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization Trump and Elon Musk Reunite, Boosting GOP Unity Top 5 Essential Survival Gear Items For Any Adventure Epstein Files Bill Sparks New Questions as Jeffries Email Emerges
Michelle Obama Says U.S. Not Ready for a Woman President
The Modern Memo may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. Michelle Obama recently made headlines with a blunt message delivered during her appearance at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. While discussing the 2024 election and the role of women in politics, she argued that America is still not ready to elect a woman president. Her comment sparked immediate debate, because she spoke with emotion and certainty, saying, “As we saw in this past election, sadly, ain’t ready… Don’t even look at me about running. You’re not ready for a woman. You are not.” The audience reacted strongly, but the conversation that followed across the country was about much more than her personal decision not to run. It was about whether her conclusion makes sense in today’s political climate. Michelle Obama says America is NOT ready for a woman president. 🙄 Give us someone who is worthy and we’ll vote her in. Until then, sthu. 🙄 What’s YOUR response to her comments? 👇👇👇👇 pic.twitter.com/1uklM0JTC5 — Jannine.. #MagaMemeQueen ™️ 👑🇺🇸 (@janninereid1) November 16, 2025 The Election Context Behind Her Comments Obama’s remarks came after Kamala Harris’s loss to Donald Trump. While many analysts pointed to economic concerns, policy disagreements, and campaign strategy issues, Obama framed the defeat as a cultural one. She argued that sexism was the true barrier preventing Harris from winning. But a lot of voters don’t see it that way. Many people felt the election result wasn’t about rejecting a woman candidate but about rejecting that specific candidate. Voters questioned Harris’s leadership, communication, and record—not her gender. The distinction matters, because it shapes how Americans view what comes next. Her Personal Experience in the Spotlight During her discussion, Michelle Obama also opened up about her own time in the public eye. She explained that even members of her own party attacked her early on. “These were our people going after me,” she said, pointing out how heavily she was judged on things that had nothing to do with policy or leadership. She shared how she felt pressured to be perfect because she expected criticism. Whether it was the way she spoke or what she wore, she felt she had to think several steps ahead. That experience clearly shaped how she views the political world today. More Stories Kamala Teases 2028 Run as Democrats Scramble for Strategy FBI Probes Hunting Stand Near Trump’s Air Force One Area Top 5 Essential Survival Gear Items For Any Adventure The Deeper Message: Not About a Woman President — About the *Right* Woman While Obama framed her comments around America not being ready for a woman president, many Americans strongly disagree—not out of disrespect to her, but because they see the issue differently. For them, it has nothing to do with rejecting a woman leader. It has everything to do with who that woman is. Voters want someone competent, confident, steady, and deserving of the role. They want a leader who commands respect, communicates clearly, and stands firm in her beliefs. And the truth is, if America were presented with a strong female candidate—someone with conviction and leadership qualities similar to Italy’s Giorgia Meloni—she wouldn’t be sidelined. She would be embraced. The hesitation isn’t rooted in sexism; it’s rooted in the desire for a capable leader, male or female. Voters aren’t looking for symbolism. They’re looking for strength, authenticity, and results. Why Her Message Resonates With Some—but Not All Michelle Obama’s message resonates deeply with those who believe gender bias still plays a major role in politics. However, many Americans see the broader issue as one of leadership, not gender. They point to examples of strong female governors, senators, CEOs, and world leaders who have earned the trust of their people. When a woman demonstrates ability, courage, and clarity, voters respond well. This is why Michelle Obama’s assertion feels incomplete to many. Voters weren’t resisting a woman running for president—they were resisting candidates who didn’t inspire confidence. The Challenge Female Leaders Still Face Obama spoke about the double standards women encounter. If they’re tough, they’re called aggressive. If they’re warm, they’re called soft. There’s no denying women face unique challenges. That pressure is real. Women in leadership roles often feel they must prove themselves twice as much to be taken seriously. But again, this doesn’t mean voters won’t elect a woman. It means voters want a woman with a clear vision and the strength to execute it. Would America Elect a Woman President? Despite Obama’s doubts, much of the country believes the answer is yes—America *would* elect a woman president. The right woman. Someone with strong values. Someone who communicates like a leader. Someone who projects stability and purpose. Someone who earns the public’s trust. If a woman like Giorgia Meloni appeared in American politics—a woman with conviction, presence, and a firm worldview—many voters believe she would win decisively. Reactions to Obama’s Statement Her comments drew mixed reactions nationwide. Some praised her honesty. Others felt she painted too broad a picture, assuming that voters rejected women when they were actually rejecting unqualified or unconvincing candidates. Many people pointed out that women leaders around the world have been elected by populations with wide-ranging backgrounds and belief systems. That suggests the U.S. isn’t “behind”—it’s simply waiting for the right leader. The Takeaway Michelle Obama’s assertion that America must “grow up” before electing a woman president sparked national discussion. But for many Americans, the real story isn’t about a lack of readiness—it’s about wanting a leader who truly fits the moment. Voters want competence, confidence, substance, and strength. They want someone who earns the position, not someone placed on the ballot because of gender expectations. When a strong, capable woman steps forward—one who displays clarity, conviction, and leadership—Americans are ready. And they will elect her. 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…
Under Siege: My Family’s Fight to Save Our Nation by Eric Trump — Book Review and Analysis
The Modern Memo may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. Read it or Leave it? Under Siege: My Family’s Fight to Save Our Nation by Eric Trump offers a candid, heartfelt, and unfiltered look into one of the most influential families in modern American history. Eric, the third child of Donald and Ivana Trump, pulls back the curtain to reveal not only the political battles but also the emotional toll that came with his father’s presidency. This book goes far beyond headlines—it humanizes the Trumps in a way few accounts ever have. As I turned the pages, I found myself drawn into the family’s world. It was a great book, filled with insight into the history-changing moments of the Trumps’ lives. It felt honest, especially when Eric shared his mother Ivana’s struggles, which ultimately cost her life. Beneath the politics and media storms lies a family that loves one another deeply—and that truth shines through every chapter. A Family Bound by Loyalty and Love Eric Trump’s storytelling brings warmth and loyalty to the forefront. He writes openly about his father’s constant love for his children and grandchildren. Whether Donald Trump was leading the nation, traveling the world for business, or spending time at home, Eric shows how family always came first. That closeness—unshaken by criticism or crisis—defines the heart of this book. The Trump family dynamic is portrayed as a blend of discipline, affection, and unwavering support. Eric makes it clear that despite the fame and power, their home life was guided by strong values and rules. Through these glimpses, readers understand that their bond is real and enduring. Trials, Tribulations, and the Cost of Leadership Transitioning from private life to the very public eye brought unimaginable challenges. Eric details the endless investigations, lawsuits, and accusations his family endured once Donald Trump decided to run for president. He doesn’t shy away from the emotional strain or the gut-wrenching fear of moments like the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania. Reading about how Eric, his wife Lara, and their children handled that terrifying day was especially moving. It reminded me that this family, often portrayed as larger than life, faces the same fears and heartbreaks as any other. This section of the book reads like a political thriller, yet it’s grounded in human emotion. Eric presents his family’s trials as both literal and symbolic—a reflection of how deeply divided the nation has become. The narrative captures not just the fight to clear their names but also their determination to stay united in the face of unrelenting opposition. The War Against the Outsider Another key theme Eric explores is what happens when an “outsider” dares to challenge the establishment. He describes the intense backlash that followed his father’s campaign announcement. Long-time friends turned away. Political insiders pushed back. Yet through it all, Donald Trump remained focused on what he believed was right for the country. Eric’s voice carries pride and defiance. He emphasizes how his father refused to play political games or take bribes. Instead, Donald Trump stayed true to his promise to fight for everyday Americans. That refusal to conform, Eric argues, made him both a hero and a target. The book shines brightest when it portrays the family’s resilience. They faced what Eric calls “the war that was waged against the President”—and through persistence, they found victory in endurance. Candid Reflections and Honest Struggles What struck me most about Under Siege is its honesty. Eric doesn’t paint a picture of perfection. He acknowledges his mother Ivana’s pain and how her struggles affected the entire family. He discusses moments of vulnerability that many public figures would hide. That rawness gives the book emotional depth and credibility. Reading these parts reminded me that the Trumps are, above all, human. They have highs and lows, triumphs and heartbreaks, just like the rest of us. It’s easy to forget that amid the media noise. But this book forces readers to pause and see them not as symbols or celebrities—but as people. That realization became my biggest takeaway. Related Stories Kamala Teases 2028 Run as Democrats Scramble for Strategy FBI Probes Hunting Stand Near Trump’s Air Force One Area Trump Scores Legal Victory: $500M Fraud Penalty Overturned Insightful, Eye-Opening, and Relevant Eric Trump’s writing is straightforward and engaging. He blends personal stories with political insights, making complex events easier to follow. Each chapter includes quotes from Donald Trump’s past books, offering context for his mindset and leadership style. Those quotes add depth, connecting the man behind the movement to the father behind the family. What’s more, Eric injects warmth and even a little humor, giving readers brief moments of levity amid the weight of the story. From a reader’s standpoint, the book serves as both memoir and historical reflection. It’s a firsthand account of the pressures and challenges that come with transforming from a private business family into a global political force. It’s also a reminder of how quickly society can judge and how fiercely one must fight for truth. A Lesson for Everyone—Not Just Trump Supporters Although Under Siege will certainly resonate with Trump supporters, it’s not written exclusively for them. Readers from across the political spectrum can learn from it. Conservatives will appreciate the behind-the-scenes perspective, while liberals may find new context for events they thought they understood. Eric invites readers to re-examine what they believe about leadership, loyalty, and legacy. The book reads as a modern history lesson—one that captures the emotional and political turbulence of the last decade in America. Final Takeaway When I finished Under Siege: My Family’s Fight to Save Our Nation, one truth stood out above all others—the Trumps are human. They feel pain, joy, fear, and love just like any other family. Eric Trump’s devotion to his father and his family’s shared resilience make this book a powerful and emotional read. This story isn’t just about politics; it’s about perseverance, family, and…
MTG Political Pivot: What’s Going On With The GOP?
Let’s be honest — Marjorie Taylor Greene (MTG) is acting a lot different these days. The same outspoken Republican who used to rally crowds and challenge the establishment is now sitting comfortably on liberal talk shows like The View. For many conservatives in Georgia, watching their Congresswoman smile and nod along with the very media that once called her “dangerous” feels like betrayal. Greene has also started criticizing her own party leaders and even distancing herself from former allies. According to Fox News, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) says MTG’s recent “revenge tour” is payback after former President Trump stopped her from running for the U.S. Senate in Georgia. (MORE NEWS: Election 2025 Analysis: Democrats Sweep as Shutdown Continues) If that’s true, this isn’t about principles — it’s about payback. And that kind of motivation could cost her dearly at the ballot box. The Senate Snub That May Have Triggered Everything Here’s where things start to make sense. Fox’s report says MTG had her sights set on a Senate run, but Trump wasn’t on board. He reportedly ordered polling that showed she would lose badly in a statewide race. Once that information leaked, she suddenly announced that she was no longer interested in the Senate, claiming it “doesn’t work.” Then, not long after, she began publicly criticizing Trump and key members of the GOP. If AOC is right, MTG’s current behavior is less about independence and more about resentment. It’s a strange look for someone who built her brand as one of Trump’s most loyal defenders. Voters don’t usually reward politicians who turn on their allies when they don’t get what they want. Cozying Up To The View — A Risky Move Let’s talk optics. The View has never been a friendly venue for conservatives. Yet MTG showed up smiling, calm, and cooperative — even when the hosts threw softballs instead of insults. That appearance might have won her a polite round of applause from the audience, but it left her conservative supporters scratching their heads. For years, MTG branded herself as the one person willing to stand up to the mainstream media. Now, she’s being praised by it. It’s not hard to see why her base feels betrayed. She built her entire career fighting against the very system she’s now trying to fit into. When a politician starts looking for approval from their enemies, their supporters tend to take notice — and not in a good way. (MORE NEWS: Kamala Teases 2028 Run — Democrats Scramble for Strategy) Why This Could Hurt Her Reelection Chances MTG’s shift isn’t just a small adjustment — it’s a full rebranding. And that’s a risky play, especially in her Georgia district, where voters expect her to stay true to her roots. Here’s why it could backfire: Loss Of Base Enthusiasm: Her most loyal followers are already frustrated. If they feel she’s gone soft, they might not show up to vote next time. Identity Confusion: Voters like consistency. When MTG changes her message from “fighter” to “peacemaker,” it muddies her brand. Political Isolation: By attacking GOP leadership and cozying up to liberal outlets, she risks losing party support and funding. Mainstream Vulnerability: The left won’t truly embrace her, and the right could turn away — leaving her caught in political no-man’s-land. It’s hard to win reelection when you’ve alienated your base and can’t count on new friends to back you up. What Conservatives Should Watch For If you’re following MTGs career, there are a few key things to keep an eye on: Will she continue attacking GOP leaders, or try to make amends before campaign season? Will she keep doing friendly interviews with liberal media, or return to her tough, anti-establishment message? Will new challengers emerge in her district, promising to bring “real conservatism” back? Will her shift away from Trump come back to haunt her among die-hard MAGA voters? The answers to those questions will determine whether she survives the next election — or fades out as another politician who lost touch with her base. Final Thoughts Marjorie Taylor Greene made her name as a fighter. She stood up to the media, the Democrats, and even her own party when she had to. But now, she’s playing nice with people who once mocked and silenced her — and that’s not sitting well with the voters who put her in office. If this really is an “anti-Trump revenge tour” driven by personal disappointment, it’s a dangerous game. Conservatives want leaders who fight for them, not politicians chasing cable-news approval. At the end of the day, MTG might think she’s broadening her appeal. But in reality, she’s alienating the very movement that made her a star. And come election time, that mistake could be the one she can’t talk her way out of.
Kamala Teases 2028 Run — Democrats Scramble for Strategy
Kamala Harris has once again thrown Democrats into confusion. In a recent BBC interview, she hinted that she might run for president in 2028. Her vague, awkward answers quickly sparked speculation. Harris didn’t officially announce a campaign, but her tease made it clear she isn’t stepping away from the national spotlight anytime soon. That single comment set off a chain reaction across both parties. Democrats suddenly face a difficult question: do they rally behind her again or move on? Republicans, meanwhile, seem thrilled by the prospect of another Harris run. (MORE NEWS: Rebuttal to Hakeem Jeffries: When Your Own Words Go Too Far) What Harris Said — And Why It Matters Harris didn’t offer any solid vision or policy direction. When asked about poll numbers and the future of her party, she brushed it off with what many observers called “nonsense.” The exchange ended awkwardly, giving critics more ammunition to question her communication skills and overall readiness. Still, the tease served its purpose. It reminded the public she’s still here — and that she might want another shot. But it also forced her party to confront its leadership vacuum and unsettled identity. 🚨 JUST IN: Kamala Harris declares to America that she’s “not done” and might run for president in 2028 to quash the MAGA movement. 😂pic.twitter.com/NUDzqXAO7J — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 25, 2025 Democrats’ Growing Problem Kamala Harris’s comments exposed a deeper issue for Democrats: they don’t have a clear successor or a unified message. After years of internal fighting between progressives and moderates, the party looks divided and uncertain. If Harris runs, she risks reigniting old rivalries from her previous campaigns. If she doesn’t, the scramble to find a new face could create chaos. The Democratic bench is thin, and enthusiasm among younger voters has dropped. That’s not a great position for a party hoping to hold the White House in 2028. Republicans Smell Opportunity While Democrats argue about who should lead them next, Republicans are celebrating. Harris has become a favorite target for conservative media and party strategists. They see her as an easy opponent — one who stumbles in interviews and struggles to connect with voters. (RELATED NEWS: 2025 Elections: Five Key Races to Watch) GOP strategists are already giddy at the thought of a 2028 matchup between Vice President J.D. Vance and Kamala Harris. They believe her candidacy could energize conservative voters while dividing Democrats further. Book Tour Effect Harris’s ongoing book tour has become a stage for speculation. Every weekend, new clips and awkward soundbites circulate online. While the tour promotes her memoir, it also serves as a soft campaign — keeping her visible, drawing media attention, and testing public reaction. Critics argue she’s trying to rewrite her political image without addressing the failures that defined her last run. Supporters say she’s simply staying relevant. Either way, the timing of the tour aligns perfectly with a pre-campaign strategy. Possible 2028 Democratic Contenders As Harris toys with another run, other Democrats are circling. Here’s who might step in the race: Kamala Harris – She’s the default option, but also the most polarizing. Her record and communication style still divide voters. Gavin Newsom – The California governor has built a national profile, but his leadership of a state facing homelessness, crime, and cost-of-living crises could weigh him down in a general election. His critics also fault him for the devastating fires in January 2025. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) – A hero to progressives and a lightning rod for critics. Her inexperience, strong ideological positions, and social media presence could alienate moderate voters. Josh Shapiro – The Pennsylvania governor’s traditional stance could alienate progressives. He also faces a party increasingly skeptical of centrists and full of antisemitism. He is Jewish, and that could play a role in the outcome of a primary. Many say that is ultimately why Kamala did not select him for her Vice Presidential candidate. Andy Beshear – A Democrat winning in a red state sounds good on paper, but his low national visibility and cautious tone might not inspire a national movement. Key Takeaways If Harris runs, the field may clear for her, even if many Democrats aren’t excited about it. If she doesn’t, figures like Newsom or Shapiro may step forward, but both face heavy scrutiny. Progressive voters might rally around AOC, creating more tension between party factions. Moderates may turn to Beshear or another governor to find someone “safe” — though that might not be enough to excite voters. What It All Means The tease wasn’t just a moment of media buzz — it revealed the Democrats’ biggest weakness: uncertainty. The party is struggling to balance progressive energy with electability concerns. It’s unclear who can unify those factions or inspire the kind of national enthusiasm needed to win. If Harris runs, Democrats could relive the internal divisions that cost them before. If she doesn’t, the vacuum might be even worse. Either way, Republicans will be ready, organized, and eager to exploit the chaos. The 2028 race hasn’t even begun, but Harris’s offhand comment might have just kicked off the first round. 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.
Rebuttal to Hakeem Jeffries: When Your Own Words Go Too Far
OPINION Democrats are once again accusing Republicans of dangerous rhetoric. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries warned that Speaker Mike Johnson’s comment calling Democrats “legislative terrorists” would “get someone killed.” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has a mental breakdown again, this time because Speaker Johnson correctly said Democrats are acting like terrorists by keeping the government shut down in order to try to get free healthcare for illegals.pic.twitter.com/N6XmiAKQeI — Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) October 23, 2025 That accusation rings hollow. For years, left-wing politicians and activists have used far more violent, dehumanizing language. They’ve called conservatives “Nazis,” “dictators,” and “racists.” They’ve labeled Donald Trump “Hitler.” They’ve threatened Supreme Court justices, cheered confrontations, and justified harassment. When that’s the language in the air, it only takes one unstable listener to turn words into bullets. (MORE NEWS: 2025 Elections: Five Key Races to Watch) Words Have Consequences Republicans have seen where this kind of talk leads: Charlie Kirk — Conservative activist shot and killed while speaking at Utah Valley University last month. Corey Comperatore — A citizen attending a rally in Butler, PA, was killed, and two others were injured during an assassination attempt on President Trump in July 2024. President Donald Trump — Shot and survived two assassination attempts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh — Narrowly escaped being murdered at his home after a would-be assassin traveled from California with weapons in 2022. Rep. Steve Scalise — Almost killed, along with four others injured, when a gunman opened fire at a congressional baseball practice in 2017. These attacks didn’t come from nowhere. They grew out of years of constant demonization — the left painting the right as monsters who must be “stopped” at all costs. When Democrats Spoke in Violence Hakeem Jeffries says Johnson’s phrase might provoke violence. But here are the Democrats’ own words — all on record, all public, all normalized by the media. How could anyone interpret these any differently? All it takes is one unhinged person to hear these words as a call to action. Sen. Chuck Schumer (2020): “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Two years later, Nicholas Roske traveled from California to Justice Kavanaugh’s home armed with a gun and knife, planning to assassinate him before surrendering. 🤔pic.twitter.com/0yK0YrloJC — Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) March 4, 2020 Sen. Chuck Schumer (2025): “There’s going to be a big protest on the 18th… He wants to be king. The American people have to rise up in every way!” More unhinged rhetoric from Democrat Chuck Schumer calling for Americans to “rise up” against President Trump: “We have to fight this in every way…” “There’s going to be a big protest on the 18th… He wants to be king. The American people have to rise up in every way!” pic.twitter.com/Wl7FuUyjaS — NRCC (@NRCC) September 24, 2025 Rep. Maxine Waters (2018): “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. You push back on them.” FLASHBACK: Maxine Waters tells Democrats to target Republicans: “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant…you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere” pic.twitter.com/5iRHcB2JjI — NRCC (@NRCC) September 13, 2025 Sen. Cory Booker (2018): “Get up in the face of some congresspeople.” Eric Holder (2018): “When they go low, we kick them.” Joe Biden (2016 campaign trail): “If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.” Kamala Harris: Repeatedly said, “Trump is a threat to our democracy and fundamental freedoms,” even after an attempt on his life. President Biden: “It’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.” (Later claimed it was “figurative.”) Rep. Dan Goldman: “It is destructive to our democracy, and he, President Trump, has to be eliminated.” Rep Dan Goldman (D-NY) calling for Trump to be “eliminated!” This is their wicked M.O. pic.twitter.com/uvnpKLA4Oo — 🇺🇸ProudArmyBrat (@leslibless) July 14, 2024 Del. Stacey Plaskett: “[Trump] needs to be shot.” (She later said she misspoke. Freudian slip?) Jay Jones (Nominee for Virginia Attorney General): Texted that if he had two bullets, he’d shoot a rival “two times in the head,” calling the man’s kids “little fascists” who he hoped would die in their mother’s arms. When Democrats Spoke in Violence — and Against ICE The same politicians now accusing Republicans of “dangerous rhetoric” have spent years vilifying America’s immigration enforcement officers. The White House statement titled “Democrats’ Unhinged Crusade Against ICE Fuels Bloodshed” documented dozens of examples: Gov. Tim Walz called ICE the “modern-day Gestapo.” Gov. Gavin Newsom likened ICE to “secret police” and said people have a “right to push back. Gov. JB Pritzker claimed America is becoming “Nazi Germany” because ICE “grabs people off the street.” 🚨 BREAKING: Gov. JB Pritzker COMPARES President Trump’s deportations to the HOLOCAUST by Hitler and the Nazis. This is absolutely inviting violence. “People’s rights started getting taken away—Right before the Holocaust really took place!”pic.twitter.com/HldwVRFLqN — The Patriot Oasis™ (@ThePatriotOasis) October 22, 2025 Rep. Robin Kelly smeared ICE as “the Gestapo” and a “betrayal.” Rep. Jasmine Crockett compared ICE to “slave patrols.” Rep. Sylvia Garcia called ICE agents “thugs.” Rep. Delia Ramirez labeled ICE “a terror force.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal said ICE agents are “deranged,” accused them of “kidnapping,” and claimed “resistance” is “inspiring.” Rep. Rashida Tlaib said ICE is “terrorizing our communities” and a “rogue agency.” Rep. Ayanna Pressley repeated that ICE is “terrorizing our communities.” Rep. Max Frost compared ICE to “some of the worst horrors and crimes against humanity.” Rep. John Larson called ICE “the SS” and “the Gestapo.” Rep. LaMonica McIver told people to “shut down the city” because “we are at war.” She pleaded not guilty to charges alleging she assaulted law enforcement officers outside of an immigration detention facility. That case is ongoing. Rep. Stephen Lynch called…
2025 Elections: Five Key Races to Watch
With just two weeks until 2025 Elections, five major races are drawing national attention. These contests go beyond local politics: they have significant implications for party momentum, national strategies, and the balance of power. As each campaign intensifies, voters will be watching closely. Virginia Governor’s Contest: Turbulence on the Trail In Virginia, the gubernatorial race between Democrat Abigail Spanberger and Republican Winsome Earle-Sears is undergoing turbulence. The Republican nominee has seized on a scandal involving Democratic attorney-general nominee Jay Jones to bring pressure on Spanberger. Spanberger’s lead appeared sizable in earlier polling, yet the controversy has stirred questions and could shift dynamics. (RELATED NEWS: Democrats Rally Behind Jay Jones Despite Disturbing Texts) As a result, the race in Virginia is now more uncertain than it seemed. Sears is closing the gap. The outcome of this one is drawing serious attention, given the state’s competitive nature and national focus on statewide offices. New Jersey Governor’s Race: A Photo Finish? In New Jersey, the contest for governor between Republican Jack Ciattarelli and Democrat Mikie Sherrill has tightened dramatically. While Sherrill held a roughly five-point lead in the latest Fox News poll, that advantage has shrunk from earlier in the year. New Jersey remains a largely Democratic-registered state, yet Republican governors have succeeded here before. Sherrill has also faced growing scrutiny over questions about her transparency and past conduct at the Naval Academy, which have fueled voter doubts about her credibility. The result in New Jersey will serve not only as a state result but as an indicator of broader party strength heading toward the midterms. Ciattarelli just might pull this one out. One thing is for certain — this race will be a nail-biter until the very end. New York City Mayoral Election: Big Spotlight, Big Implications In New York City, the mayoral race is shaping up as one of the most-watched campaigns of the year. The Democratic nominee, Zohran Mamdani — a 33-year-old state lawmaker — stands out as a possible first Muslim and first millennial mayor of the city. He faces a crowded field, including former governor Andrew Cuomo, running as an independent, and Republican Curtis Sliwa. Current mayor, Eric Adams, dropped out of the race in September. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, has sparked controversy over his past associations and statements — including refusing to directly condemn Hamas and meeting with controversial figures. Meanwhile, many critics and prominent figures are urging Sliwa to drop out because of his weak polling numbers — a move that would boost Cuomo’s chances in a direct two-way race — but Sliwa has so far refused to withdraw. Mamdani will be almost impossible to beat as long as Sliwa remains. Given New York’s size and influence, the mayoral outcome will ripple outward. It may affect how national strategists view urban elections, how policy priorities are framed, and how parties attempt to reach key demographic groups. California’s Proposition 50 & Redistricting Battle In California, voters will decide a ballot measure known as Proposition 50. This proposal would turn redistricting power over to the state legislature. This would alter how congressional districts are drawn for the next three election cycles. Supporters argue it gives accountability to elected officials; opponents warn it undermines independent maps. Polls suggest a majority might support it. (MORE NEWS: Viral 2019 Debate Clip Shows Democrats Back Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants) Given California’s size and its congressional delegation, the vote has national significance: it could shift how many seats lean Democratic or Republican in future U.S. House battles. Analysts say the new maps could create as many as five additional Democratic congressional seats. This would effectively answer the five new seats Texas lawmakers are attempting to add with a newly drawn congressional map. Pennsylvania Supreme Court Retention Elections: Quiet but Critical In Pennsylvania — a major battleground state — three justices on the state Supreme Court face retention elections this year. Democrats currently hold a 5-2 majority on the court. Though these races don’t get as much attention as governor or mayor contests, their impact is substantial. The composition of the court can influence rulings on cases regarding elections and abortion. So while the spotlight may be lower, the stakes remain very high. These judicial outcomes could influence legal decisions for years and shape the balance of power across state government. Why These Races Matter — Across the Board Taken together, these five races illustrate a larger trend: parties are fighting not just for seats but for narratives, momentum, and control of key levers of power. Democrats are attempting a rebound after setbacks in recent national elections; they point to special-election wins as evidence of momentum. At the same time, Republicans are pushing back by highlighting major challenges facing Democrats, including low approval ratings and voter losses. Furthermore, these contests serve as early tests ahead of the 2026 midterms — giving both sides data on what works, where voters are shifting, and how campaigns should operate. What to Watch the Next Few Weeks Voter turnout: With less attention than presidential years, mobilizing voters in these five races will be key. Campaign messaging: How candidates frame issues like the economy and public safety will matter. External endorsements and funding: Big money and national players are already involved, especially in states like Pennsylvania and New Jersey where outside spending has soared. Polling movement: Shifts of even a few points can signal momentum — as seen in New Jersey where the lead narrowed. Local issue resonance: Issues specific to each region — such as redistricting in California or taxes in New Jersey — may sway undecided voters. Conclusion In short, these five races — in New Jersey, Virginia, New York City, California, and Pennsylvania — are far more than just elections. They are barometers of national political energy, tests of party strategies, and indicators of the shape of American politics heading into 2026. As we count down to Election Day, every campaign move, every polling shift, and every turnout effort will carry outsized weight. These last few…
George Santos a Free Man After Trump Commutes His Sentence
President Donald Trump has commuted the sentence of former U.S. Representative George Santos, bringing an unexpected end to a high-profile federal prison term. The decision followed Santos’s public appeals from solitary confinement and has sparked debate about justice, loyalty, and presidential power. A Long Sentence Cut Short George Santos began serving an 87-month sentence in July 2025 after pleading guilty to wire fraud and identity theft. In addition to his prison term, he was ordered to pay over $373,000 in restitution and serve two years of supervised release. His conviction followed months of national attention for misrepresentations during his time in Congress. For many observers, his sentence seemed the final chapter in a story of scandal and deception. Yet Trump’s decision changed that narrative overnight. On Truth Social, Trump announced, “I just signed a Commutation, releasing George Santos from prison, IMMEDIATELY. Good luck George, have a great life!” He described Santos as “somewhat of a rogue,” but argued that others who committed worse acts had avoided severe punishment. Trump claimed Santos had been “horribly mistreated” and held in solitary confinement for long stretches. (MORE NEWS: Democrats Rally Behind Jay Jones Despite Disturbing Texts) He went further, comparing Santos’s wrongdoing to that of Senator Richard “Da Nang Dick” Blumenthal, accusing the Democrat of falsely claiming to be a Vietnam veteran — behavior Trump called “far worse” than Santos’s crimes. “He never went to Vietnam, he never saw Vietnam, he never experienced the battles there,” Trump wrote, calling Blumenthal’s war story “totally and completely made up.” The Plea from Solitary Santos’s open letter, “Santos in Solitary: A Passionate Plea to President Trump,” published in The South Shore Press, may have been the turning point. Writing from the Special Housing Unit, he described months of isolation and fear after what he said was a credible death threat. He wrote that he had been “locked inside a small steel cage twenty-four hours a day, with almost no contact with the outside world.” His description painted a grim picture of confinement — limited communication, no human interaction, and endless hours alone. More than a cry for help, the letter was part confession and part reflection. Santos admitted to past mistakes but said he was seeking redemption. He explained that he was “not asking for sympathy, but for fairness — for the chance to rebuild.” His tone was humble and personal, portraying a man who had come to terms with his failures and was desperate for a second chance. He appealed directly to Trump’s well-known sense of loyalty and belief in redemption, writing that the president had always been “a man of second chances.” A Glimpse Inside Prison Life In a previous South Shore Press exclusive essay, “George Santos My Life Behind Bars,” Santos offered a glimpse into his daily existence and the emotional toll of imprisonment. He described the monotony of prison life and the loss of identity that came with it: “Every morning, I wake up to the same gray walls and the same questions — how did I get here, and how can I make this right?” That earlier piece showed a different side of Santos — no longer the confident politician, but a man struggling to find meaning behind bars. He reflected on faith, remorse, and gratitude for those who still reached out to him. The letters he received from supporters, he wrote, reminded him that his story “isn’t over.” Together, his essays revealed a narrative of regret and hope that humanized him at a time when his name was synonymous with scandal. Trump’s Reasoning and Political Message Trump’s commutation fits a pattern familiar to his supporters. Throughout his political career, he has used presidential clemency to make statements about fairness, loyalty, and political bias. In this case, his comparison to Blumenthal’s misstatements about military service framed the move as an act of balance. Trump said it corrected what he views as a double standard in the justice system. The decision also highlights Trump’s ongoing emphasis on loyalty. Santos had remained publicly supportive of Trump even after his conviction. By granting clemency, Trump not only showcased his power but also reinforced his image as a leader who stands by his allies. His mention of Santos’s alleged mistreatment in solitary confinement brought moral weight to the decision. It tied the act to broader concerns about prison conditions and human dignity. (MORE NEWS: John Bolton Pleads Not Guilty to Classified Documents Charges) Supporters and Critics React Reactions to the commutation have been deeply divided. Supporters praised Trump’s decision as compassionate and fair. They said seven years for financial crimes was excessive, especially for a first-time offender. Many pointed to Santos’s letters as proof that he had shown genuine remorse and deserved a chance to start over. Critics, however, saw the move as political favoritism. Legal experts noted that Santos pled guilty to multiple felonies and argued that his confinement resulted from safety concerns, not abuse. They say the commutation undermines accountability and sends a message that political connections can outweigh justice. Even among skeptics, though, Santos’s letters drew sympathy. His descriptions of loneliness, fear, and regret resonated beyond politics. To some readers, his plea was less about self-interest and more about survival. The Moment of His Release George Santos learned about his commutation in a moment as unexpected as the decision itself. According to a post from The South Shore Press on X, he was using a prison computer when other inmates began shouting, “Hey… you’re on TV!” At first, Santos ignored them. He was used to being on the news and assumed it was another report about his case. About thirty minutes later, he looked up and read the news crawl at the bottom of the screen: “Santos Sentence Commuted.” In that instant, everything changed. The same media coverage that had followed his downfall now carried his freedom. Santos reposted the story on X, confirming that he had been released from custody at 11:30 p.m. 🚨 INSIDE SCOOP 🚨@MrSantosNY was on a computer when…
Democrats Lose Media Cover as CNN Blames Them for Shutdown
OPINION CNN’s Jake Tapper made headlines when he said, “Based on the way we have always covered shutdowns, Democrats are to blame for this shutdown.” That moment wasn’t a casual comment — it was a revelation. When a mainstream media figure like Tapper admits Democrats are responsible, it means the truth is too clear to spin. The government shutdown didn’t happen because Republicans refused to govern. It happened because Democrats refuse to prioritize American citizens. Democrats’ Shutdown Gamble Just Collapsed Every time Washington hits a budget wall, Democrats try to frame it as Republican obstruction. But this time, the facts tell a different story. Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the White House. They put forward bills to fund the government responsibly and prioritize the needs of everyday Americans. Republicans in the House pushed to keep spending under control and to prioritize essential services. They passed funding bills. Democrats, instead of working with them, stonewalled and delayed. Their goal was simple: force another crisis they could exploit politically. But this time, the tactic backfired. Even journalists who usually carry water for the Democratic Party couldn’t ignore reality. CNN’s Tapper said plainly that, based on the way shutdowns have always been covered, this one rests on the Democrats’ shoulders. That admission undercuts years of media spin. (RELATED NEWS: Leavitt: $37 Trillion Debt Forces Layoffs, Shutdown Cuts) The Media Can’t Ignore the Obvious For decades, Democrats have relied on friendly coverage to cushion political failures. Most major networks frame Republican actions as cruel or extreme, while portraying Democrats as responsible and compassionate. That script fell apart this week. When even CNN — the network conservatives love to criticize for bias — admits Democrats are at fault, it exposes how undeniable the situation has become. The shutdown is not a “shared blame” issue. It’s a direct result of Democratic refusal to compromise. Tapper’s comment matters because it represents a crack in the media wall. When that wall starts to crumble, ordinary Americans get to see what’s been true all along. Democrats Overplayed Their Hand The White House thought it could spin another shutdown to its advantage. The strategy was simple — blame Republicans, count on media allies to amplify the message, and let the pressure force the GOP to cave. But that playbook failed. Americans are tired of political theater. They know inflation is still high, debt is out of control, and Washington keeps wasting taxpayer money. Democrats, instead of offering solutions, pushed for even more spending and refused to cut anything. When Republicans stood their ground, Democrats decided to shut it all down rather than make tough choices. Voters can see through the act. And now, even mainstream media hosts are admitting the truth. A Turning Point in Media Credibility Jake Tapper’s acknowledgment might seem small, but it represents a shift. When a high-profile CNN anchor says Democrats are to blame, it cuts through years of one-sided coverage. It suggests that even the media’s loyalty has limits. When reality is this obvious, spin no longer works. This could be a turning point for American journalism. If reporters begin holding both parties to the same standard, the public wins. The truth becomes clearer, accountability increases, and voters can make informed decisions. Whether the rest of the media follows Tapper’s lead remains to be seen, but his statement has already sparked a necessary conversation. Democrats’ Divide Grows Deeper Also this week, Joe Scarborough, host of Morning Joe, called out Democrat Jay Jones, who fantasized about murdering a Republican official and his children. Scarborough didn’t hedge his words. He said Jones “should probably be forced to withdraw from the race.” That statement was stunning not just for its bluntness but for where it came from — one of the most reliably liberal morning shows on television. Even more troubling, Representative Abigail Spanberger still endorses Jones despite the vile comments. That kind of moral blindness shows just how far some Democrats are willing to go to protect their own, no matter how extreme the behavior. When leading voices in their own party start publicly demanding accountability, it signals a deeper problem: the left has drifted too far left for even its own allies to defend. (RELATED NEWS: Democrats Rally Behind Jay Jones Despite Disturbing Texts) MORNING JOE: Jay Jones, who fantasized about murdering a Republican official and his kids, “should probably be forced to withdraw from the race.” Abigail Spanberger still endorses Jones.pic.twitter.com/rvPwNc0Hko — RNC Research (@RNCResearch) October 6, 2025 And it’s not just Scarborough breaking ranks. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, once celebrated as a progressive icon, has begun to distance himself from the far-left agenda. He even praised President Donald Trump for his work in the Israel-Gaza peace deal, posting, “I congratulate @POTUS on this historic peace plan that releases all the hostages. Now, enduring peace in the region is possible. Our parties are different but we have a shared ironclad commitment to Israel and its people.” Fetterman’s words highlight a rare moment of bipartisan respect — and a quiet admission that strength and leadership matter more than ideology. When prominent Democrats and media figures start acknowledging that the left has gone too far, it confirms what Americans have sensed for years: the Democratic Party has lost touch with reality. I congratulate @POTUS on this historic peace plan that releases all the hostages. Now, enduring peace in the region is possible. Our parties are different but we have a shared ironclad commitment to Israel and its people. pic.twitter.com/iGb1PE93VH — U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) October 8, 2025 Conclusion: The Truth Always Breaks Through Democrats tried to turn the shutdown into a political weapon, counting on the usual protection from sympathetic reporters and friendly headlines. But this time, even their media allies couldn’t carry the narrative. The facts were too obvious to hide. When CNN itself calls out Democratic failure, that’s not partisan spin — that’s reality breaking through. The American people see it. They’re tired of excuses and empty rhetoric. They want honesty, accountability,…
Viral 2019 Debate Clip Shows Democrats Back Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants
A debate moment from 2019 has resurfaced and gone viral again. As Congress struggles with a government shutdown, the question of health coverage for undocumented immigrants has become a major political flashpoint. Because the clip shows ten Democratic candidates raising their hands to support health benefits for those living in the country illegally, it is fueling sharp controversy now. (RELATED NEWS: Maxine Waters’ “Healthcare for Everybody” Stance Fuels Government Shutdown Fight) NBC: “Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for [illegal aliens].” Democrats: *all raise their hands* pic.twitter.com/OOX5JCb0VV — Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) October 2, 2025 What Happened in the Debate Clip During a June 2019 Democratic primary debate, NBC News anchor Savannah Guthrie asked: “Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.” To the surprise of many, all ten candidates on stage raised their hands. The moment stayed mostly forgotten for years. However, it resurfaced as the government shutdown fight placed immigration and health care back in the headlines. The debate clip went viral again after former Democratic Sen. Al Franken posted on X (now deleted) questioning Vice President JD Vance’s claim. Franken wrote: “Is JD Vance a liar or just woefully ignorant when claiming that Democrats want to give health benefits to undocumented immigrants?” A user responded in the comments by sharing the debate footage, which quickly spread across social media. Because several of those candidates now serve in Congress, the clip draws direct lines between past statements and today’s policy debates. Why the Clip Matters Now The clip reignites public debate about what role, if any, undocumented immigrants should have in access to health care. At a time when budgets are tight and constituents demand accountability, opponents argue that offering benefits to people here illegally diverts resources from citizens. Meanwhile, proponents say health care is a human right and that excluding people can worsen public health. (RELATED NEWS: Rising Socialism Exposes the Democratic Party’s Identity Crisis) The timing is critical. The U.S. is currently experiencing a government shutdown, and Congress is locked in battles over funding. One central issue is whether to continue subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. The debate reveals a strategic weapon in political messaging. Republicans are using the clip to challenge Democrats on consistency and accountability. House Speaker Mike Johnson even pointed to previous Democratic votes and the language in their bills to argue the party has supported health care access for illegal immigrants. Political Stakes and Public Perception This viral clip now serves as a reminder that online memory is long. As campaigns amplify it, voters see whether politicians stick to past promises. On the one hand, Republicans argue Democrats are hiding their past positions now that publicly opposing undocumented coverage polls better. On the other hand, Democrats argue that legislative proposals have changed, and that nuance must be considered—such as differences between state and federal rules. Media coverage also shapes how the issue is perceived. For example, CNN defended Democrats by claiming that House Speaker Mike Johnson falsely said Democrats want to provide health care to undocumented immigrants. Yet the resurfaced debate clip clearly shows every Democrat on stage raising a hand in support, underscoring that Johnson’s statement was not unfounded. This clash between video evidence and media framing highlights how narratives are built and contested in real time. CNN’s ratings are in the toilet because they’re a propaganda machine for Democrats. Here are the actual FACTS: Democrats shut down the federal government to try to give taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal aliens. The funding proposal put forward by the Democrats would result… pic.twitter.com/mQzgCMLHQA — Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) October 2, 2025 Moreover, the clip intensifies scrutiny on swing districts and moderates, who must navigate pressure from both their base and opponents. Because media coverage amplifies this issue, electoral and messaging consequences could be significant. In addition, public opinion plays a role. Some Americans support limited benefits for undocumented immigrants—especially when framed around emergency care or maternal health. But outright full access is not supported by most. Therefore, this debate could shift how both parties craft future health and immigration policies. What to Watch Going Forward To see how this plays out, follow three key developments. First, legislation and budget proposals will reveal how lawmakers frame health funding and whether they include or exclude undocumented provisions. Second, state-level actions will matter because states often take independent steps. Changes in Medicaid rules, audits, or lawsuits could create new flashpoints. Third, public messaging and media coverage will shape perceptions as campaigns roll out ads or statements referencing the viral clip. Ultimately, this debate moment proves how past rhetoric can shape present politics. As the nation debates health, immigration, and funding, that raised-hand moment from 2019 now echos with powerful influence. Cut through the noise. Drown out the spin. Deliver the truth. At The Modern Memo, we’re not here to soften the blow — we’re here to land it. The media plays defense for the powerful. We don’t. If you’re done with censorship, half-truths, and gaslighting headlines, pass this on. Expose the stories they bury. This isn’t just news — it’s a fight for reality. And it doesn’t work without you.
- 1
- 2