Uncensored Free Speech Platform

ICE arrests ‘criminal illegal alien’ for voter fraud in Philadelphia
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents announced the arrest of a “criminal, illegal alien” accused of voting in seven elections since 2008. Mahady Sacko was apprehended in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and charged. 

Sacko, 50, originally entered the country in 1998 and first registered to vote in 2005, according to court documents. He cast a ballot in the 2024 presidential election, falsely claiming that “he was a U.S. citizen in order to vote and register to vote,” noted a release by the United States Attorney’s Office of Eastern Pennsylvania. ICE and the FBI worked together in his arrest.

“Sacko has been illegally voting in this country…” read a press release issued by the Department of Homeland Security. “He entered the U.S. near Miami, Florida, and an Immigration Judge ordered him removed. Sacko exhausted all appeals, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld his removal on November 14, 2002 — over two decades ago.”

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported Sacko was registered as a Democrat.

He is originally from Mauritania and has been living illegally in Philadelphia for more than two decades. An immigration judge originally ordered his deportation in 2000, but federal authorities never followed through with it because Sacko did not have a valid Mauritanian passport,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Instead, he was allowed to remain in the U.S. and began voting in U.S. elections.

“According to the affidavit, he went on to vote in five federal general elections and two primary elections over the next two decades,” the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. “Prosecutors charged him only with casting a ballot in the 2024 election.”

Lauren Bis, the newly appointed deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, criticized Sacko’s felony and stressed that illegal immigrants are not permitted to vote in U.S. elections.

POLL: AMERICANS VIEW ICE MORE POSITIVELY THAN DEMOCRATS, NEWSOM, AND AOC

“This criminal illegal alien committed a felony by voting in federal elections dating back to 2008,” said Bis. “Illegal aliens should NOT be electing American leaders. Our elections belong to American citizens, not foreign citizens.” 

Bis referenced Sacko’s illegal voting as a reason to support the SAVE America Act to ensure that only American citizens are voting in elections.

“Congress must pass the SAVE America Act immediately to secure our elections,” Bis said.

If convicted, Sacko could face …

Labour’s efforts to brand critics of its stance on Iran as warmongers is the apex of cynicism
What would you do if you ran things?

Tony Blair’s former speech writer, the journalist and academic used to say that the perfect speech is when “you can’t see the scaffolding”.

He meant – one suspects thinking of the good ones he penned – when you can’t see every focus group appeal line, the elephant on the room dodge, the botch welding of two seemingly contradictory positions into one. When you can’t hear the dog whistle, the over blown clarion call, or the deliberately obfuscating wording to ensure you don’t say the thing you can’t say out loud. The scaffolding.

I have long applied this to political communications. When it’s clumsy but trying to be clever, you can ‘see the scaffolding.’

While the US and Israel turn Iranian regime buildings, and – let’s not ignore – a school to rubble, Labour, and the Greens have rapidly built towers of visible scaffolding having spotted an opportunity to try and pick at, and pick off the Conservative position on the Iran war.

Let’s be clear. The foundations for this scaffolding were laid some time ago. Donald Trump is may not now be as popular in America but here, he’s down right unpopular. Within the British public the only Western leader liked less is Netanyahu. Then add a cementing layer of the result of the Gorton and Denton by-election. Labour know that being seen to side with Trump is toxic for them, being seen to side with the Palestinian cause is better and war, especially in the middle east, after the second Iraq war is kryptonite.

Given Starmer is no superman, and was the most unpopular PM of modern times before Trump issued a single pilot into the skies these domestic electoral concerns have become mainstays of the scaffolding erected hastily in recent days.

Labours Comms, and it is transparently co-ordinated, has looked at Reform’s biggest weakness – something that comes out of many focus groups and polling –  the perception that they are too close to Trump, use a Trump playbook, and are trying to emulate the Trump  election success of 2024. Miriam Cates argues this morning on ConHome that endless polling is getting in the way of political principle. Here I’d argue is a case study.

Labour also know, and frankly I’d be shocked by a country that didn’t, that most of the public don’t ‘like’ war. Who would? In the four years I’ve monitored both the public and not so public evidence of the realities of war in Ukraine it is ugly brutal and dehumanising.

Nobody sane wants or likes war, and those that do seldom fight them.

Yet they happen all the same, presenting such countries with stark and difficult choices.

The facts are that a third of the US fleet arrived weeks ago in the Gulf. Trump repeatedly threatened – not least when the Iranian regime was murdering thirty thousand of its own citizens for protesting– that he could resort to …

Help: Which side am I based on my political views?
Who's accountable for the results?

Very economically left, believe in taxing billionaires a lot more and distributing the wealth to welfare like giving out food, universal healthcare, subsidized housing, universal college, etc. I also wanna be stricter on large corporations, taxing them a lot more, and using that money to subsidize mom and pop shops.
Socially Moderate, lgbtq etc...who cares? Not my thing, and find it against my christian religious values, but its their body and so their choice. Let them do as they wish, im also pro immigration, since technically the USA was founded by immigrants, and was born from immigrants too back in the day. Nothing wrong with that.
Nationalist: Believe the USA is superior to all other countries/cultures, I am grateful for manifest destiny, as it civilized North America. Also, proud of the country for its diversity, hope, and excellence, as many come to our country because they know theirs hardly any better alternatives
Im also 19M living in California if that helps. Hate Trump, but also Hate Kamala, not as much as trump but still. I know some American History and Idolize Eisenhower and FDR. Im wondering if I should be DNC or GOP.

What would be the outcome of a presidential candidate announcing his/her cabinet picks during the campaign?
Is this competence or optics?

A candidate must select a Vice President for their ticket, but what would be the outcome of a candidate also stating their Secretary of State, Defense, Treasury, etc. too? There's no guarantee they become the Secretary, as they would still have to be confirmed, but would this act be a positive or negative boost to a campaign?

John Redwood: Labour weakened our national security long before the Iran war
Equal justice apparently isn't equal anymore.

Lord Redwood is former MP for Wokingham and a former Secretary of State for Wales.

The government has spent its first one year eight months undermining our national security, just in time for a war.

This government of international lawyers, by international lawyers for international lawyers has used its own skewed and incompetent interpretations of human rights, net zero, post-colonial settlements and other international treaties to sell us out and weaken our security. When in doubt they argue the foreigner’s corner.

It has gone for the most extreme version of net zero policy. This makes us more energy dependent on Europe. The high energy prices it induces are leading to  closures of refineries, petrochemical works, fertiliser production, steel blast  furnaces,  and many other energy intensive plants. Our own  oil has to languish in the ground whilst  we pay more for imports that come in on diesel  tankers.  The agricultural policy  makes us ever  more dependent on imported food.

If the government knew our history, they would know that we have always been invaded by continental European enemies .  The Romans from Italy succeeded in 55 BC, the Nordic Vikings in the post Roman occupation,  the French Normans in 1066 and the Netherlands in 1688. The Germans failed twice in the twentieth century, The French failed around 1800, the Spanish failed in 1588.

Our defences have relied on a strong navy and more recently on sea  power buttressed by air power.  The country suffered badly in the two world wars of the last century from submarine attacks on shipping making it difficult to supply food and munitions from abroad. Dig for victory, home shipyards, UK chemicals for explosives and home produced steel for weapons were all crucial to survival. At peak production in 1943 the UK made 26,000 warplanes  in UK factories. We couldn’t make 24 today.

This government is so keen on reducing UK CO 2 output it overlooks the fact that most of its food, energy  and industrial policies increase world CO 2 by making us more import dependent. After years in the Common Agricultural policy which drove  down our home produced food, they  are now giving grant and permits  to wild our farms or get them to move  to solar  panels.  Apparently, we need to shift farms out of farming or tax them to close them down. We currently rely heavily on imports  for steel, chemicals and  weapons.

Who would supply those if our seas were prey to the enemy or if our European suppliers were occupied? We would not be able to outlive a submarine blockade of our trade.

Over the last week against the background of evidence of the evil intent of Iran and its allies, the government has moved to give away powers over Gibraltar and to pay money to Spain on top of the give aways. Gibraltar is our …

Miriam Cates: Have polls replaced principles?
Confidence requires clarity.

Miriam Cates is a television presenter with GBNews and the former MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge.

Has opinion polling ruined politicians?

Polling – rather than principles – now seems to underpin most policy decisions in Westminster. Is the growing abundance of public opinion polls ruining our politicians’ ability to think for themselves?

The science of polling is nearly 90 years old.

The British Institute of Public Opinion (BIPO) was founded in 1937 by Henry Durant, inspired by the American pollster George Gallup, and the first British poll measured attitudes toward the abdication crisis involving Edward VIII. During the second world war, the Government regularly commissioned polls and surveys to test public opinion on issues such as rationing and conscription. Although we often think of Churchill’s defeat in the 1945 general election as a ‘surprise’, most polls correctly predicted a landslide Labour victory, a success that helped to legitimise the polling industry.

The post-war period saw the rise of commercial polling, and after 2000, the growth of the internet transformed the industry. The days of postal surveys and newspaper phone-ins are long gone. Online panels have replaced many face-to-face interviews, large sample sizes can be collected quickly, and complex statistical modelling is performed in an instant.

Opinion polls are now a constant feature of British politics, increasing politicians’ awareness of their own party’s popularity and the public’s opinions on key issues. It is now possible to see the impacts of policy announcements almost in real time.

In the past, polls were taken with a pinch of salt; pollsters were often wrong in their predictions, including about the outcomes of the 1970 and 1992 general elections. In response to a particularly gloomy prediction about their party’s fate at the next election, MPs could tell journalists in all honesty: “You can’t always trust the polls”. But improved methodology has significantly increased polling accuracy. Although under the British First Past the Post (FPTP) voting system, it will always be challenging to project exactly how many parliamentary seats each party will win, pollsters’ vote share predictions in the last two general elections were broadly correct. And besides, polls are now conducted so frequently that taking an average of the different results – a “poll of polls” – gives a pretty accurate idea of the truth.

Every new day brings a new poll, published and shared on X (formerly Twitter). In the House of Commons tearoom, MPs are now just as likely to pour over YouGov analysis as they are the newspapers, checking their phones for the latest voting intentions like a gambler searching for the horse racing results.

Surely access to more information about what voters …

Lord Ashcroft: Can Starmer negotiate the left’s coalition of chaos?
Trust is earned, not demanded.

Lord Ashcroft KCMG PC is an international businessman, philanthropist, author and pollster. For more information on his work, visit

Last month I analysed what my polling revealed about whether and how the Conservatives can “unite the right” in a fragmented political landscape.

Now we look at the other side of the fence.

With debate raging over Britain’s role in the Middle East conflict, Shabana Mahmood’s migration reforms and the implications of the Gorton & Denton by-election, what is the state of the left-of-centre voting coalition under the biggest Labour majority for nearly 30 years? With Reform ahead in the polls, can the left mobilise to keep the right out of office?

In my latest poll we asked people whether they would, in the event of a hung parliament, prefer a coalition between the Conservatives and Reform or a coalition between Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Those who preferred the latter (43 per cent of all voters) were asked whether they would be willing to vote tactically to prevent a Conservative or Reform candidate winning. Nearly nine in ten of them said they would, with no significant difference by current voting intention.

At face value, this augurs well for uniting the left. Assuming that left-leaning voters can always identify the tactical anti-right candidate their own seat (quite a big assumption), 87 per cent would back this candidate. With the combined vote share for Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens on 47 per cent, this implies that over 40 per cent of voters would vote tactically for a “left bloc” candidate. By contrast, as we also found, the combined vote share for a Conservative-Reform alliance is in the mid-30s.

But can we take it this face value?

To find out, we asked one further question: whether there were any parties that people would be unwilling to support, even as a tactical vote. Here we begin to see the dents in left-of-centre solidarity. Just over half of Green and Lib Dem supporters, and just under two thirds of Labour supporters, say they would be prepared to vote for any of the others. But a quarter of Lib Dems and three in ten Greens say they wouldn’t vote Labour; a fifth of Greens wouldn’t vote Lib Dem; and almost as many Labour supporters say they wouldn’t vote Green.

The chart below breaks down current Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green voters into three categories:

Flexibles, who prefer a Labour-Lib Dem-Green coalition and who are willing to vote tactically for any of these parties

Selectives, who prefer a Labour-Lib Dem-Green coalition but are unwilling to vote for at least one of these parties

Splitters, who say they would vote for one of these three parties but do not prefer a Labour-Lib Dem-Green coalition (they either prefer a …

Trump appoints Erika Kirk to Air Force Academy board position
This is performative politics again.

President Donald Trump appointed Erika Kirk, widow of slain conservative activist and Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk, to the United States Air Force Academy’s Board of Visitors. It is unknown when the appointment occurred, but her name was discovered on the Air Force Academy’s website on Tuesday. Charlie Kirk had previously been appointed to the same Board in 2025 and remained on it until his assassination in September. 

“The Board inquires into the morale, discipline, curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and other matters relating to the Academy which the Board decides to consider,” noted the Air Force Academy website. 

“The Board consists of six members appointed by the President, two designated by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, one designated by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, one each designated by the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee, two designated by the Majority Leader of the Senate, two designated by the Minority Leader of the Senate, and one each designated by the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee,” read an explanation on the Air Force Academy website regarding how members of the Board are selected.

Kirk’s name was listed among those selected by Trump, along with Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), author and motivational speaker Dan Clark, retired Air Force Colonel Doug Nikolai, and former Bush and Trump administration official Dina Powell.

“President Trump made the perfect choice in appointing Erika Kirk to the U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors,” said Olivia Wales, White House spokeswoman, Fox News Digital reported. 

The Air Force Academy issued a statement explaining that it does not influence the selection of the Board of Visitors, nor does it take a position on appointees. 

“In accordance with federal law, Board appointments are made independently by the President of the United States and congressional leaders in both the House and Senate, and the Board provides reports and recommendations to the Secretary of War and Secretary of the Air Force,” read the statement.

Wales lauded Erika Kirk’s selection to the Board, stating that her selection would continue her husband’s legacy and work. She added that Erika would be a “fearless advocate” for the Air Force Academy’s mission.

“Charlie Kirk served proudly on the Board, inspiring not only the next generation of servicemembers, but millions around …

Which actions taken by the current Trump administration would be easier or harder for a future administration to reverse?
Policy without accountability is dangerous.

When presidential administrations change, incoming administrations often try to reverse or modify policies implemented by their predecessors. This has been visible across recent transitions, where executive orders, regulatory priorities, and agency guidance frequently shift when control of the executive branch changes.
With Donald Trump currently serving another term following the 2024 election, there has already been discussion among Democratic politicians and policy groups about reversing some policies associated with the administration if Democrats regain the presidency in a future election.
However, not all presidential actions are equally reversible. Some tools used by presidents are inherently easier to undo than others. Executive orders, for example, can generally be rescinded by a future president, while legislation, regulatory changes, or institutional changes inside federal agencies can take significantly longer to reverse.
The scale of executive action may also matter. The administration has already issued a large number of executive orders and other directives across areas such as immigration, trade, and regulatory policy since returning to office.
Other changes may affect government institutions more directly. Decisions involving the federal workforce, agency structure, or long-term appointments can alter how agencies function or how attractive government service appears as a career, potentially shaping institutional capacity for years after the policy itself is changed.
Some policies can also create downstream consequences even if they are later reversed. Trade policy is one example, where tariffs or other measures can lead to economic adjustments, legal disputes, or international responses that continue beyond the life of the policy itself.
Because of these differences, the question may not only be whether a future administration would attempt to reverse policies from the current Trump administration, but also which types of changes are structurally easier or harder to undo.
Questions for discussion:
Which actions taken by the current Trump administration would likely be the easiest for a future administration to reverse?

Which policies or decisions would likely be the most difficult to undo once implemented?

Within the limits of a single four-year presidential term, which Trump administration policies would realistically be reversible, and which might prove more durable?

9th Circuit upholds first grader’s free speech rights in ‘black lives matter’ drawing case
Who controls this in five years?

A federal appeals court handed an elementary school student a significant win this week for her free speech rights in the classroom, vacating a lower court’s ruling that had placed her speech rights at the whim of teachers and administrators.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit found that the lower court did not properly apply the standard set in the 1969 Supreme Court ruling Tinker v. Des Moines, which found that a student does not lose his free speech rights at school and that schools may only restrict speech if it causes significant disruption to the learning environment. The ruling said the lower court was wrong in finding that the student’s drawing, at the center of the dispute, was not protected by the First Amendment.

“This case presents an important issue: to what extent is elementary students’ speech protected by the First Amendment? Applying the criteria set forth in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, we hold that elementary students’ speech is protected by the First Amendment, the
age of the students is a relevant factor under Tinker, and schools may restrict students’ speech only when the restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the safety and well-being of its students,” the ruling said.

A first-grade student, identified in court documents as B.B., was punished and banned from drawing after she drew a picture of her friend, who is black, and two others with the phrase “black live matter” — after being taught about Martin Luther King Jr. and the phrase “black lives matter” – as well as the words “any life.” Her lawyers claim she created the drawing to empathize with her black classmate and friend but was punished and forced to apologize to the friend for the drawing, an action the friend was allegedly confused by. B.B. and her mother sued Capistrano Unified School District for infringing on the student’s free speech rights.

2/ B.B. was in first grade when she drew this picture after a classroom lesson on MLK. The principal called it "racist" and "inappropriate," banned her from giving out drawings, and made her sit out of recess for two weeks. The family challenged these unfair punishments.
— Pacific Legal (@PacificLegal) March 10, 2026

“Although schools have comprehensive authority to ‘prescribe and control conduct’ in schools when their actions infringe on a student’s First Amendment rights to expression, even for an elementary school student, the …

Bennie Thompson easily wins Democratic primary for Mississippi House seat
Same show, different day.

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) secured the Democratic nomination in Mississippi’s 2nd Congressional District on Tuesday in a landslide primary victory, positioning the longtime lawmaker for another reelection bid as Republicans awaited the outcome to determine who will challenge him in November. 

Thompson, who has represented the district since 1993 and is 78, faced little opposition in the Democratic primary and was widely expected to advance over younger challenger Evan Turnage, 34. With 30% of votes counted, Thompson had roughly 86% of the vote to Turnage’s 13% and Pertis Williams’s 1.4%.

With the victory, the veteran congressman moves one step closer to another term representing the majority-black district that stretches across much of Western Mississippi and includes the state capital of Jackson. 

The Republican primary race has yet to be settled, with candidates Ron Eller and Kevin Wilson being the leading contenders in the race to face Thompson in the general election. 

Eller previously ran against Thompson and has campaigned on conservative economic policies, arguing the district needs new leadership after decades of Democratic representation. Wilson also pitched himself as an alternative to the incumbent of three decades, emphasizing economic development and public safety as key issues in the campaign. 

Mississippi election law requires a candidate to receive more than 50% of the vote to win a party primary outright. If no candidate reaches that threshold, the top two finishers advance to a runoff election later this month. 

The outcome of the Republican contest will determine whether Thompson faces a new challenger or a rematch against Eller, who previously sought the seat.  

Thompson remains one of Mississippi’s most prominent Democrats and a senior figure in Congress. He serves as the ranking Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee and previously chaired the select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.

Thompson has been reelected repeatedly in the heavily Democratic district. The 2nd District has long been considered safely Democratic. 

HARRIS AND FULLER ADVANCE TO RUNOFF IN GEORGIA SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL MTG’S HOUSE SEAT

The district runs along the Mississippi River from the Delta region south toward Natchez and east to Jackon, encompassing many rural counties as well as the state’s largest city. 

While Republicans have periodically fielded challengers, no GOP candidate has come close to unseating Thompson …

EXCLUSIVE: ICE says El Paso detention facility will stay open under new contractor after $1.2B deal scrapped
This isn't complicated—it's willpower.

EXCLUSIVE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas will remain open and is undergoing an operational upgrade, Fox News Digital has learned.
"Camp East Montana is NOT closing, quite the opposite," an ICE spokesperson exclusively told Fox News Digital Tuesday.
"Rather, ICE has contracted with a new provider following Secretary Noem’s termination of the old contract inherited from the Department of War. ICE is always looking at ways to improve our detention facilities to ensure we are providing the best care to illegal aliens in our custody."
BLUE-STATE GOVERNORS MOVE TO KEEP HEAT ON NOEM AS DHS FIRES BACK
The spokesperson said the new contract will allow the facility to maintain what the agency described as the "highest detention standards" while expanding oversight.
According to ICE, the new contractor will also provide increased on-site medical care, additional staffing and a "PRECISE quality assurance surveillance plan."
The agency said the updated agreement also strengthens ICE’s direct oversight of operations at the El Paso-area facility.
"Far from closing, Camp East Montana is upgrading," the spokesperson said.
FOUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS LINKED TO MS-13 INDICTED FOR ALLEGEDLY MURDERING 14-YEAR-OLD BOY IN MARYLAND PARK
The news that the facility will remain open comes after The Washington Post reported that the facility could face closure amid scrutiny over operations.
A document was distributed to ICE staff, the Post reports, indicated that the agency was drafting a letter to terminate the facility’s $1.2 billion contract at an unspecified date.
ICE officials, however, characterized the contract termination as a deliberate effort by Noem to raise standards and improve services.
The facility, located at Fort Bliss in Texas, has been used to house thousands of detainees as part of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.
ICE did not immediately provide details on the identity of the new contractor or the timeline for full implementation.