Latest news with #Democrat
Express Tribune
39 minutes ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Anti-Trump "Dictator Approved" sculpture erected on National Mall, White House responds
An anti-Trump sculpture titled 'Dictator Approved' has been installed on the National Mall, igniting backlash from both political observers and the White House. The gold-painted, 8-foot artwork features a thumbs-up hand crushing the Statue of Liberty's crown, with plaques quoting authoritarian leaders who have publicly praised Donald Trump. The installation, permitted by the National Park Service, coincided with Trump's June 14 military parade marking the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and his 79th birthday. Organisers of the artwork say it was intended to criticise what they described as 'imagery similar to autocratic, oppressive regimes.' Each side of the sculpture's base features direct quotes, including Vladimir Putin calling Trump 'a very bright and talented man,' Viktor Orbán describing him as 'the most respected,' Jair Bolsonaro admiring their 'shared values,' and Kim Jong Un citing 'extraordinary courage.' In response, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson stated: 'If these Democrat activists were living in a dictatorship, their eye-sore of a sculpture wouldn't be sitting on the National Mall right now.' She added, 'In the United States of America you have the freedom to display your so-called 'art,' no matter how ugly it is.' The statue is authorised to remain in place through Sunday.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
US Appeals court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
LOS ANGELES: An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. 'The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows," the court wrote. "The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.' It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. Trump celebrated the decision on his Truth Social platform, calling it a 'BIG WIN.' He wrote that 'all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done.' Newsom issued a statement that expressed disappointment that the court is allowing Trump to retain control of the Guard. But he also welcomed one aspect of the decision. 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court," Newsom said. "The President is not a king and is not above the law. We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of US military soldiers against citizens.' The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion',' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
UPI
an hour ago
- Politics
- UPI
Man charged with trying to kidnap Memphis mayor
Trenton Abston was arrested and charged Wednesday in connection to a suspicious man seen trespassing on the property of Memphis Mayor Paul Young. Image courtesy of Memphis Police Department/ Facebook June 20 (UPI) -- Authorities in Memphis have arrested and charged a 25-year-old man accused of attempting to kidnap the city's mayor over the weekend. The suspect, identified as Trenton Abston, was arrested on Wednesday, the Memphis Police Department said in a statement. Police recovered a Taser, gloves, rope and duct tape from Abston's vehicle following the man's arrest, according to authorities. Abston was arrested after police on Sunday responded to reports of an individual conducting "suspicious activity" outside the home of Memphis Mayor Paul Young. Police said a review of both public and private security camera footage of the incident shows that the suspect had scaled a wall to enter the mayor's property. Young, in a statement on Facebook, said the incident occurred at about 9:30 local time Sunday. He said a man had jumped a wall leading to his subdivision and walked straight to his home, "knocking on the door with gloves on, a full pocket and a nervous demeanor." "In today's climate, especially after the tragic events in Minnesota and the threats my wife and I often receive online, none of us can be too careful," he said, referring to the recent assassination of Democratic state Rep. Melissa Hortman and the attempted assassination of Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman. Young is also a Democrat. "What starts as reckless words online can all too quickly become something more more dangerous," he said. Abston has been charged with attempted kidnapping, stalking and aggravated criminal trespass. "We understand the concerns raised by this incident and want to reassure the public that the Memphis Police Department remains fully committed to the safety of all residents, including our city's elected officials," the Memphis Police Department said. "We take any potential threat seriously and will continue to act swiftly and thoroughly." A politically divided United States has seen an increase in violence targeting elected officials in recent years. On Jan. 6, 2021, an extremist violent mob attempted an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol in response to Democrat Joe Biden being elected president, with some calling for the deaths of elected officials. Paul Pelosi, the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was brutally beaten by a man with a hammer at the home he shared with his wife in 2022. Violence has also been directed at Republicans, with President Donald Trump being the subject of two assassination attempts.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Court lets Trump keep National Guard troops in LA
An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold. An appeals court has allowed US President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, the court concluded that "it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority" in federalising control of the guard. It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalising the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. In a post on X, the Californian governor vowed to press forward with the state's legal challenge. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritise deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. The ruling comes from a panel of three judges on the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, two of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term. All three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from US District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which only allows presidents to take control during times of "rebellion or danger of a rebellion." "The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'" wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court. The ruling means control of the California National Guard will stay in federal hands as the lawsuit continues to unfold.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
‘Incredibly ungrateful': Ilhan Omar ‘craps all over the country' that took her in
Author and commentator Adam B Coleman has slammed Democrat Representative Ilhan Omar for claiming America is one of the worst countries. 'Ilhan Omar is obviously anti-American,' Mr Coleman told Sky News host James Morrow. 'She also wants to crap all over the country that took her in as a refugee.'
