Teachers Union Helps Fund Newsom’s Radical Redistricting Push Ahead of 2025 Vote
August 31, 2025
According to Campus Reform, “The California Teachers Association (CTA) has given $3 million to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s campaign for Proposition 50, a redistricting measure that will appear on the state’s Nov. 4, ballot, according to state campaign finance filings.”
The CTA or California Teachers Association’s contribution went directly to Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 50.
The radical vengeful measure originated from a three bill package in July where the Dems used a ‘gut and amend’ tactic on A.B. 604, S.B. 260 and A.C.A. 8 in order to help give the legislature control of redistricting for 2026, 2028, 2030 election cycles.
The state’s independent Group would eventually assume control, finally in the year 2031.
According to Assemblyman Carl DeMaio “If this redistricting scheme goes through, voters will have no reason to trust politicians.”
DeMaio told Campus Reform. “Politicians will choose their voters; voters will not choose their politicians.”
Sonja Shaw, who’s running for Superintendent of Education in California, condemned the Union’s support for this proposition.
Shaw wrote on X “The California Teachers Association is behind every attack on our kids, pushing confusion in classrooms, protecting only those who fit their narrative, and selling out teachers to back Newsom’s gerrymander,”
DISGUSTING
The California Teachers Association is behind every attack on our kids, pushing confusion in classrooms, protecting only those who fit their narrative, and selling out teachers to back Newsom’s gerrymander.
I saw it firsthand at the hearing, they were the key…
The teachers’ union has not yet issued an official statement on its contribution.
The CTA’s pack is apparently one of the state’s largest political spenders, according to Campus Reform.
Leftist groups such as Planned Parenthood of California have vowed to support this measure as well.
“You take away our freedoms, we’ll take away your seats,” President and CEO Jodi Hicks said at a rally, promising her group would “go all in.”
These measures are not being left unchallenged however with Republican lawmakers challenging this law in court. However The California Supreme Court rejected the emergency petition on August 21st.
Gavin Newsom as well as CTA have declined to comment on this matter.
Trump Blames Euro-Globalist Leaders for Sabotaging Peace Process Between Russia and Ukraine: REPORT
August 31, 2025
Donald J. Trump blames Euro-Globalists for the lack of progress in peace efforts.
Trump knows very well who the false friends are.
As we see little to no progress between Russia and Ukraine in the peace process initiated after the historic Donald J. Trump-Vladimir Putin in Alaska, we watch MSM reporters and Euro-Globalist heads of state endlessly calling for the US to impose additional sanctions and tariffs on Moscow.
But the American president knows very well how these same journalists and politicians are working tirelessly to undermine and sabotage the peace efforts.
“Senior White House officials believe some European leaders are publicly supporting President Trump’s effort to end the war in Ukraine, while quietly trying to undo behind-the-scenes progress since the Alaska summit, Axios has learned.”
Two weeks after the Anchorage summit, Trump administration lay the blame for the lack of progress on European ‘allies’, and not on Trump or even Putin.
“White House officials are losing patience with European leaders, whom they claim are pushing Ukraine to hold out for unrealistic territorial concessions by Russia.”
“’The Europeans don’t get to prolong this war and backdoor unreasonable expectations, while also expecting America to bear the cost’, a top White House official told Axios. ‘If Europe wants to escalate this war, that will be up to them. But they will be hopelessly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory’.”
Many European leaders cling to the fantasy that a prolonged war will bring regime change in Moscow. Instead of facing reality and negotiating, they demonise President Putin and block the only path to peace. Europe’s self-sabotage leaves us powerless while others decide our fate.… pic.twitter.com/kD7zfdgSd9
Trump team believes Europeans are pushing Volodymyr Zelensky to wait for a ‘better deal’ — while Russia advances ever more rapidly, and the Ukrainian defenses are on the verge of collapsing.
“’Getting to a deal is an art of the possible’, the top official said. ‘But some of the Europeans continue to operate in a fairy-tale land that ignores the fact it takes two to tango. […] We are going to sit back and watch. Let them fight it out for a while and see what happens’, the official said.”
Some US officials now reportedly see Euro-Globalist leaders as a major obstacle for peace.
Under current law, the Constitution assigns responsibility for immigration policy to the federal government, with federal immigration law preempting state attempts to enact their own distinct immigration policies. The Constitution grants Congress plenary power over immigration, creating a presumption that federal law should take precedence.
Sanctuary laws exist at state, county, and municipal levels across the country, typically limiting whether and how state or local authorities may cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The California Values Act is one example, prohibiting officials from inquiring into an individual’s immigration status, detaining someone at the request of federal immigration officials (detainers), or providing release date information from local custody.
According to the Center for Immigration Studies, as of January 7, 2025, thirteen states and hundreds of cities and counties had adopted some form of sanctuary laws. In response, at least twelve states passed legislation banning sanctuary policies.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed executive orders denying federal funds to “so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions” that interfere with federal law enforcement. Soon after, the Assistant Attorney General directed prosecutors to investigate state and local officials who resist or obstruct immigration-related commands.
The White House argued that sanctuary policies violate federal statutes on obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), harboring or hiring illegal aliens (8 U.S.C. 1324), and conspiracy against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371–372). DHS Secretary Kristi Noem warned, “These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement,” while Attorney General Pamela Bondi said such policies “impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design.”
Federal courts have pushed back. On April 24, 2025, a judge blocked the administration from withholding funds from 16 sanctuary jurisdictions. The administration has also filed lawsuits against Illinois, Cook County, and the city of Chicago.
The strongest constitutional argument for sanctuary jurisdictions is the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, established in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997). This principle holds that the federal government cannot compel state or local governments to enforce federal law. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Printz, “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”
The Trump administration’s attempt to block California’s Values Act failed: the Ninth Circuit upheld the law, the Supreme Court declined review, and similar statutes have been sustained nationwide. Even the conservative Fifth Circuit upheld a Texas law targeting local sanctuary ordinances, ruling that “the Tenth Amendment prevents Congress from compelling Texas municipalities to cooperate in immigration enforcement.”
Immigration detainers further illustrate this principle. Courts have ruled that detainers are requests, not orders. The Third Circuit held that “immigration detainers do not and cannot compel a state or local law enforcement agency to detain suspected aliens.” Any attempt to convert them into mandatory orders would be unconstitutional under the anti-commandeering doctrine. Moreover, keeping individuals jailed after state custody ends violates the Fourth Amendment, which requires a prompt probable cause determination by a magistrate. Both Los Angeles County and New York City have paid millions in settlements for unlawful detentions under immigration detainers.
Funding threats face similar constitutional limits. In NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot attach coercive funding conditions that force state compliance. Denying all or most federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions to compel immigration enforcement could therefore be unconstitutional.
8 U.S.C. § 1373 provides that “a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from” federal immigration authorities “information regarding the citizenship or immigration status … of any individual.” Critics argue this preempts sanctuary policies, claiming local laws that bar communication with DHS are unlawful. But the statute is narrow: it prevents states from blocking the sharing of immigration status, yet does not require states to collect such information. California’s sanctuary statute, for instance, restricts officials from inquiring into immigration status but does not prohibit sharing it if known. It also bars disclosure of other details, such as release dates, which federal law does not mandate since they are not “information regarding … citizenship or immigration status.”
This debate unfolds against significant enforcement challenges. As of July 21, 2024, ICE’s docket listed 662,566 noncitizens with criminal histories, including 647,572 undocumented individuals without federal supervision. Critics contend sanctuary policies force ICE into more dangerous field arrests instead of custody transfers from jails.
Sanctuary jurisdictions argue the anti-commandeering doctrine protects their refusal to assist federal enforcement. That protection, however, does not extend to active violations of federal law. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1071, it is a felony to harbor or conceal “any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been issued … so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued,” punishable by up to five years in prison for felony warrants.
Similarly, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 criminalizes efforts to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” undocumented persons, or to “encourage or induce” illegal entry. In United States v. Hansen, the Supreme Court narrowly interpreted “encourage or induce” to cover only the purposeful solicitation or facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law. Circuit courts have likewise required affirmative conduct for a harboring conviction, not mere non-cooperation. Thus, the Trump administration would need to prove states are actively harboring criminals, a case it may try to build by pointing to state-issued welcome notices and taxpayer-funded support for undocumented immigrants.
Biden Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Deporting 600 Unaccompanied Guatemalan Children in 4 am Order
August 31, 2025
A federal judge on Sunday morning blocked the Trump Administration from deporting 600 unaccompanied Guatemalan children.
The Trump Administration was preparing to deport 600 Guatemalan children who entered the US alone during the Biden years.
The children, who do not have a parent in the US, were in the care of the Health and Human Services Department. The Trump Administration worked with the Guatemalan government to devise a plan to safely return the children to their families at home.
US District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, in a 4 am order blocked the Trump Admin from deporting the children within hours of a lawsuit filed by a ‘civil rights’ group.
Judge Sooknanan is holding a hearing on the matter on Sunday. She moved up her emergency hearing from 3 pm ET on Sunday to 12:30 pm ET.
According to Politico, Judge Sooknanan was calling DOJ lawyers in the middle of the night to notify them of the lawsuit and emergency hearing.
DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign told the judge that all 600 Guatemalan children in are still in the United States, and the planes in El Paso, Texas, are grounded. Ensign said it’s possible one of the planes had taken off and was returned, according to Politico.
The judge asked Ensign when the children will be deplaned and put back in custody of the HHS.
ENSIGN says all 600 children in question are still in the United States, planes are grounded and will not leave while the judge’s order is in place. He said it’s possible one had taken off and was returned. https://t.co/4QRs4oLf0G
A federal judge has ordered an emergency halt to an apparent plan by the Trump administration to deport more than 600 unaccompanied Guatemalan children to their home country — some within a matter of hours — after immigrant advocacy groups sued, calling the unannounced plan illegal.
U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan issued the order just after 4 a.m. Sunday, finding that the “exigent circumstances” described in the lawsuit warranted immediate action “to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set.” The judge, a Biden appointee, also scheduled a virtual hearing on the matter for 3 p.m. Sunday.
The roughly 600 children arrived in the United States alone and are currently in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement. According to lawyers for the children, the administration is preparing to send them back to Guatemala without notice or a chance to contest their deportation — in some cases abruptly halting their pending immigration proceedings.
Indoctrinated Leftist Says He Will Resort to Violence to Remove and Protest the Trump Administration
August 31, 2025
In yet another episode of leftist radicalization, a progressive activist publicly declared that he would “resort to violence” to protest and remove President Donald Trump’s administration. These statements, full of hatred and irresponsibility, expose the true face of a political faction that proclaims itself as a defender of democracy, but at the same time threatens to destroy constitutional order when it cannot impose its agenda.
The individual claimed that the current government is “incompetent” and “slowly leading the country toward an authoritarian regime.” A speech full of contradictions, since it is precisely the left that has promoted authoritarian measures, censorship
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
