FIRST ON FOX – Paramount Global and CBS agreed on Tuesday to pay President Donald Trump a sum that could reach north of $30 million to settle the president’s election interference lawsuit against the network.
Trump will receive $16 million upfront. This will cover legal fees, costs of the case, and contributions to his future presidential library or charitable causes, to be determined at Trump’s discretion.
There is an anticipation that there will be another allocation in the mid-eight figures set aside for advertisements, public service announcements, or other similar transmissions, in support of conservative causes by the network in the future, Fox News Digital has learned. With these considerations, CBS would pay well in excess of the $15 million ABC paid Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit last year. Current Paramount management disputes the additional allocation.
This is not like Obamacare, you don’t have to read it to see whats in the Bill. Senate Republicans did their best to pass the blockbuster bill, overcoming renegades, such as Tillis, Paul and Maine’s double crossing female dog, Collins. However, with J.D. casting the tying breaking vote we are now ready to get this on the desk of President of the United States, Donald J. Trump, by July 4, 2025.
Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ clears final hurdle before House-wide vote
The bill must now go through a House-wide “rule vote” followed by a vote on final passage
Just two Republicans voted against reporting the bill out of committee – Reps. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., and Chip Roy, R-Texas, conservatives who had expressed reservations with the bill earlier on Tuesday. No Democrats voted to advance it, while the remaining seven Republicans did.
The majority of Republican lawmakers appear poised to advance the bill, however, believing it’s the best possible compromise vehicle to make Trump’s campaign promises a reality.
“This bill is President Trump’s agenda, and we are making it law. House Republicans are ready to finish the job and put the One Big Beautiful Bill on President Trump’s desk in time for Independence Day,” House GOP leaders said in a joint statement after the Senate passed the bill on Tuesday.
The House Rules Committee acts as the final gatekeeper before most pieces of legislation get a chamber-wide vote.
Democrats attempted to delay the panel’s hours-long hearing by offering multiple amendments that were shot down along party lines.
They criticized the bill as a bloated tax cut giveaway to wealthy Americans, at the expense of Medicaid coverage for lower-income people. Democrats have also accused Republicans of adding billions of dollars to the national debt, chiefly by extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.
“I don’t know what it means to be a fiscal hawk, because if you vote for this bill, you’re adding $4 trillion to the debt,” Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Calif., said during debate on the measure.
“Republicans have gone on TV for months and months and months solemnly insisting to the American people that this bill is going to cut the debt, that this will not hurt anybody on Medicaid, just those lazy bums and, you know, unworthy people.”
But Republicans have said the bill is targeted relief for middle and working-class Americans, citing provisions temporarily allowing people to deduct taxes from tipped and overtime wages, among others.
“If you vote against this bill, you’re voting against the child tax credit being at $2,200 per child. At the end of this year, it will drop to $1,000. That makes a huge impact to 40 million hardworking Americans. And it’s simply, when they vote no, they’re voting against a $2,200 child tax credit, and they’re okay with $1,000,” House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., said.
“If you listen to the Democrats here, they say this is all about billionaires and millionaires. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime work. How many millionaires and billionaires, Madam Chair, work by thehour?”
The bill numbers more than 900 pages and includes Trump’s priorities on taxes, the border, defense, energy and the national debt.
An initial version passed the House in May by just one vote, but the Senate has since made multiple key modifications to Medicaid, tax cuts and the debt limit.
Moderates are wary of the Senate measures that would shift more Medicaid costs to states that expanded their programs under ObamaCare, while conservatives have said those cuts are not enough to offset the additional spending in other parts of the bill.
Several key measures were also removed during the “Byrd Bath,” a process in the Senate where legislation is reviewed so that it can be fast-tracked under the budget reconciliation process – which must adhere to a strict set of fiscal rules.
Among those conservative critics, Reps. Scott Perry, R-Pa., and Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., introduced resolutions to change the Senate version to varying degrees.
Ogles’ amendment would have most dramatically changed the bill. If passed, it would have reverted the legislation back to the House version.
Perry’s amendments were aimed at tightening the rollback of green energy tax credits created by the former Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act.
Another amendment by Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., would have restored certain Second Amendment-related provisions stripped out by the Byrd Bath.
Sen. Thom Tillis, one of the two Republicans to vote against advancing President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill,” plans to retire from the Senate at the end of his term.
The North Carolina Republican announced on Sunday that he would not seek reelection in the 2026 cycle. Tillis would have been among the most vulnerable Republicans running next year, and faced threats from Trump to find a challenger after his vote against the president’s agenda Saturday night.
The lawmaker voted against advancing the bill, and is likely to vote against final passage, because deep Medicaid cuts inside the colossal bill brought on the changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate.
Tillis railed against the slow death of bipartisanship in Washington in a statement.
“In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,” he said.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump smiles during Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center on December 22, 2024 in Phoenix, Arizona (Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)
Tills gave a shout-out to former Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for their unwillingness to not “cave to their party bosses to nuke the filibuster for the sake of political expediency.”
“They ultimately retired and their presence in the Senate chamber has been sorely missed every day since,” he said.
“It underscores the greatest form of hypocrisy in American politics. When people see independent thinking on the other side, they cheer,” he continued. “But when those very same people see independent thinking coming from their side, they scorn, ostracize, and even censure them.”
He said that the choice broke down to spending time with his family, or spending another six years in Washington navigating the “the political theatre and partisan gridlock.”
UNITED STATES – JUNE 24: Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., is seen after the Senate luncheons in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, June 24, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“It’s not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re-election,” he said.
His decision to retire tees up what will likely be a competitive race in North Carolina, and ones that Democrats will look to pounce on quickly.
It also comes after Trump spent much of Saturday evening, while Vice President JD Vance, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and his leadership team worked over holdout fiscal hawks, blasting Tillis as a “grandstander” and vowing to interview potential primary challengers.
“Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the Primary against ‘Senator Thom’ Tillis,” Trump said on Truth Social. “I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks, looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina and, so importantly, the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” The lawmaker voted against advancing the bill, and is likely to vote against final passage, because deep Medicaid cuts inside the colossal bill brought on the changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate.
Tillis railed against the slow death of bipartisanship in Washington in a statement.
“In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species,” he said.
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump smiles during Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center on December 22, 2024 in Phoenix, Arizona (Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)
Tills gave a shout-out to former Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema for their unwillingness to not “cave to their party bosses to nuke the filibuster for the sake of political expediency.”
“They ultimately retired and their presence in the Senate chamber has been sorely missed every day since,” he said.
“It underscores the greatest form of hypocrisy in American politics. When people see independent thinking on the other side, they cheer,” he continued. “But when those very same people see independent thinking coming from their side, they scorn, ostracize, and even censure them.”
He said that the choice broke down to spending time with his family, or spending another six years in Washington navigating the “the political theatre and partisan gridlock.”
UNITED STATES – JUNE 24: Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., is seen after the Senate luncheons in the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, June 24, 2025. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“It’s not a hard choice, and I will not be seeking re-election,” he said.
His decision to retire tees up what will likely be a competitive race in North Carolina, and ones that Democrats will look to pounce on quickly.
It also comes after Trump spent much of Saturday evening, while Vice President JD Vance, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and his leadership team worked over holdout fiscal hawks, blasting Tillis as a “grandstander” and vowing to interview potential primary challengers.
“Numerous people have come forward wanting to run in the Primary against ‘Senator Thom’ Tillis,” Trump said on Truth Social. “I will be meeting with them over the coming weeks, looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina and, so importantly, the United States of America. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Alex Miller is a writer for Fox News Digital covering the U.S. Senate.
So we have it, the consensus is that Iran’s nuclear facilities have been totally destroyed. This is the opinion of those in the know. However, the Mother of all Mouths, the Slime Bag Ayatolla Khamenei, continues to sprout from vitriolic diatribe from the mouth that Iran had a big victory.
The tyrant is high on Iran Shine – Aragh sagi – little does he realize his life is shorter than a gypsy mouth. When he comes to, if ever, he will understand the mean of being handed his ass in a wheel barrow.
The Western World laughs at his diatribe which is only for public consumption. When the people of Iran realize what happened (currently no internet) they will call for the Shit Heads Hanging.
But don’t be surprised if he is shot point blank by one of his comrades who comprehend the idiocy in his satanic remarks. There are members of his inner circle who disagree with Ayatollah Amoeba.The calling for his head will begin with the Iranian people, Their well being subordinated to ayatollah’s ambitions to destroy Israel.
The future revolution is still on hold because the good citizens fear the IRGC commandos who rule via the gun, sending fear into the populace.Soon, we hope to see an uprising of monumentous dimensions that the great Allah cant’s stop.
The look on their faces was as if the devil himself, after staring them in the eye, caused them to lose control of their bodily functions. Add into the rebuke, thrown by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, at Ketanji Brown Jackson, was an Octagon event. Don’t expect a rematch on this one; Jackson did not wake up from the count – last seen at the psychiatric hospital.
To quote Justice Kagan from 2022, “In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”
Kagan wants the whole cake so she can devour it like the legions of her supporters who continue to grow fat on the taxpayers dime.
And Sotomayor has the instinct of a hypotized dog. She could not smell a buried bone if her life depended on it. The Latina’s instinct is to follow the liberal herd toward Armageddon. Don’t forget her famous quote, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”.
Trump singled out the author of the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, for writing “brilliantly,” and also praised Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, plus Chief Justice John Roberts, for joining the majority.
A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power,” she added.
Coney Barrett took a swipe at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, saying that her argument was “at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: [Jackson] decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”
In her dissent, Jackson warned that the ruling allowed the president to “violate the Constitution” and presented “an existential threat to the rule of law.”
If Jackson was in the home of her ancestors she would be holding a spear looking for Dr. Livingston, we presume.
Birthright citizenship is next. Read the following to understand the essential elements.
The birthright citizenship debate exploded back into the national discourse this week after President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning it.
Trump’s ban was slated to take effect on Feb. 19, but a federal judge in Seattle on Thursday temporarily blocked the order. Some experts believe the issue will eventually be settled by the Supreme Court.
Should the ban eventually go into force, it would likely impact tens of thousands of children born to the parents of illegal immigrants.
Below is a previous post concerning the 14th Amendment, read it and come to your own conclusion.
By my count–so far–Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rick Perry and the entire Fox News commentariat are unfamiliar with a period of the nation’s history known as “the Civil War.” They seem to believe that the post-Civil War amendments were designed to ensure that the children of illegal aliens would be citizens, “anchor babies,” who can then bring in the whole family. (You wouldn’t want to break up families, would you?)
As FNC’s Bill O’Reilly authoritatively informed Donald Trump on Tuesday night: “The 14th Amendment says if you’re born here, you’re an American!”
I cover anchor babies in about five pages of my book, Adios, America, but apparently Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the scholars on Fox News aren’t what we call “readers.”
Still, how could anyone–even a not-very-bright person–imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens.
{snip}
“Luckily,” as FNC’s Shannon Bream put it Monday night, Fox had an “expert” to explain the details: Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s senior judicial analyst.
Napolitano at least got the century right. He mentioned the Civil War–and then went on to inform Bream that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to–I quote–“make certain that the former slaves and the native Americans would be recognized as American citizens no matter what kind of prejudice there might be against them.”
Huh. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who–as you may have surmised by his name–was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.
He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.
The “main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the court explained–and not for the first or last time–“was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black . . . should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”
American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. Lo those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Indians were not American citizens, despite the considered opinion of Judge Napolitano.
Of course it’s easy for legal experts to miss the welter of rulings on Indian citizenship inasmuch as they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”
{snip}
The only reason the 14th Amendment doesn’t just come out and say “black people” is that–despite our Constitution being the product of vicious racists, who were dedicated to promoting white privilege and keeping down the black man (Hat tip: Ta-Nehisi Coates)–the Constitution never, ever mentions race.
{snip}
On one hand, we have noted legal expert Bill O’Reilly haranguing Donald Trump: “YOU WANT ME TO QUOTE YOU THE AMENDMENT??? IF YOU’RE BORN HERE YOU’RE AN AMERICAN. PERIOD! PERIOD!” (No, Bill–there’s no period. More like: “comma,” to parents born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.”)
But on the other hand, we have Justice John Marshall Harlan II, who despite not being a Fox News legal expert, was no slouch. He wrote in the 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment feared that:
“Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the ‘courts have stumbled on the subject,’ it would be prudent to remove the ‘doubt thrown over’ it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen’s right of citizenship because of birth.”
It is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it.
The majority opinion relied on feudal law regarding citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic–the illogic of which should be immediately apparent to American history buffs, who will recall an incident in our nation’s history known as “the American Revolution.”
Citizenship in a monarchy was all about geography–as it is in countries bristling with lords and vassals, which should not be confused with this country. Thus, under the majority’s logic in Wong Kim Ark, children born to American parents traveling in England would not be American citizens, but British subjects.
As ridiculous as it was to grant citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants under the 14th Amendment (which was about what again? That’s right: slaves freed by the Civil War), that’s a whole order of business different from allowing illegal aliens to sneak across the border, drop a baby and say, Ha-ha! You didn’t catch me! My kid’s a citizen–while Americans curse impotently under their breath.
As the Supreme Court said in Elk: “[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.”
The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Fox News is treating Brennan’s crayon scratchings on the Constitution as part of our precious national inheritance.
Judge Richard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge–and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”
The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”
{snip}
Our history and our Constitution are being perverted for the sole purpose of dumping immigrants on the country to take American jobs. So far, only Donald Trump is defending black history on the issue of the 14th Amendment. Fox News is using black people as a false flag to keep cheap Third World labor flowing.
Apparently our dumb politicians, judges included (Brennan) don’t understand the meaning of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” A foreign national is still subject to the laws of his own country, period. “Get that liberal”
"Where Revolution is the Solution" Taking back the Empire
