u/GeneralCarlosQ17

President Donald Trump is slated to read a few verses from the Bible Tuesday evening as part of the “America Reads The Bible” initiative.

The initiative kicked off on April 18 and ends April 25 and features Christian leaders, government officials, and celebrities all taking turns in reading the entire Bible. It goes from 9 a.m. – 9 p.m. ET every day:

Hosted by the nonprofit Christians Engaged, in partnership with Great American Pure Flix and a coalition of other ministries, the first “America Reads the Bible” week will be broadcast and streamed from the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C. The timing of it is aimed at setting a sacred tone before celebrations this summer marking America’s 250th anniversary.

On Tuesday, President Trump will take his turn, reading 2 Chronicles 7:11–22, which includes the well-known scripture, “If my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” The commander-in-chief is expected to read the verse from the Oval Office.

***Me thinks the Democrats and Rino's are protesting far to much!! If there are NO ISSUES why not allow the Counts? They expose Their Own more than obvious Corruption!!

Justice Elena Kagan has often been viewed as the most strategic and analytical of the Supreme Court’s three liberal justices. But what she’s also known for behind the scenes is being “emotionally abusive” to her law clerks.

According to a Daily Mail report released Monday, Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway’s new book, Alito: The Justice Who Reshaped the Supreme Court and Restored the Constitution, contains intriguing details about the inner workings of the court and its justices. While largely focusing on Justice Samuel Alito and his career, it also digs into each of his colleagues and their personas — including Kagan.

According to the outlet, Hemingway — “who spoke with over 100 former clerks and staff for the book” — reported that “several of Kagan’s former clerks, ‘along with others at the Court, have described her as “emotionally abusive,” “demanding, demoralizing, demeaning,” and “a hard a**.”‘” Others have seemingly compared her to Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, meaning that she moves from being “extremely kind to extremely angry,” Hemingway writes.

In the Interim is a recurring series by Taraleigh Davis on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, using data to help explain how it works.

Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak of the New York Times recently obtained and published the internal memos behind the Supreme Court’s February 2016 order staying President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, the signature environmental policy of his administration. The reporting is significant: this was the first time on the emergency docket that the Supreme Court halted such a major executive regulatory action before an appellate court ruled on it. And the leaked memos offer a rare look at the justices’ private deliberations in doing so.

As someone who has spent considerable time examining the emergency docket, I want to offer some additional context about what the memos show and what they don’t. The New York Times is correct that the court’s ruling – to halt such a pivotal executive action on its emergency docket – was something new. But the emergency docket was long in effect – and the nature of the court’s deliberations on it were hardly unprecedented.

A new audit has found that websites across the internet may be failing to abide by California privacy law, ignoring a requirement to not track visitors who set a privacy control.

The report, from researchers at webXray, a firm headed by a former Google privacy engineer, said the findings suggest major companies may be simply ignoring the law, and could point to “industrial-scale noncompliance with California requirements.”

The stakes are potentially high. WebXray estimates that if the California Privacy Protection Agency fined all of the websites it found failing to comply with the law, it could result in billions of dollars in penalties.

“While we don’t have comment on the finding of this specific report,” Tom Kemp, executive director of the privacy protection agency, said in a statement, “we do appreciate that the report brings visibility to the importance of opt out rights.”

Hungarian legislation shielding minors from exposure to LGBTQI+ dogma violates European Union (E.U.) law and hurts respect for human rights and equality, the bloc’s court ruled Tuesday.

The European Court of Justice said Hungary’s legislation, first proposed in 2021 by the government of outgoing Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, “stigmatizes and marginalizes” LGBTQI+ persons and their feelings, and fails to uphold the E.U.’s prohibition of discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation, AP reports.

Hungary’s law specifically prohibited the display of content to minors that depicts homosexuality or gender change, while also providing harsher penalties for crimes of pedophilia, and had been challenged for some time by the E.U. and its courts.

The U.S. Department of Education has proposed new rules aimed at holding colleges and universities accountable for programs that leave students with low-earning jobs as the federal student loan debt nears $1.7 trillion.

The proposal, outlined in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, would establish an accountability framework designed to address concerns that many students are financially worse off than if they had not attended college.

The plan is backed by the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, which is a part of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which aims to cut taxes, according to the department.

Under the proposal, programs that fail to meet earnings benchmarks in two out of three consecutive years could lose access to federal student loans. If failing programs account for at least half of an institution’s federal financial aid recipients or funding, they could also lose eligibility for Pell Grants.

The justices on Monday considered the proper relationship between state and federal courts and wrestled with confusion surrounding a doctrine addressing that relationship as they heard oral argument in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System.

The dispute began approximately three years ago, when a Maryland woman, identified only as T.M., was involuntarily admitted to Baltimore Washington Medical Center after experiencing a psychotic episode. Over the next three months, T.M. and her family filed several state and federal lawsuits against the hospital, challenging doctors’ treatment plan and seeking to secure her release. Most relevant to the Supreme Court case is the petition she filed in Maryland state court in May 2023, in which she alleged that her involuntary commitment was unlawful.

While that petition was pending, T.M., her family, hospital staff, and attorneys negotiated a settlement agreement that outlined conditions under which T.M. could be released, including that she would continue taking medicine prescribed by the hospital and begin seeing a new psychiatrist. In June 2023, the state judge assigned to T.M.’s case entered this agreement as a consent order, and T.M. was released from the hospital.

Royalty owners in New York are living the same nightmare California royalty owners face with SB 1137’

By Katy Grimes, April 20, 2026 2:13 pm

NARO-California, of the National Association of Royalty Owners, together with Pacific Legal Foundation announced in January their federal lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 1137, the 3,200-foot oil setback mandate that they argue violates the constitutional rights of oil and gas mineral and royalty owners.

According to NARO-CA and Pacific Legal Foundation, SB 1137 amounts to an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

The Globe reported in 2022 on Senate Bill 1137, gut-and-amend legislation by Democrat Senators Lena Gonzalez and Monique Limón, to require 3,200-foot mandatory setbacks around California oil and gas wells:

A comprehensive analysis has found that major online news aggregators including Google News, Yahoo News, and Microsoft Bing News overwhelmingly feature content from left-leaning media outlets, while almost completely excludinng right-leaning outlets.

The New York Post reports that a study conducted by AllSides, a nonpartisan organization that classifies news outlets according to their political leanings, has revealed significant disparities in the political balance of articles featured on major news aggregation platforms. The research found that only one percent of articles in non-customizable sections of Google News came from outlets classified as right-leaning, while 73 percent originated from left-leaning sources.

Updated Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) rules go into effect on Monday in Florida with many unhealthy items no longer available for purchase under the program, including soda, energy drinks, and candy.

The change to bar SNAP beneficiaries from using taxpayer dollars to purchase junk food formally went into effect on Monday, April 20, 2026, in the Sunshine State.

Under the new rules, basics such as meat, poultry, seafood, fruits, vegetables, bread, coffee, tea, and more are available for purchase through the welfare program.

However, key junk food items are now unavailable for purchase through the program. This includes soda, “ultra-processed” prepared desserts, and candy. Notably, recipients will still be able to purchase carbonated water that is naturally flavored as well as a few other carbonated beverages with the following stipulations, per Click Orlando:

does not include carbonated water that is plain or naturally flavored;
does not include any beverage that is over 50 percent vegetable or fruit juice by volume;
does not include a beverage with less than five grams of added sugar.

A beverage flavored with added sugar or artificial sweeteners is also off limits. Energy drinks — or a beverage containing at least 65 milligrams for every 8 oz — and marketed specifically for increased energy are also a no-go. Coffee, however, is still on the good list.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a case over whether a public school district violated parents’ rights by using preferred pronouns and a preferred name for their child.

The court’s decision keeps a lower court’s ruling in effect that rejects the claim by two Massachusetts parents. The parents complained that their child, who is in middle school, was allowed by school officials to socially transition without their knowledge.

Attorneys for the school said they began to refer to the student by a preferred name and pronouns after receiving an email from the student that read “I am genderqueer,” and requested the use of a new name and pronouns.

The parents asked that the school not have private discussions with their child on the subject and said they were seeking professional help.

The parents argue that the school encouraged their child to pursue these changes and that their right to raise their child as they choose under the 14th Amendment right to due process was violated. They filed a lawsuit against the school district in 2022.

The Supreme Court declined to take up a similar case out of Wisconsin in December.

A police officer in Washington, DC, celebrated as the first openly gay union chair is accused of grooming someone he believed was a teenage boy for sex.

Forty-seven-year-old Lt. Matthew Mahl was charged with soliciting child pornography and two counts of sexual solicitation of a minor, the New York Post reported Sunday.

The officer had been communicating with a person he believed was a 15-year-old named Nate on a Reddit site called “r/GayYoungOldDating.”

Mahl, who was the leader of the DC Police Union from 2016 to 2018, is accused of sending sexually explicit messages and naked photos to the individual, who was actually a detective working undercover.

Better Ballot Sacramento, a recent initiative of the League of Women Voters, is campaigning to bring ranked-choice voting to Sacramento’s mayor and city council races. They are now gathering signatures to get a ranked choice voting measure on the ballot.

Why? What’s wrong with the current voting system?

They claim it is “to replace costly primaries with a single, majority-winner election.”

And that’s where their claim breaks down. It’s not cost al all they care about; it’s power and control, and pushing the candidates they want.

Elsewhere across the country, “the ranked-choice voting racket is finally being recognized as a massive fraud — and voters are rejecting it nationwide,” the NY Post reported.

The National Republican Congressional Committee is reporting its most robust fundraising first quarter in its history. Evidence, the committee’s chairman says, of strong support for House candidates and the GOP agenda less than seven months out from the midterm elections.

NRCC’s record haul comes as congressional Republicans continue to lag Democrats in generic preference polls.

According to figures provided to The Federalist by the NRCC, the committee raised $47.1 million between January and March. It closed the quarter last month with $28.1 million in funds, the NRCC’s best March on record.

Immigration Matters is a recurring series by César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández that analyzes the court’s immigration docket, highlighting emerging legal questions about new policy and enforcement practices.

The future of President Donald Trump’s executive order attempting to limit access to birthright citizenship is now positioned for a final decision from the Supreme Court. Questioning from the justices, during approximately two hours of oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, suggests an icy reception for the Justice Department’s claim that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship turns on an innovative interpretation of the legal concept known as “domicile.” Without acceptance of that interpretation by the court, the Trump administration is unlikely to successfully defend the president’s directive.

As you’ll see below in the Morning Reads section, it was a busy weekend on the Supreme Court beat – to put it lightly. And we’ve got a busy week ahead, as today marks the start of the April argument session. We’re also just two days away from launching our redesigned website. At the Court

On Friday, the court released its unanimous opinion in Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, holding that oil and gas companies can move a lawsuit seeking to hold them liable for damage to the Louisiana coast back to the federal courts. For more on the decision, see the On Site section below.

After that opinion announcement, the justices met to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected this morning at 9:30 a.m. EDT.

Later on Friday, the court indicated that it may announce opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m. EDT. We will be live blogging that morning beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Homelessness is predicted to rise, while policies predicted to lower the homeless numbers only address part of the cause, according to analysts.

The annual Point-In-Time (PIT) count, conducted by the Continuums of Care for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), is a once‑a‑year estimate nationwide of the number of people experiencing homelessness, both sheltered and unsheltered, and provides insight into whether homelessness is on the rise or decline.

“It’s an imperfect measure,” Ryan Orsinger, director of Data Science and Research at Haven for Hope, told The Center Square. “If you get 100 volunteers in San Antonio one year, and you get a count, and then the next year you get 200 volunteers and they’re just all geared up, you could actually have a change in the measurement not based on the number of human beings who are actually experiencing homelessness, just because of measurement variance.”

Weather, volunteer engagement, and other factors influence the PIT count, leading to fluctuations in data and unreliable results. According to Orsinger, HUD is exploring ways to revamp the PIT count, potentially collecting more counts throughout the year to provide more accurate data.

rump invoked the Defense Production Act to make sure US military bases have fuel for their jets and their boats

By Katy Grimes, April 18, 2026 9:45 am

Another oil and gaslighting press release from California Governor Gavin Newsom was sent Friday at 5:00pm, claiming that oil prices have gone up because of President Trump.

Enjoy Newsom’s toothless claims in Fridays’s press dump:

“Governor Newsom exposes Trump’s Sable offshore pipeline lie: one month of oil, prices have only gone up.”

“California court affirms state law while Trump and Wright continue to lie to the American people on behalf of Big Oil.”

“What you need to know: A California judge today ruled that the Trump administration’s illegal order on the Sable offshore oil pipeline does not cancel out previous court rulings prohibiting the pipeline from restarting without meeting legal and safety requirements. U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright promised Americans that forcing the illegal restart of this California offshore pipeline would help lower gas prices nationwide. That’s a lie. This week marks one month of oil flow and gas prices are over $1 more per gallon in red states and blue states, regardless of whether they pump oil or have refineries.”