The DOJ continues to hide the real(ly small) numbers of noncitizens getting caught or accused of actually voting illegally. How do I know? They recently announced charges against 48 individuals. Were they all charged with illegally voting? Nope. Were these all from California? Nope Were these all from the 2024 election? Nope. In fact the charges span five different elections. Do charges = proof? No. The government has to prove its case. It's how our legal system works for everyone. How many successful prosecutions have there been for illegal voting in ALL elections in the United States since 1996 (30 years)? A grand total of 73. How many votes have been cast in all Presidential elections since 1996? Over 1,000,000,000 (one billion). What percentage of total votes cast have been proven to be illegally cast since 1996? 0.000006983394% Does California handle voter registration differently than other states? There's no citizenship check, it's just the voter signing their name stating they're a citizen. No, 40 states require only self-attestation under penalty of perjury (federal crime if you're lying). Doesn't the federal government require more than just a signature to register to vote? I mean, they're claiming California is completely fraudulent. No, the federal law regarding voter registration, 52 U.S.C. § 20508(b), also only requires that voters sign their name promising they're a citizen. So California is simply following federal law. So, when you think California is out of control, that there's widespread illegal voting going on, and that citizen votes are being canceled out, come back to the real world where facts don't paint that picture. Plus, think about this. Noncitizens, and especially illegal immigrants, are here in the United States for very specific reasons. Seeking a better life, safety from violence, temporary work Visas, etc. They're existence here is tenuous, and any little mistake could mean jail or a swift trip back home, undoing everything they risked up to that point. Do you really think one of the top things on their to-do list when they're in the United States is "cast a vote for President"? If it were so easy to vote illegally, why are we hearing about numbers so small they wouldn't even affect a local school board election?

BREAKING 🚨 DOJ lawyer Donnelly to the 9th circuit in today's emergency hearing: "We can't tell you how our list was created or what 3rd party NGOs helped to process it, but we're positive our list of 20,000 likely noncitizens is reliable because a DHS employee signed their name attesting to its reliability." You can't make this stuff up. DOJ case is getting destroyed. So the case they're arguing against California, that voter registration that doesn't require proof of citizenship but simply an attestation under penalty of perjury, is highly suspect and not secure, but the signature of one DHS employee attesting to the reliability of this list, is valid.

Blocked me cuz he can't handle discussion of facts. 😂

Hey @Delta I'm flying home tomorrow with my 12yo son. You upgraded us to Comfort+ at my checkin time and now, instead of being seated next to each other, you've separated us into different rows. Your customer service apparently can't do anything, and our old seats are already claimed. I've been told I have to cross my fingers and show up to the airport tomorrow to see what the gate agents can fix for me. Why have you suddenly made my trip home extra stressful? Why would you split up a dad and kid? Please help

Critics frequently cite three Supreme Court decisions—Houchins, Pell, and Zemel—to claim the press has no right to enter the White House. While these rulings are authentic, using them to justify viewpoint bans fundamentally misapplies their holdings. Let's walk through the facts. Houchins v. KQED (1978) & Pell v. Procunier (1974): Both cases addressed whether journalists have a special constitutional right to inspect closed, non-public prisons to gather information on demand. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment does not grant the press elevated access beyond what is available to the general public. Why they don’t apply: These cases address closed doors. Nobody disputes that the president can close the Oval Office or end daily briefings entirely. But Houchins and Pell do not hold that once the government does open a facility to the press, it can pick and choose who gets in based on political loyalty or editorial perspective. Zemel v. Rusk (1965): A citizen sued over travel bans to Cuba, arguing his First Amendment right to gather information entitled him to a passport validation. Chief Justice Earl Warren famously noted that the right to publish does not include an unrestrained right to gather information, remarking that "entry into the White House is not a First Amendment right." Why it doesn’t apply: The Court was stating that a citizen cannot simply barge into the White House uninvited under the banner of free speech. It was not reviewing a formal press credentialing program where the government admits dozens of news outlets while selectively barring critical ones. The Bedrock Principle When the government establishes a press room or pool system, it creates a limited forum governed by landmark Supreme Court precedent (Rosenberger v. UVA, Perry Education Ass'n). In any government forum, viewpoint discrimination is an automatic constitutional violation. The White House can legally restrict room capacity, enforce security clearances, and mandate objective professional criteria (Sherrill). However, selectively barring or revoking the passes of specific news organizations because an administration deems their coverage unfavorable or "dishonest" is textbook viewpoint retaliation—a practice federal courts, including Trump-appointed judges, have consistently struck down.

"Where in the Constitution does it say a reporter has a right to access the White House or have a seat in the briefing room?" The claim that the White House can revoke press credentials at will because they are "a privilege, not a right" is fundamentally incompatible with modern constitutional law. In American jurisprudence, the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine establishes that even when the government provides a discretionary benefit, license, or privilege that it was never obligated to offer, it cannot withhold, condition, or revoke that privilege to penalize someone's protected speech. Once the government creates an accreditation process and opens a limited public forum to journalists, the First Amendment strictly forbids revoking that access based on viewpoint or critical coverage, and the Fifth Amendment bars doing so without published standards and procedural due process. ​This principle is supported by several bedrock cases. In Perry v. Sindermann (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that a non-tenured professor could not be denied contract renewal over public criticism of the board, establishing that even if a citizen has no inherent right to a valuable government benefit, the government cannot deny or revoke that benefit to penalize constitutionally protected speech. In Speiser v. Randall (1958), the Court held that California could not deny a property tax exemption, an undisputable government privilege, to military veterans who refused to sign a loyalty oath disclaiming subversive speech. In Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996), the Court held that an independent contractor could not have his at-will municipal trash-hauling contract terminated in retaliation for his public criticism of county commissioners, confirming that discretionary government contracts carry First Amendment protections against political retaliation. In Elrod v. Burns (1976), the Court ruled that non-policymaking county employees could not be discharged based on their political party affiliation, proving that public employment cannot be conditioned on partisan loyalty even under traditional at-will hiring principles. Finally, in Sherrill v. Knight (1977), the federal appeals court applied these exact principles to White House press passes, holding that while journalists have no automatic right to enter the building, once a dedicated press facility is established, access becomes a constitutionally protected First Amendment liberty interest that cannot be denied arbitrarily, based on viewpoint, or without Fifth Amendment due process. ​The entire premise of the "privilege" argument assumes that if the government can choose not to hand something out, it holds unlimited power over how it takes it away. Under the Constitution, the power to grant or deny an entry pass does not include the power to violate the Bill of Rights. A city does not have to build a public park, but once it does, it cannot ban protesters whose views it dislikes. A state does not have to issue vanity license plates, but it cannot revoke one because the driver criticized the governor. Saying a press pass is a privilege simply means the White House is not required to let every single citizen through the front gate. It does not mean the President can use access as a political weapon by admitting outlets that provide favorable coverage while stripping credentials from those that ask tough questions, publish critical reports, or whom he arbitrarily deems "fake news".

"No one is silencing their speech. They're free to report from the sidewalk." Hearing this argument quite a lot in the complaining about President Trump not being able to banish news outlets like CNN, MSNOW and Politico he doesn't like. Claiming that banishing a disfavored reporter to the sidewalk doesn't violate the Constitution fundamentally misunderstands how First Amendment forum law works. Telling a journalist they can "still report from the street" is legally identical to a mayor telling citizens who oppose a city council project that they can scream their complaints in the parking lot while supporters take the seats inside. Under Supreme Court precedent (Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, Rosenberger v. UVA), the government cannot establish a designated public forum and then manipulate physical boundaries to favor flattering viewpoints while exiling critics. More specifically, binding federal precedent in Sherrill v. Knight established nearly fifty years ago that once the White House opens its doors to the press corps, accredited access constitutes a protected First Amendment liberty interest. Depriving a reporter of that credential because you dislike their coverage violates both the First Amendment's ban on viewpoint retaliation and the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process—and forcing them onto the sidewalk to watch a livestream does not cure an illegal constitutional injury.

Imagine your small-town city council is getting ready to vote on a controversial new project—say, approving a massive data center right on the edge of town. Because city hall is small, the council chamber only has space for about 50 people. The council members are almost entirely in favor of the deal, but hundreds of residents are deeply divided, with plenty of folks concerned about water usage, noise, and tax breaks. The agenda includes an open public-comment period where residents can speak for three minutes each. Knowing the crowd will be huge, the mayor makes a sudden announcement at the door: "Due to space limits, we have to prioritize. Anyone who is speaking in favor of the data center can take a seat inside the chamber at the microphone. If you are against the project, you’ll have to stand outside in the parking lot. Don't worry, we set up a big TV monitor out there so you can watch the livestream, and you're totally free to voice your opposition out on the sidewalk." When residents object, the mayor shrugs and says: "City hall is a secured municipal facility. Nobody has an automatic right to enter a secured building, and we aren't censoring you—you still have free speech out on the sidewalk." Would you be okay with this? Of course not. Once a government voluntarily opens a public room and creates a forum for discussion, the First and Fourteenth Amendments strictly prohibit officials from sorting people at the door based on which side they take. The government cannot use its physical doors to reward supporters and banish critics to the parking lot. If that’s unconstitutional for a city council meeting, why would the Constitution permit a president to do the exact same thing to accredited journalists in the White House briefing room?

Trump is illegally and unconstitutionally revoking press passes. Yes, it's a 1A issue. No, Biden culling passes is not the same thing. Yes, courts have ruled against previous administrations, including a Trump appointee ruling against Trump. Happy to educate if you want to learn.

Stunning double rainbow in Layton this afternoon #utwx

Hey Hulu, why is your brand new sports tracker option two years out of date? You have a team, the Arizona Coyotes, that moved to Utah in 2024. Might want to get that fixed. @hulu_support

Amazing lightning storm tonight over Davis County. This is 5x speed, 2 1/2 minutes of electricity #utwx @NWSSaltLakeCity

Excellent lightning show tonight in Layton @NWSSaltLakeCity #utwx

Utah Mammoth fans, I'm trying to find a good home for these custom boardshorts! They're for someone probably size 40 or 42. Way too big for me, I made them. Send me a DM if you're interested! @NOlczyk16, @BagleyKSLsports or @SCMerrifield know anyone? #utahmammoth

Hey @utahmammoth nation, anyone want a pair of custom Mammoth board shorts? I made them for myself but they are too big. They'll fit someone who wears a 40 or 42 size. Send me a DM! They're super nice material, I'm definitely reordering the right size. #utahmammoth

And another one, really? Now we've got Julia Reagan selling scriptures on billboards? Let her rest in peace, Utah!

OK this Julia Reagan thing is just getting out of hand. What are we doing, Utah?

For those arguing about Utah's total c02 emissions using bad data, here's the actual most recent verifiable data. Utah puts out 55 million tons a year, 20th in the US. Any estimate of a higher number is using old data. eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?…