Fox News RSS Feed

As the debate over birthright citizenship is debated in the Supreme Court, resurfaced videos of top Democrats echoing the argument of the Trump administration sparked a conservative uproar on social media.

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant?" Former U.S. Senator Harry Reid said on the Senate floor in 1993. 

"No sane country would do that. Right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and [a] guarantee of full access to all public and social services this society provides — and that’s a lot of services."

Reid, who served in the Senate as a Democrat for 30 years and was Senate Majority Leader for 8 years, was speaking about the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993 which he introduced. The legislation was a broad immigration reform package that included a provision to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. to mothers who were neither U.S. citizens nor lawful permanent residents.

CHINESE ELITES EXPLOITING US BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AT ‘INDUSTRIAL SCALE,’ EXPERT WARNS

Reid, who died in 2021 at the age of 82, ultimately changed his tune on the legislation and said in 2018 that the bill was a "mistake."

Many on social media quickly pointed to Reid’s lofty stature within the Democratic Party and wondered aloud why he is not labeled "racist" the same way Republicans who oppose birthright citizenship often are.

"WOW," conservative influencer Libs of TikTok posted on X. "Senator Harry Reid, a DEMOCRAT, introduced a bill in 1993 to END birthright citizenship for illegal aliens .But if Trump wants to do it, Democrats call it ‘rAcIsT.’"

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT’S BLOCKBUSTER BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE

"Lots of Democrats supported him," actor Kevin Sorbo posted on X. "They change their minds to fit whatever narrative suits them. That's why they can't be trusted."

"Democrats once said ‘no sane country’ would give birthright citizenship to illegal aliens," Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) posted on X. "Now, breaking our laws is rewarded with full US citizenship and access to every government benefit. SCOTUS should END this exploitation once and for all!"

"Harry Reid was right," Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, posted on X.

 Another Democrat, the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein from California, also became fodder on social media in recent days over similar comments on immigration that were viewed over 8 million times after being posted by MAZE, a conservative influencer account on X. 

"Should you have a system where people can come to this country, even if they’re well-to-do?" Feinstein said in 1993.  Get on Medicaid and give birth to a baby, then go back. The answer is no! And we know that Medicaid laws are being used and abused to do just this in the state of California. I’d like to see that stop."

The resurfaced posts come as the Trump administration argues at the Supreme Court in favor of an executive order signed on the president's first day back in office, which seeks to end automatic citizenship for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S.

The high-stakes case brought into focus more than a century of executive branch action, Supreme Court precedent, and the text of the Constitution itself — or, more specifically, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment — which the administration argues has been misinterpreted in the more than 100 years since its passage.

Fox News Digital's Breanne Deppisch contributed to this report.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/fy394vu
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

If you thought the Congressional appropriations process couldn’t get any worse, I present you with 2026. And perhaps beyond.

The Department of Homeland Security remains shut down, running on pocket lint, nickels lost between the couch cushions and faded S&H Green Stamps (look ‘em up, kids). Congress hasn’t funded DHS for two months. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., torqued himself into a political pretzel – opposing, then supporting, then not acting on – a Senate-approved package to fund most of DHS.

As we always say, it’s about the math, and when it comes to DHS money, it appears that lawmakers have locked a box to which they lack the combination. There is apparently no sequence of votes in the House and Senate which can crack the DHS safe as a traditional, standalone appropriations bill. 

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: WHY TRUMP MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FORCE CONGRESS BACK OVER THE DHS SHUTDOWN

Now, Congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump are turning to one of the few methods which might work to fund DHS – something called budget reconciliation.

The Congressional budget reconciliation process is not customarily used for appropriations bills – although lawmakers can plug the measure with money to spend on federal programs. However, reconciliation is inoculated from filibusters. Thus, Republicans don’t need 60 votes. They can – ostensibly – pass a DHS bill on its own without help from Democrats if they hold their narrow coalitions together in both the House and Senate.

Congressional Republicans intend to stuff this reconciliation package with only money for ICE and Customs and Border Patrol. Nothing for disaster aid. Nothing for farmers. Nothing about the SAVE America Act. The president agrees. The goal is to finish this by June 1 – months after the latest DHS funding lapse.

But it’s more complicated than that. 

GOP INFIGHTING REPLACES CLASH WITH DEMS, DERAILS PATH TO END HISTORIC DHS SHUTDOWN

The House and Senate must take a number of steps to approve a shell of a budget resolution in order to have the filibuster-proof reconciliation tool available to them. Republicans undertook a similar endeavor last winter and spring. It was absolutely harrowing and consumed months before finally approving the One, Big, Beautiful Bill, via reconciliation. Republicans don’t have that kind of time now. Then again, DHS has either been unfunded or held together by interim spending bills since last October.

We haven’t even mentioned how Trump is using a somewhat dubious authority to pay TSA workers and others from other funds – without Congressional approval.

That leaves some to question why the administration didn’t do this to start with. But the bigger issue is an alarming pattern of Congress ceding its most precious prerogative – the power of the purse – to the executive branch. That’s to say nothing as to whether Trump’s gambit to pay workers is even Constitutional. And, it establishes a precedent which may be hard to ignore during other funding impasses.

However, here’s the bigger problem: the Congressional paralysis to pass appropriations bills on a timely basis. That’s been an issue for years now.

Historically, Congress has missed the Oct. 1 fiscal deadline, relying on "Continuing Resolutions" (CR’s) which simply renew all funding on a temporary basis. Or, lawmakers cobble together a set of the 12 annual spending bills in a "minibus" appropriations package. Lawmakers who might oppose an individual bill are willing to support a group of bills – because there’s something in there which they like or support.

But turning to reconciliation as a way out of the appropriations box canyon is also another precedent which likely agitates Congressional appropriators. Sure. They’ve done that before. And in this instance, it might finally get DHS funded. But what does this mean for the future?

Which brings us to Oct. 1, 2026. That’s when the federal government pivots from Fiscal Year 2026 to start Fiscal Year 2027. 

Congress has struggled to fund the federal government since early 2025, when it began work on appropriations bills for this year. The FY ’26 funding crisis – which spawned the record-breaking, 43-day, government-wide shutdown in the fall, another partial government shutdown last winter and the current DHS stalemate – has been an issue since lawmakers were working on bills for this cycle around this time LAST spring. So how pray tell is Congress going to avoid a shutdown THIS autumn for FY ’27?

In fact, few are even speaking about that possible peril – because no one can wrap their heads around the present appropriations saga. And it’s possible that this fall’s problems could be worse than last fall’s impasse. The reason? The midterm elections hit in November. It’s doubtful that either side will be willing to make much of a deal right before voters head to the polls.

The scenarios are frightening to fathom, so people are just kind of ignoring them.

SEE IT: LAWMAKERS CAUGHT ON VACATION AMID RECORD-BREAKING SHUTDOWN WHILE DHS WORKERS GO UNPAID

We have entered a new period of semi-perpetual funding standoffs – exacerbated by mistrust between the sides, narrow Congressional margins in both the House and Senate, parliamentary mathematical equations which don’t balance and an unwillingness by Trump to broker deals or even negotiate with Democrats.

Yes. They have options to cover DHS into next year, but it’s the other 11 spending bills which could be problematic.

Imagine trying to pass a defense spending bill which has a price tag 44% higher than the one last year? Or tacks a bunch of money on for the war in Iran?

Where’s the vote combination to approve a CR, let alone an individual bill? Will Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., be willing to help Republicans hit the 60 vote threshold to fund things? Especially if he sees the possibility of emerging again as Majority Leader? Probably not.

And let’s say Democrats win the House, Senate or both in the fall? Do you really think these spending standoffs get better over the final two years of Trump’s term?

Back to Chevy Chase and Clark Griswold. There’s a second part to that iconic quotation from Christmas Vacation: "We’re at the threshold of hell!" he declares.

Pretty funny, but not if you’re trying to keep the government open after the adventures of the past year. This is not hilarious to millions of federal workers who suffer from paycheck PTSD. Another round of spending mayhem could only erode further trust between federal workers and their employers. It will damage morale – which is already subterranean. That’s to say nothing of courting people to work for the government.

Yes. Things can get a lot worse. The political schisms are deep and the vote matrices to pass the bills simply don’t exist.

It may be spring, but the Christmas Vacation movie provides insight into where we stand with the Congressional appropriations bills: "It’s Christmas and we’re all in misery," declares Ellen Griswold, played by Beverly D’Angelo.

Yeah. And wait to see what Congress has in store for THIS Christmas.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/vrtqcDg
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

FREEPORT, Bahamas — Brian Hooker spent about 8 hours paddling his way across a 4.5-mile channel in the Bahamas after his wife reportedly fell off their 8-foot dinghy before anyone notified police.

Bahamian officials said Lynette Hooker, 55, and Brian Hooker, 58, departed from Hope Town's Abaco Inn at around 7:30 p.m. on April 4 and went on a smaller boat, referred to as a dinghy, to travel to their yacht. Brian Hooker reportedly told officials that Lynette fell into the water with the ignition key, which caused the engine to cut off. Brian told authorities that the current carried Lynette away, and he paddled the dinghy toward a marina at Marsh Harbour. The couple was originally headed to their yacht in Elbow Cay.

Local authorities said that Brian Hooker arrived at a marina at Marsh Harbour at around 4 a.m. on April 5, roughly 8 hours after Lynette Hooker went overboard.

A staff member at the Marsh Harbour marina told Fox News Digital that the husband walked along the south shoreline before arriving at the dock area, which may have required covering a significant distance on foot. Once at the marina, he went to an office and reported that his wife was missing, prompting staff to call police.

DAUGHTER OF MISSING AMERICAN WOMAN IN BAHAMAS SAYS THERE WERE 'PRIOR ISSUES,' CALLS FOR FULL INVESTIGATION

What remains unclear is whether Brian Hooker had access to his phone, or cell service, during those 8 hours on the water. His attorney didn't respond to requests for comment from Fox News Digital.

Lynette's daughter, Karli Aylesworth, told Fox News Digital that the couple usually carried phones on them while boating.

Dimitry Malinsky, founder and CEO of IntraTEM, a telecommunications company, told Fox News Digital individuals can likely receive cellphone reception, even if it's spotty, over the 4.5-mile channel Brian Hooker paddled his dinghy through.

AMERICAN COUPLE CHASING RETIREMENT DREAM IN BAHAMAS BOATING MYSTERY WERE 'INEXPERIENCED': FRIEND

He said, however, some of the more remote Bahamian keys don't get cell service.

"If it's a remote key, like some of those remote keys in the Bahamas, it would be just as if you're in the ocean and not by land because if there are no cell towers," Malinsky said.

Criminal defense attorney Donna Rotunno told Fox News Digital it would be difficult to prove if Brian Hooker's phone had service, if investigators determine he had access to it.

AMERICAN COUPLE'S BAHAMAS DINGHY WAS ILL-EQUIPPED FOR CONDITIONS NIGHT OF WIFE'S DISAPPEARANCE: FRIEND

WATCH: Daughter of missing American woman in Bahamas says there was 'history of domestic violence'

"They may be able to show whether or not he was trying to conduct an outgoing call and he couldn't. But then again, if you're on some paddle boat trying to, you know, my guess is if he jumped in the water or if he tried to help her in any way, the phone was either left on the boat or the phone is in his pocket and then useless because of the water," Rotunno said. "Is that evidence? Yes. How compelling it is. We don't have that answer yet."

Brian Hooker’s lawyer, Terrel Butler, told Fox News Digital she doesn’t know whether her client had a cellphone on him the night his wife vanished.

Whether or not Brian Hooker had cell service, one local told Fox News Digital that the journey to Marsh Harbour presented a formidable physical challenge.

FOLLOW THE FOX TRUE CRIME TEAM ON X

A man who knew Brian and Lynette Hooker told Fox News Digital that paddling 4.5 miles from near Hope Town to Marsh Harbour without a working engine was a "Herculean" task, which is what officials say Brian Hooker did.

"To row four miles, the oars suck on the dinghies and they're very difficult to go anywhere. To row four is a Herculean task in these dinghies — we upgraded our oars because we couldn't go anywhere with the stock oars and it's really a Herculean task and it says a lot that he was able to even physically row that distance in the conditions," he said.

SIGN UP TO GET TRUE CRIME NEWSLETTER

Butler said on Friday that police were questioning Brian Hooker on a potential charge of causing harm resulting in death. The interview went from 11 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., Butler said.

Police, however, didn't question him about any physical or forensic evidence found, rather focusing on what the couple was doing in the Bahamas and what happened in the hours prior to Lynette falling out of the dinghy. He was also questioned on allegations of violence made by Lynette's daughter.

SEND US A TIP HERE

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Butler said her client denies the allegations made by Aylesworth.

LISTEN TO THE NEW 'CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO' PODCAST

"Mr. Hooker categorically and unequivocally denies any wrongdoing and in particular the allegations recently made by Karli Aylesworth. He has been cooperating with the relevant authorities as part of an ongoing investigation," Butler said.

Butler on Thursday night said that Hooker voluntarily gave a statement to police believing he was helping them find Lynette.

Brian Hooker hasn't been charged with any crime. Butler told Fox News Digital that police had until 7:20 p.m. on Friday to either file charges, release his client, or request an extension of detainment. When that deadline passed, Butler said police extended it and Brian would remain in custody until 7 p.m. Monday.

LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? FIND MORE ON THE TRUE CRIME HUB

The U.S. State Department has issued a level 2 travel advisory for the Bahamas. Americans are urged to "exercise increased caution" due to crime, beach safety, as well as jet ski and boating dangers.

A spokesperson for the State Department previously told Fox News Digital the agency is aware of reports regarding the missing American and is working with Bahamian authorities.

The State Department declined to share any additional details.

Boating in the Bahamas isn't well regulated, and the State Department has said that "injuries and deaths have occurred."

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/mktifuY
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

One blue state is failing to enact adequate voting safeguards and refusing to correct its mistakes ahead of November’s midterm elections, an election integrity watchdog warns.

Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections (RITE), a nonpartisan organization focused on election security, alleges the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) stonewalled a request to fix the state’s voter registration form to comply with federal voting law.

The watchdog sent the NYSBOE a letter in late 2025 outlining several violations they claimed could undermine the state’s election integrity if left unaddressed. 

After the board failed to correct most of the violations, RITE and Tenney are demanding the board hand over comprehensive records and data to identify additional shortcomings in the state's voter registration system.

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER OVERHAULING MAIL-IN VOTING IN MAJOR ELECTION INTEGRITY PUSH

 "Your lack of a response is troubling and disregards the need to ensure public trust that New York is maintaining accurate voter rolls as required by federal law," they wrote in a letter to the NYSBOE earlier this week that was obtained by Fox News Digital. 

If the board does not meet their May 2026 deadline, RITE and Tenney say they are prepared to go to federal court to enforce compliance with federal law.

The watchdog alleges two errors in New York State’s voter registration forms that violate the Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

First, New York State did not instruct individuals that they must provide their driver’s license information if they have one. It also continued registering individuals who did not provide a driver’s license, the last four digits of their Social Security number or a declaration that the applicant has neither, as required by federal law.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT’S TWO DECADES OF UNLAWFUL VOTES EXPOSE THE REAL 'THREAT' TO DEMOCRACY: EXPERTS

These errors have, in part, led to millions of New York voters providing incomplete information during the registration process, making it more difficult for the state to accurately maintain voter lists, according to RITE.

RITE and and Tenney also allege the board did not perform a requested audit to identify how many incomplete voter registration applications have been processed.

A 2022 report from the conservative Public Interest Legal Foundation found that at least 3.1 million New York registered voters have not provided a driver’s license or Social Security number on their application form.

"The law is clear: states may not accept registration forms that lack required identifying information," RITE President Justin Riemer said in a statement. New York’s own regulations direct officials to do exactly that. This flagrant violation of an important federal safeguard significantly erodes the integrity of New York’s voter registration system."

"We are committed to getting answers about the breadth of the problem and ensuring the state fixes it," Riemer added.

Tenney, who is chair of the Election Integrity Caucus, said she has called for an investigation into the NYSBOE since 2022.

"Transparency and accurate voter rolls are essential to maintaining public trust in our elections," the New York Republican said in a statement. "The people of New York deserve answers, accountability, and full compliance with HAVA to ensure the integrity of every vote."

The New York City Board of Elections system has also come under recent scrutiny for failing to enact adequate safeguards.

One of its employees declined to block a reporter who was posing as a noncitizen from attempting to register to vote, according to video footage obtained by Fox News Digital in February.

Fox News Digital reached out to the New York State Board of Elections for comment.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/TpxCz7B
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

Imagine building a solution to a problem you never fully defined.

That’s where we are with airspace sovereignty. Especially when it comes to drones.

We’ve spent billions of dollars on counter-UAS systems (C-UAS), deploying sensors and expanding capabilities. For many officials, C-UAS has become the solution. The problem is, it was never the full problem to begin with.

Before we talk about stopping drones, we should answer a more basic question: which ones belong in the air?

BORDER ON THE BRINK AS CARTEL DRONES FORCE US TO ACT AFTER YEARS OF PARALYSIS

We can’t answer that with confidence.

We’ve gotten better at seeing the sky. But seeing is not the same as knowing what is flying in it.

Today, when a drone appears in controlled airspace, we can detect it and track it. With Remote ID, we can occasionally determine who’s operating it. What we cannot do, quickly and with certainty, is determine whether that drone is authorized, meaning the aircraft, the operator, and the mission are approved and operating as intended.

And in airspace security, speed is everything. This isn’t a problem you solve in minutes or hours. Decisions have to be made in seconds. In that moment, operators need to answer three questions: Is it authorized? Is it compliant? Is it a threat?

If you can’t answer those questions immediately, you don’t control your airspace.

That’s the gap.

US MILITARY SHOT DOWN PARTY BALLOON NEAR EL PASO AFTER SUSPECTING DRONE, OFFICIAL SAYS

In traditional aviation, that gap is managed far more effectively. Operations in controlled airspace tie together a verified operator, a known aircraft, and an approved flight plan, all continuously monitored.

The stakes are higher, but so is the structure, and the time to respond. Aircraft operate from known locations, along defined routes, over longer periods of time.

Drones don’t operate that way.

TRUMP ADMIN CUTS RED TAPE ON COMMERCIAL DRONES TO COMPETE WITH CHINA'S DOMINANCE OF THE MARKET

They can be launched from less than a mile away and reach a target in minutes, often without any of those elements being reliably connected or visible in real time.

Today, who is flying, what they are flying, and why they are flying are not reliably connected, consistently verified, or available in real time to the people responsible for making decisions.

In complex airspace like the National Capital Region, this problem becomes impossible to ignore. A single drone operation may require approvals from multiple jurisdictional authorities, each operating through separate systems and timelines. There is no unified view of what’s been approved, no shared system to see what’s happening in real time, and no reliable way to ensure that an approved operation is doing what it was approved to do.

BRETT VELICOVICH: ‘MYSTERY’ DRONES ARE NO MYSTERY, THEY ARE A DANGEROUS THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY

Authorization today isn’t a system. It’s a patchwork. An operator might go through LAANC, DroneZone, a COA, a waiver, or even a chain of emails and phone calls to get approval. Few of these systems talk to each other. Few provide a shared, real-time picture. None were built for the kind of airspace we’re trying to manage today.

Even when a drone is fully authorized, no one can immediately know that. The people responsible for securing the airspace are left piecing together fragments, seeing a drone, checking what they can, and then making a judgment call.

That’s not sovereignty. That’s uncertainty.

This didn’t happen because people aren’t paying attention.

Federal, state, and local law enforcement, among others, are all actively working this problem, and they’re doing it the way they were trained to, as a threat.

That’s not a criticism. It’s reality.

PENTAGON EXPLORING COUNTER-DRONE SYSTEMS TO PREVENT INCURSIONS OVER NATIONAL SECURITY FACILITIES

This is a security issue.

But it’s also an airspace problem.

And unless you’ve operated in both environments, it’s easy to focus on how to stop the threat before fully understanding how the airspace is supposed to work.

PENTAGON WATCHDOG WARNS DRONE INCURSIONS REQUIRE 'IMMEDIATE ATTENTION' AT US MILITARY BASES

I’ve seen this from both sides, operationally and from a security perspective.

I was asked during a congressional hearing, "If you’re not sure, why not just shoot it down?" It’s a fair question, until you consider where these operations happen.

Over cities. Over crowds. Over critical infrastructure.

Because when you don’t know what’s flying, what it’s carrying, or what it’s doing, you don’t know what happens when it falls. That’s not policy. That’s physics.

We’ve spent years building the ability to respond. We never built the ability to define it.

Without that distinction, every drone becomes a question, and when every drone is a question, every decision becomes slower, harder, and riskier.

More sensors, better detection, and improved counter-drone systems are necessary. But they don’t solve the problem on their own.

What’s missing is a system that establishes trust before a drone takes off and maintains it throughout the operation.

The missing piece is a fully integrated Digital Flight Authorization System (DFAS).

It replaces today’s fragmented processes with a single system, scattered approvals with one authoritative source, and uncertainty with a real-time picture of what is authorized, who is operating, and what they are doing. It binds the operator, the aircraft, and the mission into a single, verifiable identity and confirms conformance in real time.

Instead of guessing, decision-makers know. In seconds.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

That’s the difference between reacting to the sky and controlling it.

Airspace sovereignty isn’t about seeing more. It’s about knowing.

The President has set the standard: "It is the policy of the United States to ensure control of our national airspace."

That’s the right goal. But control isn’t achieved by seeing more. Control comes from knowing.

Until we can know, in seconds, who is flying, what they are flying, and why, we haven’t finished the job. And until we implement the system required to deliver that mandate, we won’t.

We’re not securing our skies. We’re leaving them exposed. And that’s not control.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/wtRyjBX
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

The Artemis II mission to the moon is nearing completion, but first comes a safe splashdown off the San Diego coast.

The Orion spacecraft, carrying four astronauts, is expected to return Friday, with the U.S. Navy helping recover the capsule and crew from the Pacific Ocean.

San Diego, a city with deep Navy roots, is playing a central role in that effort. Several bases in the area are helping lead the recovery, bringing a sense of pride and excitement to the community.

Locals and visitors from across the country are expected to gather along the coastline and at museums throughout the area to witness the crew’s homecoming.

ARTEMIS II ASTRONAUTS SHOW OFF APOLLO 18 FLAG FROM SPACE

"We’re back in the game of deep space," said Jim Kidrick, president and CEO of the San Diego Air and Space Museum. "You go back to General Patton, World War II, you know, Americans love a winner… and will not tolerate a loser."

The mission marks the latest chapter in space exploration, wrapping up, at least for now, off the Southern California coast.

The astronauts aboard Orion are on their way home after traveling around the moon, reaching more than 252,000 miles from Earth.

"I think people have been rejuvenated by one word that’s going on in space today, and that’s the moon," Kidrick added.

ARTEMIS II PILOT VICTOR GLOVER’S DAUGHTER STEALS SPOTLIGHT WITH TRIBUTE 

At the museum, the story of the Apollo program is once again front and center, as attention shifts back to deep space more than 50 years later.

"There are so many…historic moments that have happened. So it’s kind of cool to just be a part of one of them," said Abigail Lawrence, who is visiting from Utah.

Others visiting San Diego for the splashdown shared similar excitement.

"You know what? What could be better than coming back to San Diego? I don’t know, I can’t think of anything. Anything," said Sheila Haas.

San Diego-based sailors are also on the front lines, working with NASA to recover the Orion capsule from the Pacific and bring it aboard the USS John P. Murtha, a Navy landing platform dock (LPD).

"I’m just happy to see that the Navy is able to use an LPD for such a peaceful mission," said Navy veteran David Haas. "The LPD are good all around ships for all sorts of things. And so it just makes me happy."

After re-entry, Navy recovery teams will secure the spacecraft and help the crew out safely.

"Our Navy certainly, with the NASA rescue team, all making sure that those astronauts finish up that mission wonderfully well and very safely," Kidrick said.

Back at the Air and Space Museum, thousands of eyes are expected to be on the sky Friday evening, with a sense of hope that a new generation will continue the push into deep space.

"We can help inspire, educate, get them excited… those young boys and girls who are really going to be those next generations," Kidrick said. "There can’t just be one greatest generation…The generations that follow you are gonna have a wonderful future because somebody will land on Mars." 

For Artemis II to land off the San Diego coast, there cannot be any rain or thunderstorms within 35 miles of the splashdown zone.

Forecasters are currently monitoring a storm in the Pacific, but so far, conditions for Friday appear to be on track.

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/LNtoaVK
via IFTTT

Fox News RSS Feed

It was, and I don't say this lightly, a jaw-dropping moment. 

I'm sitting here with the TV on and all of a sudden there's a live shot of Melania Trump, reading a speech at the White House. 

A speech about Jeffrey Epstein. A speech about how she's being smeared in connection with the late pedophile. 

None of the journalists knew what to say. The first lady, talking about Epstein. Reporters were told she would be making remarks, but not the subject matter. Only that it would be newsy.

EPSTEIN'S LAWYER 'NOT AWARE' OF ANY RELATIONSHIP TRUMP HAD WITH LATE CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER, COMER SAYS

"I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, [Ghislaine] Maxwell. My email reply to Maxwell cannot be categorized as anything more than casual correspondence. My polite reply to her email doesn't amount to anything more than a travel note. I am not Epstein's victim. Epstein did not introduce me to Donald Trump. I met my husband by chance at a New York City party in 1998," the first lady said in her speech.

There was pain in her voice. The three-minute speech, read in her accented English, was not easy for her. 

When the Epstein files were released, there was correspondence between Maxwell, who called her "Sweet pea," and Melania signed hers "Love." Hardly a big deal.

I didn't know there were any rumors about Melania Trump and Epstein. It seemed clear that the first lady was trying to get out ahead of something — but what?

This had the feeling of the tip of an iceberg. 

They first crossed paths in 2000: "I had never met Epstein and had no knowledge of his criminal undertakings. Numerous fake images and statements about Epstein and me have been calculating [circulating]on social media for years now. Be cautious about what you believe. These images and stories are completely false."

Epstein pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in 2008 and served an absurdly light sentence of 13 months in Florida. And Donald Trump knew of his relationship with underage girls, having called Palm Beach authorities about it back in 2006. 

KARL ROVE: TRUMP DROPPED BONDI, BUT THE REAL POLITICAL FIGHT IS JUST BEGINNING

Still, Melania said, "I have never had any knowledge of Epstein’s abuse of his victims. I was never involved in any capacity. I was not a participant. Was never on Epstein's plane and never visited his private island. I have never been legally accused or convinced [convicted] of a crime in connection with Epstein. Sex trafficking, abuse of minors and other repulsive behavior. The false smears about me from mean-spirited and politically motivated individuals and entities looking to cause damage to my good name, to gain financially and climb politically, must stop."

She added that she and her lawyers "have fought these unfounded and baseless lies with success."

The New York Times reaction: "It was not clear why she chose to speak out now, or to what reports she was referring." 

NBC’s Garrett Haake tweeted that the speech was "breathing new life into the Epstein saga."

By the way, it was not a news conference, as the Washington Post and other outlets kept calling it. She took no questions.

The first lady’s senior adviser, Marc Beckman, said in a statement noted by NBC that she is speaking out now because "enough is enough" and "the lies must stop."

CAROLE RADZIWILL ADDRESSES YEARS-LONG GHISLAINE MAXWELL FRIENDSHIP AFTER NAME APPEARS IN EPSTEIN FILES

Needless to say, this catapults the story right back into the media narrative — and at a time when it finally seemed to be fading as the country's attention is riveted on the Iran war and the shaky ceasefire. 

Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said he agrees with the first lady and wants to "schedule a public hearing immediately."

The Republican chairman, James Comer, who recently subpoenaed Hillary Clinton to testify about Epstein, canceled a scheduled deposition with Pam Bondi after she was fired as attorney general. 

When Bondi testified at a disastrous hearing, she spent her time attacking the Democrats and refused to turn around and look at the victims seated behind her. 

Todd Blanche, her likely successor and now acting attorney general, has said there is no need for DOJ to do anything further on Epstein. Blanche, who interviewed Epstein's convicted enabler, Ghislaine Maxwell, who was later transferred to a less restrictive prison, has also proclaimed his love for the president.

But the last thing Donald Trump wants is a renewed media spotlight on Epstein's victims. 

So there is clearly some kind of distancing going on. 

What remains hazy is why Melania Trump decided to deliver this speech at the White House rather than, say, putting out a statement.

Is there an accusation, true or false, that she is trying to preempt? There is much we still don't know. 

But like everyone else who was watching, or has since seen the clips, I view it as a stunning moment in an administration that serves them up with amazing regularity. 

from Latest & Breaking News on Fox News https://ift.tt/BTwhand
via IFTTT