Dylan Page

Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our President and Commander in Chief. As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country.  The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is responsible for helping coordinate and integrate all intelligence to provide the President and Commander in Chief with the best information available to inform his decisions.  After carefully reviewing all the information before him, President Trump concluded that the terrorist Islamist regime in Iran posed an imminent threat and he took action based on that conclusion.

Trump: They weren't supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East. So they hit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. Nobody expected that. We were shocked

BREAKING: The US government now may owe US companies $175 billion in tariff refunds, per CNN

A would-be assassin tried to murder federal law enforcement and the official Democrat account sides with the terrorists.

If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don’t do it!

If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don’t do it!

ICE agent asked why he's taking pictures of a legal observer's car, replies: "Cuz we have a nice little database and now you're considered a domestic terrorist. So have fun with that."

BREAKING: The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating elected officials for criticizing the administration’s immigration enforcement operations. If this is the basis for the investigation, it is blatantly unconstitutional and intolerable in a free society. The right to condemn government action without fear of government punishment is the foundation of the First Amendment. This would not be the first time the administration has used boundless, imaginary definitions of “obstruction” or “incitement” that have no basis in the law and run headlong into constitutional limits. The few exceptions to the First Amendment are defined by narrow, exacting standards for a reason: to prevent the government from wielding its power to squash dissent. If criticism of government policy can be rebranded as a crime, then constitutional protections become meaningless and the government becomes unaccountable. That is precisely the danger the First Amendment is meant to prevent, and it is a line no administration may cross.