Carville: Ilhan Omar Should Leave Democratic Party, Do Her Own Thing
Democratic political strategist James Carville reiterated previous criticism of Ilhan Omar during a recent podcast appearance, again suggesting the progressive lawmaker should consider leaving the Democratic Party.
Carville made the remarks during an interview on Straight Shooter, hosted by Stephen A. Smith. Smith asked Carville about comments he made in May 2025 on his podcast, Politics War Room, in which he sharply criticized Omar, a member of the progressive group of lawmakers often referred to as “the Squad.”
Carville, who made a name for himself as an adviser to then-President Bill Clinton, indicated his views had not changed since the earlier remarks and again questioned Omar’s role within the Democratic Party.
His comments reflect ongoing divisions among Democrats over the party’s ideological direction and the influence of progressive lawmakers in Congress.
“Lady, why don’t you just get out of the Democratic Party,” Carville said about Omar. “Honestly, start your own movement.”
His initial calls for Omar to leave the party were in response to a 2018 interview she gave to Middle East outlet Al Jazeera. Omar, who is married to a white man, falsely said “our country should be more fearful of white men because they’re causing most of the deaths within this country.”
According to 2023 FBI and Justice Department crime statistics, while whites commit the most murders in terms of raw numbers, black males are six times more likely to victimize other blacks.
Carville stated that Omar was a “very, attractive, soft-spoken lady,” he didn’t agree on her attacks on white men, explicitly calling her to “stop.”
“About 33% of the people that are gonna vote are gonna be white males,” Carville said. “Well, it’s stupid to attack 33% of the voters!”
“And so what I would say to Congresswoman Omar, ‘Why don’t you be a Democratic Socialist of America?’ Do what AOC did, and then if they win, the truth of that is, I share a lot of ideological issues in common with Congressman Omar, but maybe you should do like a parliamentary government. We’ll let you in the governing coalition, but not the electoral coalition,” Carville said.
“But we cannot- we have to get this mentality out that we can win national elections [without] White people, because you can’t,” Carville continued. “That we can somehow or another win an election without white males. It’s just insanity. It’s literally mathematical insanity, cultural insanity.”
“All white people are not the same. All black people are not the same. All Hispanic people are not the same, all right? ” Carville added. “And I don’t like generalizing about someone’s gender or their race or their sexual preference or anything else. All gay people are not the same. They’re very different personalities. They’re very different values, very different everything.”
Omar faced backlash after falsely claiming the United States deliberately targets Muslim nations during Ramadan. “Iraq was attacked by the US during Ramadan and it is sickening to know that the US is again going to attack Iran during Ramadan,” Omar wrote on X as tensions escalated ahead of a U.S. strike on Iran.
“The US apparently loves to strike Muslim countries during Ramadan and I am convinced it isn’t what these countries have done to violate international law but about who they worship,” she added.
But critics noted what she said was categorically incorrect. Also, they argued that such rhetoric, delivered during an active military standoff, risks giving adversaries propaganda they can weaponize.
Under the Constitution, treason is narrowly defined as levying war against the United States or adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Legal scholars have long noted that the “aid and comfort” standard requires intent and tangible support, not merely controversial speech.
Former President Obama CAUGHT On-Camera Committing ILLEGAL Act in Canada Against USA: 'It's Treason...'
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Former President Barack Obama drew sharp criticism from supporters of President Donald Trump after a video of him arriving in Canada and greeting Prime Minister John Carney went viral online. The clip, shared by Carney on X with the message “Welcome back to Canada, President @BarackObama,” showed Obama shaking hands with the Canadian leader amid lively background music. Carney added that Obama was joining conversations in Toronto on building “a better and more just future” and empowering more people.
Conservative voices quickly responded to the footage. Laura Loomer wrote on X, “Why is Barack Hussein Obama meeting with world leaders while President Trump is in office? This is a coup.”
Nick Sortor stated, “Obama needs to sit down and figure out his freaking place before his a– ends up in prison for violating the Logan Act.” David J. Freeman, known as Gunther Eagleman on X, commented, “Obama sneaking into Canada for private meetings with globalist Carney? Bro thinks he’s still running the show. Sit down, Barack, Trump’s President. Barack Obama belongs in prison.”
Reports indicated Obama was in Canada for a speaking engagement, though some observers questioned whether that was the sole purpose of the trip. Critics suggested the event may have served as cover for discussions with Carney on issues related to U.S. policy under President Trump, including trade and other bilateral matters.
The Logan Act, enacted in 1799, prohibits private American citizens from conducting unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments involved in disputes with the United States with the intent to influence that government’s conduct. The law has rarely been used, with only two historical indictments and no successful prosecutions.
The controversy escalated further as former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino issued a pointed warning to Obama following the former president’s recent criticism of the Trump administration’s handling of the Department of Justice.
Obama had told late-night host Stephen Colbert that the White House should not direct the attorney general on prosecutions, describing the attorney general as “the people’s lawyer.” Bongino responded forcefully, suggesting Obama could face scrutiny over actions tied to the 2016 Russia investigation and broader allegations of political weaponization.
The exchange reflects ongoing partisan divisions over the role of former presidents in international affairs and the boundaries of executive authority. Supporters of Obama argue the visit was a standard speaking engagement with no violation of law.
Critics maintain that any private discussions with foreign leaders on matters of U.S. policy without authorization raise serious questions under the Logan Act. No formal legal action has been announced regarding the Canada meeting, and Obama has not issued a direct response to the latest wave of criticism.
The incident underscores broader debates about the appropriate conduct of former officials and the potential for private diplomacy to intersect with current U.S. foreign policy priorities. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, such public controversies continue to fuel discussions about accountability, executive power, and the role of past administrations in shaping international relations. Observers note that the Logan Act remains a rarely enforced statute, but its invocation often highlights deep partisan tensions over perceived interference in ongoing governance.
Seditious Six' Mark Kelly Does It AGAIN - Pete Hegseth Promises A Legal Response
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired U.S. Navy captain, drew criticism after discussing details from a classified Pentagon briefing during a live interview on CBS News. In the segment with anchor Margaret Brennan, Kelly described the impact of U.S. military operations in the Middle East on American weapons stockpiles. He specifically referenced munitions including Tomahawk cruise missiles, ATACMS, SM-3 interceptors, THAAD rounds, and Patriot systems, stating it was “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines.”
Kelly attributed the depletion to decisions made by the current administration, saying the president acted “without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline,” which he argued left the United States less prepared for potential conflicts elsewhere, including a hypothetical scenario involving China and Taiwan. He noted that replenishing the stockpiles would take years.
The comments followed a classified briefing provided to members of Congress on the effects of recent U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict. National security experts and administration officials have expressed concern that public discussion of specific munitions levels and readiness timelines could compromise operational security and provide adversaries with actionable intelligence.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded swiftly, stating that the Department of Defense’s legal counsel would review Kelly’s remarks to determine whether they constituted a violation of his oath or improperly disclosed classified information. Hegseth wrote on social media: “Captain Mark Kelly strikes again. Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a CLASSIFIED Pentagon briefing he received. Did he violate his oath…again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”
Kelly has faced previous scrutiny for a video earlier this year in which he and several Democratic colleagues encouraged military members to evaluate the legality of orders from President Trump, remarks some critics labeled as seditious. As a former naval aviator and astronaut, Kelly has frequently drawn on his military background when discussing national security issues.
The senator’s office has not issued a direct response to Hegseth’s statement. In the interview, Kelly framed his comments as part of legitimate congressional oversight, noting that members of Congress receive classified briefings to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the handling of sensitive national security information. Legal analysts note that members of Congress are generally protected by the Speech or Debate Clause when discussing matters related to their official duties, but the public disclosure of classified details can still trigger internal reviews and potential referrals to the Department of Justice.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the accuracy of Kelly’s description of stockpile levels. Officials have previously warned that public speculation about munitions readiness can embolden adversaries and complicate deterrence strategy, particularly with respect to China’s military posture in the Indo-Pacific.
The incident occurs against the backdrop of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions and broader concerns about military readiness. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have expressed worries about the pace of munitions replenishment following sustained operations in multiple theaters. However, the public nature of Kelly’s remarks has intensified partisan debate over congressional responsibility and the boundaries of classified information.
As the Department of Defense legal review proceeds, the matter is likely to fuel further discussion about the balance between transparency, oversight, and national security in an era of heightened geopolitical competition.
Former General Milley Says Armed Forces Must Serve the Constitution Above Politics
Mark Milley Issues Stark Warning at Arlington National Cemetery — “Military Must Serve the Constitution, Not a President”
In times of political strain and national uncertainty, the most enduring principles of a democracy are often reaffirmed not through legislation or elections alone, but through the voices of those entrusted with its defense. The statement attributed to Mark Milley, delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, speaks directly to one of the foundational pillars of the United States: the subordination of military power to constitutional authority rather than individual leadership.
At the heart of Milley’s message lies a principle that distinguishes democratic systems from authoritarian ones—the military’s oath is sworn to the Constitution, not to a person. This idea, while deeply embedded in American civic tradition, gains renewed significance in moments when political divisions intensify and questions of loyalty arise. By emphasizing this distinction, Milley reinforces a core safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power: that no leader, regardless of position, stands above the constitutional framework.
The setting of Arlington National Cemetery adds a profound symbolic dimension to the statement. It is a place where the cost of preserving constitutional ideals is made visible in rows of white headstones, each representing a life given in service to something larger than individual ambition or political allegiance. Speaking in such a setting transforms a statement into a moral reflection, linking present concerns to a legacy of sacrifice. It reminds the nation that the principles under discussion are not abstract—they have been defended at the highest possible cost.
This message arrives amid ongoing debates about the relationship between civilian leadership and military responsibility. In any democracy, the military must remain under civilian control; yet that control is exercised through lawful authority rooted in constitutional order, not personal loyalty. The distinction is subtle but critical. It ensures that the armed forces operate as an institution of the state rather than as an instrument of any one leader’s will. When this balance is maintained, it protects both democratic governance and the integrity of the military itself.
Criticism of Milley’s remarks, particularly from allies of Donald Trump, reflects the broader polarization shaping contemporary political discourse. Some view such statements as overreach by military figures into political territory, raising concerns about the appropriate boundaries between military leadership and public debate. Others interpret them as necessary clarifications during a time when those boundaries may appear blurred. This divergence of interpretation underscores the difficulty of navigating institutional roles in a highly charged environment.
Yet beyond the immediate controversy, Milley’s words serve a broader purpose. They invite reflection on the nature of allegiance in a constitutional democracy. Loyalty, in this context, is not directed toward individuals but toward enduring principles—rule of law, separation of powers, and the rights enshrined in the Constitution. These principles provide continuity even as leaders change, ensuring that the nation’s identity is not tied to any single figure.
Ultimately, the significance of this moment lies not in partisan reactions but in the reaffirmation of a fundamental truth: the strength of a democracy depends on the clarity of its commitments. By reiterating that the military serves the Constitution above all, Milley echoes a tradition that has helped sustain American governance through crises both past and present.
In the quiet solemnity of Arlington, where history is etched in stone, such a reminder carries particular weight. It speaks not only to those currently in positions of power but to future generations, emphasizing that the preservation of democratic ideals requires constant vigilance—and, at times, the courage to restate what should never be forgotten.
