Big mistake

Yes, the information in the post is accurate. On January 22, 2026, the Trump administration announced the completion of the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO).<grok:render card_id="f4460a" card_type="citation_card" type="render_inline_citation">

<argument name="citation_id">12</argument>

</grok:render> The following day, January 23, 2026, Governor Gavin Newsom's office announced that California would join the WHO's Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network (GOARN), making it the first U.S. state to do so.<grok:render card_id="0dcb20" card_type="citation_card" type="render_inline_citation">

<argument name="citation_id">0</argument>

</grok:render> This move was positioned as a direct response to the federal withdrawal, with California stepping in to maintain involvement in global public health efforts.<grok:render card_id="d43ced" card_type="citation_card" type="render_inline_citation">

<argument name="citation_id">5</argument>

</grok:render>

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Truth

The Instagram Reel at that link (https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSA7mTuFfoT/) is posted by the account **@libsoftiktokofficial** (Libs of TikTok Official).

It makes the following claim in the caption:

> "1,700 criminal illegals were RELEASED from prison in Illinois under JB Pritzker  

> M*rderers, p*dophiles, r*pes, and violent offenders are back in YOUR communities because Democrats want to protect them from ICE.  

> They are putting American lives at risk."

This appears to be a short video or static post (typical of Libs of TikTok content) designed to highlight and criticize Illinois Governor JB Pritzker's policies on immigration enforcement and criminal releases.

The core factual assertion — that **1,700 "criminal illegals" were released from prison in Illinois under Pritzker** — refers to a real policy/event from late 2024/early 2025. Illinois (under its TRUST Act and related policies) does not allow state/local law enforcement to honor most ICE detainers for immigration enforcement purposes unless there's a judicial warrant and specific violent felony criteria. As a result, when certain incarcerated individuals completed their state sentences, they were released rather than transferred to federal immigration custody if ICE issued only an administrative detainer.

Reports from around that period (including statements from ICE and conservative outlets) indicated that hundreds to low-thousands of individuals with criminal convictions (including some serious offenses) were released into communities instead of being taken into ICE custody directly after state incarceration. The "1,700" figure aligns with numbers cited in several ICE-related announcements and Republican critiques of sanctuary-style policies in Illinois during Pritzker's administration.

However, the reel's framing is heavily editorialized:

- Not all were necessarily "murderers, pedophiles, rapists" — the offenses varied widely (from lower-level crimes to violent felonies).

- Releases happened because of state law limiting cooperation with ICE, not a deliberate "Democrats want to protect them" action targeted at those specific offenders.

- Many such individuals were later arrested by ICE or faced deportation proceedings anyway.

In short: **The 1,700 figure is grounded in reality** (stemming from documented non-cooperation with ICE detainers in Illinois), but the reel dramatically amplifies it with charged language to argue Democrats are endangering the public by prioritizing immigrant protections over enforcement. It's partisan commentary rather than neutral reporting.

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Mace

The post you're sharing is from **U.S. Representative Nancy Mace** (@RepNancyMace), a Republican congresswoman from South Carolina. She posted this on January 23, 2026 (late evening GMT, which aligns with today given the current date/time).

This appears to be her own firsthand account of a recent legal victory in a civil case originating in South Carolina state court.

### Key Details from the Post and Context

- **The Win**: Rep. Mace represented herself pro se (without a lawyer present for this specific hearing) and successfully had the case **removed/Transferred** from a South Carolina state court to **federal court**. This was based on federal jurisdiction questions, including constitutional protections under the **First Amendment**, the **Speech or Debate Clause** (Article I, Section 6 of the U.S. Constitution, which protects members of Congress from certain state-level interference related to their legislative duties), and **federal supremacy**.

- **Background on the Gag Order**: In December 2025, a South Carolina judge imposed a **gag order** on Mace and other parties in related civil lawsuits. These suits reportedly stem from allegations Mace made against individuals (including entrepreneur Patrick Bryant and businessman Eric Bowman) involving claims of abuse or related matters. The gag order restricted public discussion of the ongoing cases.

- **Her Argument**: Mace views the state court's actions (including the gag order and suggestions from opposing counsel that she could face jail for her social media posts about "injustice") as unconstitutional attempts to silence her as a sitting Member of Congress for performing her duties and speaking out. She frames this as "lawfare" — using the legal system for political or harassing purposes.

- **Outcome**: By moving the case to federal court, she effectively challenged the enforceability of the state-level gag order in a venue she believes is more appropriate for federal constitutional issues. She describes this as a defeat of efforts to intimidate or silence her.

Her official press release and website confirm the removal to federal court as a "significant legal victory" vindicating her First Amendment rights and constitutional protections.

This case ties into broader tensions involving Mace, including past sanctions fights, lawyer-related disputes (e.g., accusations of fabricated citations in filings), and her ongoing political activities (she's been active in congressional oversight and is seen as a potential contender in South Carolina politics, like a gubernatorial bid).

Congratulations to her on the procedural win — standing up pro se against that kind of pressure takes resolve, and it's a reminder of how core constitutional safeguards (like federal jurisdiction and Speech or Debate protections) can check state-level overreach in cases involving federal officials.

If you'd like more details on the underlying lawsuits, the specific judge/court involved, or reactions to this post, let me know! 🇺🇸

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Failed?

The post from @ArrowheadNation (a Chiefs fan account) appears to be discussing the ongoing debate over a new stadium deal for the Kansas City Chiefs, highlighting the sharp divisions among lawmakers and the risks to taxpayers versus the potential benefits like jobs and economic growth. The dramatic caption "Vote Fails" with images (including one showing "Vote Fails" overlaid on stadium photos and people in discussion) suggests it's implying a recent failure in the process.

However, based on current information as of January 2026, **no major vote has recently failed** on the Chiefs' stadium proposal in a way that matches this post's implication of a total collapse.

Here's the key context on the Chiefs' stadium situation:

- In April 2024, Jackson County, Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a sales tax extension to fund renovations to Arrowhead Stadium and a new Royals ballpark. That public vote did fail, which forced the teams to explore other options and contributed to the current uncertainty.

- Missouri responded in 2025 with a special legislative session, passing a bill (signed into law) authorizing up to $1.5 billion in state incentives (via bonds and tax credits) to help fund stadium projects for the Chiefs and Royals to keep them in Missouri. This was a legislative vote that **succeeded**, not failed.

- Kansas countered aggressively: In late 2025, Kansas lawmakers approved a deal using STAR bonds (a public financing mechanism) to cover a significant portion (up to around $1.8–2.8 billion) of a new ~$3 billion domed stadium in Wyandotte County, Kansas, plus a practice facility/headquarters in Olathe. The Chiefs announced they would relocate across the state line starting around 2031 if the deal proceeds. This Kansas legislative approval succeeded, though it's still facing scrutiny, questions about economic impact studies, taxpayer burden, and details like stadium ownership (the Chiefs insist public ownership is required to avoid tax issues).

- As of January 2026, the Kansas proposal is under review in committee hearings, with lawmakers divided—some see it as a huge economic win for jobs/tourism, others criticize it as a risky subsidy benefiting team owners (Clark Hunt) at public expense. No statewide or final "vote" has failed recently; debates continue, and experts question the projected benefits.

The post's "Vote Fails" phrasing might be:

- Referencing the 2024 Jackson County voter rejection (old news but still relevant).

- Sensationalizing the current closed-door divisions and risks in Kansas (no actual vote failure shown in recent reports).

- Or possibly a misleading/meme-style caption to drive engagement, as fan accounts often do.

In short, the Chiefs are not staying at Arrowhead long-term without major public funding, Missouri's incentives passed but weren't enough to compete with Kansas' offer, and Kansas' deal is advancing (though controversially) without a recent failed vote. The debate is intense and ongoing, with valid points on both sides about whether these public subsidies for billionaire-owned teams are smart investments or costly giveaways. History shows mixed results—some stadium deals boost local economies modestly, others leave taxpayers footing bills for little return.

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Jack the jackass

The provided text is an accurate summary of recent events involving President Donald Trump and former Special Counsel Jack Smith, based on reports from multiple sources including Democracy Now!, The Guardian, NPR, ABC News, and others.

On **Tuesday, January 20, 2026**, President Trump spoke to reporters and launched a sharp personal attack on Jack Smith, referring to him as a "sick son of a bitch" and "deranged." He described Smith as heading "radical-left Marxist prosecutors" in what Trump called a weaponized Justice Department effort against him. Trump also claimed he had removed such officials from the DOJ as part of ending "unlawful" investigations.

This came on the same day Trump's legal team filed a 19-page motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case venue) seeking to permanently block the public release of **Volume II** of Smith's final report. The motion argued the report is biased, would cause irreparable harm, and lends undue credibility to allegedly false claims. Trump's lawyers requested an order prohibiting the DOJ (including current, former, and future officials) from releasing it. (Note: Some earlier court actions, like temporary blocks by Judge Aileen Cannon, had already delayed aspects of the report's disclosure.)

**On Thursday, January 22, 2026**, Jack Smith testified publicly for the first time before the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee. He defended his investigations into Trump—covering both the classified documents case at Mar-a-Lago and efforts to overturn the 2020 election—as evidence-based, not politically motivated. Smith reiterated that Trump was "the most culpable and most responsible person" for the events surrounding January 6, 2021, and described Trump's actions as part of a criminal scheme to stay in power after his 2020 loss. He emphasized he would not be intimidated by attacks and warned against taking the rule of law for granted. The hearing featured partisan divides: Republicans criticized the probes as overreach, while Democrats supported Smith's work.

These developments reflect ongoing tensions over the special counsel's closed cases (dropped after Trump's 2024 win and return to office) and efforts to limit their public legacy. The DOJ under Trump's administration has since indicated the report should remain internal and not be released publicly.

#Trump2026 #JackSmith #JusticeDepartment #MarALago #USPolitics

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals