On June 17, 2026, the White House released the statement President Trump to Award Medal of Honor announcing that President Trump will award the Congressional Medal of Honor to Major James Capers, Jr., U.S. Marine Corps (Retired), Colonel John W. Ripley, U.S. Marine Corps (Posthumous), and Major Nicholas Dockery, U.S. Army (Retired).
Congress authorized the awarding of the Medal of Honor to these three individuals and the authorizations were sent to President Trump for signature. President Trump signed the authorizations on March 26, 2026 (discussed in my March 27, 2026 ANP Article). Each recipient was authorized separately:
Then-Second Lieutenant James Capers, Jr. will receive the Medal of Honor for acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty as a Team Leader with 3d Force Reconnaissance Company, 3d Reconnaissance Battalion in the Republic of Vietnam from March 31 to April 3, 1967. During a four-day reconnaissance patrol, he and his team were tasked with locating a North Vietnamese regimental base camp. Despite making contact with a numerically superior enemy force on three separate occasions, he tenaciously continued the mission. He successfully directed fire onto an enemy base camp, thwarting an impending attack on a nearby Marine battalion. On the final day, his patrol was ambushed by a claymore mine and came under a dense barrage of enemy fire, where he sustained multiple severe wounds. Ignoring his injuries and extreme blood loss, he continued to lead his team, coordinate supporting fire, and direct their movement to an extraction site. Refusing to be evacuated before all his men were safe, he ensured the entire team was extracted before finally boarding the helicopter.
Then-Captain John W. Ripley will receive the Medal of Honor posthumously for acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty on April 2, 1972, while serving as Senior Marine Advisor to the Third Vietnamese Marine Corps Infantry Battalion in the Republic of Vietnam. While serving in this capacity, he played a pivotal role in halting a major North Vietnamese mechanized assault. The enemy’s rapid advance depended on the capture of a bridge in the village of Dong Ha. To destroy the bridge, Captain Ripley single-handedly moved 500 pounds of explosives into position. For three hours, he repeatedly exposed himself to intense enemy fire as he climbed beneath the bridge along its bridge’s steel beams to emplace the explosive charges at key structural points. After successfully setting the explosives, he detonated the charges, completely destroying the bridge and stopping the enemy’s advance.
Then-Second Lieutenant Nicholas Dockery will receive the Medal of Honor for acts of gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty on October 2, 2012, while serving as a Platoon Leader, 2d Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division in Kapisa Province, Afghanistan. On this day, a large and well-armed Taliban force ambushed Second Lieutenant Dockery’s platoon. Over the course of four hours, he fought and maintained contact with the enemy in extremely restricted urban terrain, personally risking his life on numerous occasions to protect and evacuate three wounded members of his platoon. After consolidation and reorganization, he directed rotary wing aircraft in the defense against subsequent enemy counter-attacks from an exposed rooftop while his unit evacuated the wounded soldiers.
The Medal of Honor (discussed in my March 26, 2026 ANP Article) is an award authorized by Congress for Service Members who perform verified (witnessed) heroic actions during war with the following criteria:
. . . engaged in an action against an enemy of the US . . . while engaged in military operations involving a conflict with an opposing foreign force . . . or while serving with friendly forces in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the US is not a belligerent party.
The White House, nor any other US government agency/department, has not released the official version of the Iran Peace Deal MOU. The version many outlets are using was released by Iran. Until OUR government officially releases the MOU, I will not be writing about it. I understand that much of what Iran publishes is propaganda. I also understand that many of the outlets using Iran's version are also propaganda outlets. Either the White House will publish it OR the Federal Register will publish it (it's got President Trump's signature on it, so the FR should publish it as a Presidential Action). When either of these 2 things happen (or some other US Federal Agency publishes it), I will go through it point by point. Until then, we wait.
However, on June 19, 2026, the White House published the release President Trump’s Iran Agreement Is America First in Action presenting the MOU as an historic breakthrough through rejecting the failed policies of appeasement (Obama), cash payoffs (Obama), and endless wars. Feel free to peruse the release to see what Senators, Representatives, and others have to say about the MOU that We The People have not seen posted from our Federal government.
On June 17, 2026, the White House published the release Trump Administration Delivers Another Crushing Blow to Antifa Terrorist Network by designating them as a domestic terrorist organization. The Federal government is now empowered to hunt down, disrupt, and dismantle this violent anarchist network. The Trump administration is waging war against Antifa terrorists across the nation. Most recently 15 Antifa linked terrorists were arrested in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Some of the Trump Administration's latest efforts to eliminate the Antifa terrorism threat are:
Oregon - Since mid-2025, dozens of Antifa militants have been arrested and charged — with multiple convictions already secured — following their prolonged siege against the Portland ICE facility. Rioters repeatedly assaulted officers, lobbed incendiary devices, and engaged in sustained attacks on federal personnel and property.
Texas - In March, nine members of a North Texas Antifa cell were convicted on terrorism-related charges — in addition to seven others who pleaded guilty — for their violent, armed ambush on an ICE detention facility.
Washington - In May, multiple Antifa insurgents were convicted on federal conspiracy charges for their roles in a violent attack at a Spokane ICE facility.
New Jersey - In May, an Antifa thugs violently laid siege to a Newark ICE detention center, resulting in dozens of arrests and federal charges.
California - In December, Antifa extremists were charged in a coordinated bombing plot targeting multiple businesses, ICE agents, vehicles, and other sites across Southern California.
Indiana - An Antifa-linked terrorist was sentenced for threats to bomb government buildings and assassinate prominent politicians.
The release concludes:
The Trump Administration has made it clear: Antifa terrorists and their networks will be investigated, disrupted, prosecuted, and neutralized with the full force of federal law. There will be no safe harbor for those who attack law enforcement, obstruct lawful immigration enforcement, or wage campaigns of political violence against the American people. President Trump’s leadership has already produced results — and this is only the beginning.
On June 18, 2026, the White House published the research document Effects of Banning Anti-Competitive Hospital Contracts (available here as a pdf). This report looked at the current contracting mechanisms and estimated the prevalence and scaling. They looked at negotiated prices, patient sorting, restored bargaining leverage, physician spillover, and premium pass-through (when hospital prices fall, insurer costs fall by a corresponding amount). The report investigated different market types: large multi-market systems, competitive multi-hospital, independent sole-community hospitals with no nearby system competitor, independent hospitals, system-owned rural hospitals, and rural workers and coverage access. The report concludes:
A nationwide ban on anti-steering, anti-tiering, and all-or-nothing contracting would reduce hospital and affiliated-physician prices by an estimated 11 to 26 percent in directly affected markets. After scaling by the affected share of ESI spending and applying a pass-through rate, ESI premiums fall by an estimated 4 to 7 percent in those markets, yielding savings or higher wages of $1,100 to $2,500 per family per year. Additionally, lower hospital prices raise non-health-care payroll and employment and generate additional federal tax receipts. Scaled to the full ESI population, we estimate that nationwide savings would be $29 to $63 billion per year. For rural America, we expect that eliminating these contracting clauses will lower premiums and raise wages for rural workers, improve the position of independent rural hospitals for insurers, and impose minimal pressure on system-owned rural hospitals.
The SENATE convened on June 17, 2026 at 10am and adjourned at 6:29pm. The SENATE then convened on June 18, 2026 at 10am and adjourned at 4:40pm.
The Senate made 6 votes in the past 2 days that were recorded on their website:
Vote181 On the Nomination - PN730-33 - George Holding, of North Carolina, to be United States Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vice J. Steven Dowd submitted January 13, 2026 - Confirmed - 48-39 with 13 members not voting
Vote180 - On the Cloture Motion - HR6644 - 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act HOWEVER, they added SA5823 which I cannot find on their website to the already approved bill from the House which means it has to go back to the House to decide if they accept SA5823 - Agreed to 84-8 with 8 members not voting - the Congressional Record for June 18, 2026 shows the amendment only changed the effective date of the act.
Vote179 - On the Motion to Discharge SR616 - A resolution requesting information on Honduras's human rights practices pursuant to section 502B(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. - Rejected - 44-50 with 6 members not voting
Vote178 - On the Cloture Motion PN730-33 - George Holding, of North Carolina, to be United States Director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vice J. Steven Dowd submitted January 13, 2026 - Agreed to - 54-41 with 5 members not voting
Vote177 - On the Nomination PN901-8 -Michelle Steel, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Korea submitted April 13, 2026- Confirmed - 55-39 with 6 members not voting
Vote176 - On the Cloture Motion PN901-8 -Michelle Steel, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Korea submitted April 13, 2026 - Agreed to - 54-41 with 5 members not voting
The SENATE will reconvene at 3pm on June 22, 2026.
The HOUSE convened on June 18, 2026 at 10:00am and adjourned at 10:02am.
They decided to extend their 3-day vacation into a total of 7 days.
The HOUSE will reconvene at noon on June 22, 2026.
There is nothing in the record about an agreement between RINO Thune and Dumocrat Schumer as offered by Representative Tim Burchett:
This does not mean there was not a middle of the night agreement between RINO Thune and Dumocrat Schumer, it just means there is no written evidence of it in the official Congressional Record.
Ali Hemani uses marijuana a few times a week. That fact alone, the government says, means he is automatically banned from possessing a firearm under federal law. And because Mr. Hemani admits he owns a gun despite this ban, the government now seeks to prosecute him, imprison him for up to 15 years, and disarm him for life. This case poses the question whether the government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani is consistent with the Second Amendment.
In many respects, this case is a narrow one. We do not address efforts to ban addicts, see n. 2, supra, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm. We do not address other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms. See n. 6, supra. We do not address 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies (often including drug-related ones). Ibid. We do not even address whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others. Or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason. None of those issues is before us and we do not pass on them either way. All that is before us is one, if surely ambitious, theory. The government maintains that it may automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm because he uses marijuana a few times a week. More than that, because he possessed a gun despite this prohibition, the government insists it may imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life. According to the government, none of this turns on how much marijuana Mr. Hemani uses or what effect it has on him. It makes no difference either if he keeps a firearm only in his home for self-defense, never misuses a gun while intoxicated, and never poses a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use. The only thing the government must show, it says, is that an individual like Mr. Hemani regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance. To square that expansive theory with the Second Amendment, the government invites us to draw an analogy between its present regulation and historical laws addressing habitual drunkards. Those laws, the government contends, demonstrate a tradition of firearm regulation consistent with its effort to disarm any regular user of any controlled substance without any further showing. But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider: The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways. And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment.
I write separately to call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents, §922(g)(3) appears to exceed Congress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce. The statute makes it a federal crime for unlawful drug users to possess any firearm or ammunition “in or affecting commerce.” 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3). Under the prevailing interpretation of §922(g)(3), the Government can secure a conviction for unlawful firearm possession “if the firearm possessed” by the drug user “had previously traveled in interstate commerce.” United States v. Rawls, 85 F. 3d 240, 242 (CA5 1996) (per curiam). The Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to “regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or crossed state lines.” Alderman v. United States, 562 U. S. 1163, 1167 (2011) (THOMAS, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Such an understanding would “convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 567 (1995). So, while the issue was not presented in this case, the Court, and lower courts, should revisit the constitutionality of §922(g). . . . Under our Constitution, “[t]he powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803).
I write separately to emphasize that means-end scrutiny—the approach courts applied before we adopted Bruen’s “history and tradition” metric—offers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations.
I would affirm on a different ground from those on which the majority relies. As the opinion of the Court explains, the habitual-drunkard laws that the Government cites did not allow officials to disarm all those who “regularly used intoxicants,” or even just those who “sometimes used them to excess.”These laws instead threatened disarmament only for those whose use of an intoxicant “rendered them practically incapacitated and incapable of managing their affairs.” Those persons drank so much, so often, that they were incapacitated not only during bouts of drunkenness but also in a more persistent and pervasive manner. Yet the Government argues that these historical analogues establish a regulatory tradition that allows it to disarm “anyone” who regularly uses “any amount” of marijuana unlawfully. The mismatch between the Government’s historical analogues and the theory on which the Government defends the constitutionality of §922(g)(3) as applied to respondent is clear. All that we know about respondent’s marijuana use is that he used the drug about every other day. We do not know how much he used, the strength of the marijuana he used, how many times he used it on the days in question, the time of day when he used it, where he used it, or the degree to which this use affected his ability to exercise judgment and perform daily tasks responsibly. As a result, the Government has failed to show that a marijuana user like respondent is incapacitated in a way analogous to the habitual drunkards that the Government’s analogues regulated. Marijuana consumption is increasingly common in this country. Many States have legalized its use and sale, and although possession of the drug remains a federal crime, very few persons are convicted of that offense each year. The Government has largely tolerated the production and sale of marijuana when done in accord with state law, and it has allowed a multi-billion-dollar marijuana business to develop. For its part, Congress has restricted the use of appropriated funds to prevent States from implementing laws that allow the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana, or to prosecute certain parties that produce, distribute, or possess marijuana in compliance with state law. In these circumstances, marijuana use today is like alcohol use at the founding. It is widespread and increasingly considered socially acceptable in many quarters. And from a practical standpoint, law enforcement widely tolerates the use of marijuana. These similarities underscore the deficiency of the Government’s analogues. To succeed, the Government would need to identify a regulatory principle that justified disarmament of persons who are relevantly similar to the occasional marijuana user. But whereas the Government’s analogues allowed disarmament only of those whose extreme use of an intoxicant (alcohol) incapacitated them habitually, §922(g)(3) as applied to respondent allows disarmament of those who do no more than “regularly us[e]” a similar intoxicant (marijuana) unlawfully. In attempting to rebuff a Second Amendment challenge, the Government need not identify a historical twin or precise precursor. Rahimi, 602 U. S., at 692. Still, the Government must cite analogues that are “relevantly similar” and that therefore furnish a basis for inferring that a challenged law is consistent with the historical understanding of the right that the Second Amendment codified. Here, the Government’s analogues are too far afield to justify the application of §922(g) to a marijuana user like respondent. We need not say more to decide this case, and I would for that reason say no more. I accordingly would affirm on this ground alone.
So, basically, Mr. Hemani was not given the due process to find him guilty of being incapacitated by marijuana analogous to an habitual drunkard. Therefore, taking his 2nd Amendment Rights away was unconstitutional and a violation of those Rights.
Mr. Hemani now needs to be extremely careful when using his marijuana and driving as I am sure law enforcement in TX is on the lookout to being the process of taking away his 2nd Amendment Rights via the "habitual drunkard" analogy.
As we continue on the road to the Revolutionary War, on June 15, 1775, George Washington (discussed in my February 10, 2026 ANP Article) was appointed as Commander of Continental Army.
The following is a reminder of what the American Soldier experienced at the creation of the Continental Army (discussed in my May 14, 2026 ANP Article).
On July 4, 1776, The US Declaration of Independence (discussed in my August 24, 2025 ANP Article) was officially approved (but not fully signed).
On August 23, 1775, King George proclaims Americans have "proceeded to open and avowed rebellion" (discussed in my June 11, 2026 ANP Article).
On October 31, 1776, the Parliament expanded on King George III's proclamation based on the King's speech calling the Colonial Rebellion fomented by a desperate conspiracy of leaders whose allegiance to the King was insincere (since they were rebelling) and claiming the Colonies wanted to create an independent empire. King George III decided to confront the rebellion with armed forces and was considering foreign assistance so the British in the Colonies would not have to fight against other British people. The pro-Colonies faction warned Parliament that doing this would simply drive the Colonists towards independence from the crown, not back into subjugation to the crown. Parliament proceeded anyway. This proclamation was revoked on December 5, 1782 delivered from the Throne to Parliament as Parliament resolved to end the war. King George III announced the Colonies were free and independent states, ending the war but hoping for a permanent union between the 2 countries. Of course there were many battles between 1776 and 1782 that would bring the Crown to this conclusion!
Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
