This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The rogue government of North Korea is threatening "overwhelming nuclear force" as its reaction to war games the United States is conducting with South Korea.
"The military and political situation in the Korean peninsula and the region has reached an extremely dangerous phase due to the reckless military confrontations and hostile acts of the U.S. and its vassal forces," that nation's Ministry of Foreign Affairs proclaimed in its statement this week.
"The U.S. is now working hard to 'demonize' the DPRK, spreading again all sorts of rumors. Meanwhile, it, together with its vassal forces, is intensifying the full-scale offensive for putting pressure on the DPRK in all aspects including 'human rights', sanctions and military affairs."
A report at Just the News said the dictatorship was hinting that it might resort to nuclear options if the military exercises continued.
It claimed to have a "counteraction strategy' that was capable of "coping with any short- and long-term scenarios…"
According to the report, it said its military "will strongly control the present and future potential challenges with the most overwhelming nuclear force."
The Congressional Research Service reports that North Korea has tested nuclear weapons several times.
Dictator Kim Jong-un reportedly views nukes as "the ultimate guarantor of his totalitarian and autocratic rule of North Korea and believes that over time he will gain international acceptance as a nuclear power."
Each of North Korea's six nuclear explosions since 2006 has produced "underground blasts."
It announced in 2018 it would no longer conduct nuclear tests because it had achieved all it wanted.
The CRS said outside experts guess that North Korea has made enough fissile material for 20-60 warheads.
A 2017 report said it was thought that North Korea had achieved the level of miniaturization required to put a nuclear device on missiles, and it has been working on technology to give those missiles more range.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It was only days ago that a Project Veritas undercover video revealed Pfizer executive Jordon Trishton Walker saying that his company was exploring intentionally creating mutations of the COVID virus to "preemptively develop new vaccines."
Such a scenario, he claimed, would be a "cash cow" for his company.
He later denied the comments, and now an expert in medicine says it's not likely the company was doing what he claimed.
But if it was, it would be a crime, domestic terrorism.
It is Just the News that interviewed Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus at the Yale School of Public Health.
"If they were to do that, the vaccine would only be useful if the virus that they're inventing actually got out into the population," he said on the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show.
"That would be an act of domestic terrorism if that happened. So they're probably not doing that. We hope they're not doing that. But that's the concern."
Risch said he doubts Walker's claims.
"My first reaction is that in what he's talking about, he's an amateur and he doesn't really have depth of knowledge about the nature of how these viruses are propagated.
"There's a very, very deep extensive field of neurology, and he's talking about his superficial concepts of how he thinks the overall picture is organized for working with these viruses. But it is much more involved than that. There's a lot of other techniques that go into propagating these viruses."
WND reported not only on the video, but on the decision by Big Tech to suppress information about it.
A new whistleblower leak to PV showed exactly how YouTube, owned by Google, restricted the ability of people to see the undercover videos — using the claim of "COVID vaccine misinformation."
Project Veritas had exposed Walker, who revealed in a secretly taped video conversation that his corporation was exploring intentionally creating mutations of the COVID virus to "preemptively develop new vaccines."
Walker indicated Covid "is going to be a cash cow for us" and said, "Don't tell anyone this. ...There is a risk ... have to be very controlled to make sure this virus you mutate doesn't create something ... the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest."
That undercover video had been viewed some 30 million times in less than a week, according to Project Veritas, despite being ignored outside of Fox News and conservative media outlets.
Walker, who thought he was on a homosexual date with the man who turned out to be a Project Veritas undercover journalist, later physically attacked PV founder James O’Keefe after O’Keefe confronted him in an eatery, with videotape rolling, about the original sting video:
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A legal team is demanding from the Biden administration details about how it plans to simply reinterpret a decades-old law to get the results it wants.
It's a strategy the Biden administration previously has used – simply "redefine" a word or a phrase in the law to obtain a different result.
For example, Biden has tried to claim that "sex" in 50-year-old anti-discrimination laws means "gender identity" and the like, meaning that the new understanding would be that Congress back in the day intended to allow transgenders who were born male to share showers with biological females because that's their "gender identity."
The Washington Examiner reports the newest move is against the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, a 1974 statute that allows parents to access their child's school materials.
They also are given the right to opt their child out of any surveys and such that come from third parties.
It's an especially significant issue right at this point as schools are embedding racism, Critical Race Theory, "equity" ideology, and more in their curriculum materials.
The report explains how America First Legal is demanding answers about what plans the Department of Education has in its agenda to run a "rulemaking" process to "update, clarify, and improve the current regulations by addressing outstanding policy issues."
Biden also wants to "make changes related to the enforcement responsibilities of the office concerning PPRA."
The report said America First Legal is a "conservative legal group led by former Trump administration senior adviser Stephen Miller."
It has submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the U.S. Department of Education to obtain records about its plans to change the law by reinterpreting the rules.
The Biden administration action actually came after America First Legal turned over to parents a "legal toolkit" that instructs them on how to use the provisions of the law to support parental rights.
"Given the importance of the PPRA and its existing regulations to parents seeking to exercise their constitutional rights of oversight and control regarding their children’s education, this Freedom of Information Act request is crucial to provide transparency on the department’s process and motivations for the proposed rulemaking, and to ensure the department’s current political leadership is held accountable for any action that limits or impairs parental rights," the request explained.
America First Legal has filed multiple complaints and cases against school districts because of their violations of the law.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a scheme that does more than border on the bizarre and certainly falls within the category of gruesome, lawmakers in one state are proposing to allow inmates to leave prison early if they donate organs or bone marrow.
That's despite the fact the plan likely is illegal under federal law.
CBS Boston confirms a legislative plan on Beacon Hill would let inmates leave from 60 days to a year early "on the condition that the incarcerated individual has donated bone marrow or organ(s)."
The plan is by Democrats Judith Garcia and Carlos Gonzalez.
While the promoters say it would "restore bodily autonomy to incarcerated folks," there are others who have concerns, the report said.
"It's like you're harvesting organs. It just doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel humane. You're bargaining with vulnerable people over their time," Project Turnaround founder Romilda Pereira said in an interview with the Boston Globe.
It's "perverse," a doctor at Brigham & Women's Hospital said.
"There are certainly ways we can engage our free communities in educating them about the options of organ and bone marrow donation," Monik Jiménez said. "But going to our incarcerated population as a source is problematic, at best, and exploitative."
At Lever News, a report said the idea raises "major bioethical concerns."
"The bill appears to go significantly beyond other organ-donation policies for prisoners. The Federal Bureau of Prisons says that prisoners may donate their organs while incarcerated but only to immediate family members. In 2013, the state of Utah allowed organ donation from prisoners who died while incarcerated. Most other states do not allow organ donations from prisoners at all," the report said.
And the Ethics Committee of the United Network for Organ Sharing which administers organ transplants in the nation has panned the idea.
And, the report noted, a 2007 ABC report on a similar plan in the South said, the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 makes it a federal crime "to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation. 180 days off a sentence could likely constitute ‘valuable consideration.'"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Joe Biden administration is suggesting that people all should stay home – all the time – because of the "climate crisis."
Biden previously created the circumstances, during COVID, that the government essentially tried to keep people from leaving their homes.
With a lot of success.
Now officials have turned a corner, and have come up with another reason to keep people behind their front doors.
According to a report in the Washington Free Beacon, Biden's scheme was released by the Environmental Protection Agency, and the departments of Energy, Transportation, and Housing.
The plan seeks to "eliminate nearly all greenhouse gas emissions."
That would be done through a transition to electric vehicles, even though America's electric grid is incapable of recharging all those batteries.
"Also included in the plan, however, is a controversial call to reduce 'commuting miles' through 'an increase in remote work and virtual engagements,' including in education," the report revealed.
The plan declares, "Telework and other components of a digital economy … can improve convenience by reducing travel demand, especially for work commuting. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted major opportunities for telework, with some studies showing the possibility of a 10 percent long-term reduction in annual vehicle miles traveled."
The administration's talking points include that the COVID-19 pandemic wasn't all bad, since it "highlighted major opportunities" to cut back on travel, the report said.
While groups promoting the ideology of a global climate disaster looming like the talk, business operators aren't as happy with the proposal.
The Free Beacon said small business owners, for example, "point to the fact that more than 100,000 small businesses closed permanently during the first few months of the pandemic alone as owners dealt with decreased demand."
"Once again, the Biden administration is blindly pursuing a 'green' agenda despite the unintended consequences it poses to the economy and, more specifically, small businesses," Job Creators Network president Alfredo Ortiz said in an interview with the Free Beacon.
"Small businesses struggled to survive the pandemic and we don't need to return to a similar environment in which in-person consumer demand is severely compromised."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It was Vox that just a few years ago explained why the anti-Semitic statements from Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat Muslim from Minnesota, were important – and problematic.
In fact, at that time, her own party considered, briefly, reprimanding her.
She has, at times, attributed pro-Israel sentiment to the financial clout of the pro-Israel lobby, with, it's "all about the Benjamins."
She charged, another time, "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country."
She has been called "unapologetically pro-Palestinian" in her criticism of Israel.
She's charged, "Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel."
Now the U.S. House, with its GOP majority, has voted to remove her from the influential Foreign Affairs Committee.
A resolution to that effect was adopted by the Rules Committee and it was passed by the House 218-211.
She blamed the vote on the fact her critics "see me as a powerful voice that needs to be silenced. Frankly, it is expected. When you push power, power pushes back. Representation matters."
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy affirmed that Omar can participate on other committees, but she was a "national security concern" on the foreign affairs panel.
There was, briefly, chaos on the House floor at the vote, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., charging that Omar was the victim of "targeting" because she is a woman "of color."
South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson, however, explained, "The overwhelming number of members I talked to are – they don't feel like given her past and perhaps current views that she should have a seat on Foreign Affairs."
Other critics said while Omar has a right to her opinions, and to speak freely, she does not have a right to the committee post.
Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky noted, "'The Foreign Affairs committee involves, you know, sensitive intelligence briefings and things like that, and when it comes to our national security and when it comes to our relationship with Israel, her views have a bearing on her ability to serve on that committee."
Other Democrats said the move simply was payback for Democrats, previously in the majority, removing GOP representatives from their committee posts.
WND previously reported on the controversy when Omar suggested on social media a billionaire was supporting Michal Bloomberg for New York mayor.
Both are Jewish.
"I wonder why," said Omar.
Some critics charged she was "trying to stir up anti-Semitic bigotry."
She also shared an anti-Semitic cartoonist's drawing of Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump "silencing" her.
Her comments promoted, at one point, a demand from Proclaiming Justice to the Nations that she resign over her anti-Semitic agenda.
Her critics pointed out then her links to the Council on American Islamic Relations, which "was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorist fundraising operation in the history of the U.S."
She's also accused Americans of saying "al-Qaida" as though it's something bad.
Further, Omar has been embroiled since shortly after her election in a controversy involving her brother and an alleged immigration-fraud scheme.
The accusations, outlined at the time in The Blaze, involve charges she married her brother to allow him access to the United States.
She has denied that.
What did happen is that she married a second man while still apparently married to the first, and then divorced in order to marry her campaign manager, to whom she disbursed $1.6 million in campaign funds.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Hunter Biden, the scandal-generating son of Joe Biden, finally has admitted that the laptop he abandoned at a repair shop, the laptop that has pulled back the curtain on multiple scandals ranging from sex orgies to drug binges to business schemes with some of America's enemies, is his.
A report at Just the News explains Hunter Biden and his legal team have dispatched a pile of letters to various government agencies – demanding "investigations" into the release of the information from that laptop.
He's also threatening to sue.
A source at the White House, however, told the Washington Post that the strategy might not be wise – putting details of his various nefarious activities in recent years in the headlines as Joe Biden's presidency struggles to build any sort of a legacy beyond his pro-abortion and pro-transgenderism ideologies.
"[N]o one thinks this strategy of putting Hunter Biden front and center is smart … No one, including the White House, thinks this is a smart strategy," the source reported.
The report explained that a source familiar with the letters that were sent, obtained by CBS, suggested Hunter Biden "intends to take the initiative in combating negative press and Republican-led investigations."
Hunter Biden already is under federal investigation over his taxes. Republicans in the majority in the U.S. House also have suggested he'll be a target for their various reviews after critics have suggested Hunter Biden essentially spent the past few years selling access to his father, as vice president and now president.
"He is not going to sit quietly by as questionable characters continue to violate his rights and media organizations peddling in lies try to defame him," the CBS source explained.
In a letter to Fox News's Tucker Carlson, Hunter Biden demanded he retracts statements describing a "money laundering scheme" that apparently involved Hunter paying his father "rent" money.
Other letters have gone to the attorney general in Delaware, the IRS, and the Department of Justice, demanding investigations "related to the publication of the laptop" contents.
It was that laptop, which was verified as Hunter Biden's early on, that possibly changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential elections. The New York Post began revealing the scandals documented in the laptop with accurate reporting.
However, legacy and social media suppressed the reporting in the days leading up to the election.
Later, a Media Research Center poll found that 36% of self-described Biden voters said they were not aware of the evidence behind claims that Joe Biden was personally involved in his son Hunter’s business deals with China, a claim bolstered by emails found on Hunter’s laptop.
Thirteen percent of those voters (4.6% of all Biden voters in the sample) said that if they had known the facts, they would not have voted for Biden.
Given Biden's tiny margin of victory in multiple swing states, a decision not to censor, had that been made, could have cost Biden the victory.
The report said, "The letters appear to mark a direct admission from Biden's legal team that the laptop does indeed belong to Biden and that the contents are authentic."
"This failed dirty political trick directly resulted in the exposure, exploitation, and manipulation of Mr. Biden's private and personal information," the letter to Delaware AG Kathy Jennings said. "Mr. Mac Isaac's intentional, reckless, and unlawful conduct allowed for hundreds of gigabytes of Mr. Biden's personal data, without any discretion, to be circulated around the Internet."
John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of the repair shop at which Hunter Biden abandoned the computer, notified the FBI, and also kept a copy of the drive, which then was turned over to various media outlets.
The Daily Mail explained the situation as Hunter Biden "going on the offense" against those who "peddled" his laptop information.
His lawyers have demanded the DOJ investigate former Trump strategist Steve Bannon, campaign lawyer and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Giuliani's lawyer, and others.
That report confirmed, "Contents of the laptop include business and personal emails, as well as several images of Hunter Biden in compromising positions." One recent revelation was that Hunter Biden apparently demanded video sex from an employee, under the threat of withholding a salary check.
Just this week, new House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer called Hunter Biden a "witness" in an investigation into "Biden family influence peddling."
That appears to focus on Hunter Biden's business dealings with China, including one that purportedly included 10% for the "big guy," identified as Joe Biden.
Comer said he had a "problem" with Hunter Biden being involved in "influence peddling."
No longer content to malign and smear just the conservative-leaning justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, some on the political left have now expanded the scope of their attacks to also go after the spouses of Republican-appointed members of the high court.
The latest to face such partisan scrutiny is Jane Sullivan Roberts, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, who is now the subject of demands for ethics investigations by Congress and the Justice Department, the Conservative Brief reported.
The crux of the complaint against Roberts is that the money she has made in her career as a high-level recruiter of attorneys for top law firms hasn't been fully disclosed and could pose conflicts of interest or undue influence on cases overseen by her chief justice husband.
The New York Times reported this week that, ironically, Jane Roberts gave up her prior career as a high-level attorney when her husband joined the Supreme Court specifically in order to avoid the potential appearance of any conflicts of interest, and instead pursued a new career path as a high-end legal recruiter.
However, a former colleague named Kendal Price, who previously unsuccessfully sued Roberts and the law firm they both once worked for, has now sent letters and purported records to both Congress and the DOJ with a demand that an ethics probe be opened against her.
Price alleged that Roberts has earned millions in commissions from top firms, some of which have conducted business before the Supreme Court, that haven't been fully accounted for in the chief justice's financial disclosure reports.
Though unable to cite any specific examples, The Times noted that Price "was worried that a financial relationship with law firms arguing before the court could affect justices’ impartiality or at least give the appearance of doing so."
In his letter, Price wrote, "I do believe that litigants in U.S. courts, and especially the Supreme Court, deserve to know if their judges’ households are receiving six-figure payments from the law firms."
For what it is worth, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court told The Times that Chief Justice Roberts and his wife, as well as all of the other justices and their spouses, have been "attentive to ethical constraints" and have fully complied with all disclosure requirements, the code of conduct for federal judges, and a 2009 Judicial Conference opinion which determined that judges with spouses who perform legal recruitment work are not required to recuse themselves.
As for Roberts herself, she had previously revealed that she handles all of her recruitment efforts on a "case-by-case basis" and tries to specifically avoid or refrain from engaging with matters or attorneys with active cases before the Supreme Court.
None of that is good enough for Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL), however, as he told The Times that Price's letter raised "troubling issues that once again demonstrate the need" for Congress to legislatively impose ethics reforms to "begin the process of restoring faith in the Supreme Court."
Unfortunately, this issue for Roberts isn't entirely new, nor is she alone among Supreme Court spouses in becoming a target, according to a September 2022 report from Politico.
In addition to Roberts, vague allegations of potential impropriety and conflicts of interest have also been leveled against Jesse Barrett, the attorney husband of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and Ginni Thomas, the conservative activist wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, who are accused of hiding who their clients and associates are and how much money they've made behind the ethics and financial disclosure requirements of the Supreme Court.
Perhaps it is true that the actions of these Supreme Court spouses may run afoul of various ethical considerations, but given the overtly biased nature of both the DOJ and Democrat-controlled Senate, it is exceedingly difficult to take any of their complaints at face value and, more likely than not, this is merely the left's latest attempt to discredit and marginalize the conservative-leaning high court.
Former President Donald Trump, who has already formally launched his 2024 re-election campaign, just gave a big hint about what would immediately be a top priority to address in a prospective second term.
During a campaign event in South Carolina on Saturday, Trump stated emphatically that "illegal border crossers" would swiftly be apprehended and "sent straight back home" under his leadership, the Conservative Brief reported.
That would be a complete policy reversal from the current administration under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, where the southern border is all but completely opened and millions of migrants who crossed illegally over the past two years have been allowed to remain in the country
In remarks reminiscent of his first speech in 2015 to announce his candidacy, former President Trump rattled off a list of the various sorts of criminal elements exploiting the chaotic and porous border to illegally gain entry into the United States.
"They're coming from prisons and they're coming from mental institutions, and they're coming from a lot of bad places that is gonna cause us a lot of problems," Trump said. "We have to get that straightened out and we have to get it straightened out fast. We have to remove a lot of people very, very fast."
"Because we can't have what they are sending," he continued. "They're sending people that are killers, murderers. They're sending rapists and they're sending, frankly, terrorists or terrorists are coming on their own, and we can't allow this to happen."
"So the illegal border crossers are going to be sent straight back home," Trump added. "Those bad ones, especially, and they’re gonna go fast."
BREAKING: "We have to remove a lot of people very, very fast...They're sending people that are killers, murders. They're sending rapists”pic.twitter.com/DpPiFKBd8f
— Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) January 28, 2023
Former President Trump is not incorrect to highlight the obvious dangers posed by current President Biden's decidedly lax enforcement of border security and immigration laws, as evidenced by the federal government's own numbers with regard to illegal border crossings, The Political Insider reported.
In just the first month or two since Fiscal Year 2023 began in October, nearly 300,000 known "gotaways" -- the term for illegal border crossers spotted but not apprehended by agents -- have entered the country, according to sources with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
That puts FY2023 on pace to see more than 1.2 million such "gotaways," which is more than the nearly 400,000 known "gotaways" in FY2021 and roughly 600,000 in FY2022 combined. And, again, that figure only encompasses those who were spotted but not apprehended and doesn't include the unknowable number of those who may have entered illegally without being detected at all.
Throw in the approximate million-plus annual border encounters and apprehensions of migrants, the overwhelming majority of whom are simply processed and released into the interior -- including some with known criminal records or pending criminal charges -- and it is an unmistakable and continuously worsening problem.
Former President Trump made securing the southern border and substantially reducing illegal immigration and drug trafficking a top priority of his term in office, only for his hard work and achievements over four years to be wasted and reversed by President Biden in half that time.
Whether it is Trump again himself or some other Republican who, hopefully, ascends to the presidency in 2024, there is no denying that securing the border and dealing with rampant illegal immigration and drug trafficking will once again have to be among the first issues addressed by the next elected leader of the United States.
House Republicans would obviously like to impeach and remove President Joe Biden from office for a variety of reasons but, in addition to that lofty and unlikely goal, they have also set their sights on doing the same to Homeland Security Sec. Alejandro Mayorkas.
That was proven on Wednesday when Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) announced that he had filed an article of impeachment to remove Mayorkas for his deliberate and willful dereliction of duty in terms of the enforcement of existing border security and immigration laws, the Washington Examiner reported.
During a press conference on Wednesday in front of the U.S. Capitol building, and flanked by dozens of fellow House Republicans supportive of the effort, Rep. Biggs announced his intent to impeach and remove Sec. Mayorkas from his Cabinet position as head of the Department of Homeland Security.
"We don't willy-nilly take upon us the notion of impeaching a member of the Biden Cabinet," Biggs told reporters. "What you're seeing is the systematic destruction of the geographical integrity of the United States of America. We don't control our southern border. It is controlled by the criminal drug cartels of Mexico. That is critical to understand why we must undertake this most serious of actions."
The resolution to impeach Mayorkas, which already has at least 28 cosponsors, lays out the alleged "high crimes and misdemeanors" of the secretary in relation to his apparent failure to uphold his sworn duties and oath of office.
"Every day Secretary Mayorkas remains in office America becomes less safe," Biggs said in a statement. "Secretary Mayorkas is the chief architect of the migration and drug invasion at our southern border. His policies have incentivized more than 5 million illegal aliens to show up at our southern border -- an all-time figure. Instead of enforcing the laws on the books and deporting or detaining these illegal aliens, the vast majority of them are released into the interior and never heard from again."
"Thousands of pounds of drugs -- including deadly fentanyl -- continue to pour across the border unabated. Fentanyl is now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18-45. These drugs could be stopped by a border fence and personnel, but Secretary Mayorkas has halted all wall construction and pulled agents from the front lines," the congressman added. "It’s clear Secretary Mayorkas has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. His conduct is willful and intentional. He is not enforcing the law and is violating his oath of office. For these reasons, Secretary Mayorkas should be impeached."
Joining Rep. Biggs at the press conference, according to the Examiner, was Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX), who had filed his own articles of impeachment against Sec. Mayorkas less than two weeks ago.
"I also introduced articles of impeachment on Alejandro Mayorkas. Let me be clear. Everyone is on the same team," Fallon told the reporters. "I hope, quite frankly, there are more articles that are filed because there has been a gross dereliction of duty. We're all here to achieve the same goal. We want to remove AM from office."
Unlike the single article of impeachment filed by Biggs, the resolution filed by Fallon, which has garnered 39 cosponsors thus far, actually contains three separate articles that lay out the specific reasons why Mayorkas should be impeached and removed from office.
The first of those covers the violation of his oath and failure to perform his sworn duties, while the second asserted he "willfully provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to Congress," and the third accused him of having "knowingly slandered" his own Border Patrol agents with regard to the false narrative about agents on horseback using the reins as whips to shepherd and corral unlawful migrants.
"Secretary Mayorkas has violated the law and his implemented policies that undermine law enforcement activities at our southern border," Fallon said in a statement at the time the articles were introduced. "From perjuring himself before Congress about maintaining operational control of the border to the infamous ‘whipgate’ slander against our border patrol agents, Secretary Mayorkas has proven time and time again that he is unfit to lead the Department of Homeland Security. His willful actions erode our immigration system, undermine border patrol morale, and imperil American national security. He must be removed from office."
The Examiner noted that while these two separate impeachment resolutions against Sec. Mayorkas appears to be the first filed under the new House Republican majority, they actually follow several other similar resolutions filed in 2021 and 2022 that failed to gain any traction or even receive discussion and a vote under the prior Democratic majority in the House.
The outlet also pointed out that Rep. Biggs' resolution appeared to be timed to coincide with a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the border crisis on Wednesday, the first such major step by the new Republican majority to reassert its oversight and accountability prerogative over DHS.