This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Questions about why then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused President Trump's offer of National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are being raised – again – after a government report faulted a number of law enforcement agencies for allowing the riot to develop that day.

Pelosi, and Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, refused Trump's offer of additional security that day – and hundreds of people rioted, some breaking into the Capitol to vandalize it and others walking past security guards who held doors open for them and taking selfies in the building.

The trigger for the riot was the belief that the 2020 presidential election had been corrupted.

A report from Just the News, which has pursued a multitude of reports on the issue, said the Government Accountability Office reported that Capitol Police, FBI, and eight other federal agencies gathered intelligence "that extremists were planning to commit violence at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but failed to adequately adapt security or get threat assessments to key decision-makers and frontline officers."

The report said, "Some agencies did not fully process information or share it, preventing critical information from reaching key federal entities responsible for securing the National Capital Region against threats."

The conclusions immediately triggered questions inside Congress on the failure of Pelosi to act. As a House speaker, she had the responsibility to oversee the security of the building.

The report said the GAO found fault with all 10 agencies it reviewed but blasted the Capitol Police "for leaving frontline officers unaware of the threat they faced when they went to work."

"Capitol Police did not share threat products with its frontline officers," the GAO said. "The Capitol Police and Park Police did not process threat products to include all relevant information, which resulted in incomplete assessments and conclusions in the products. Both agencies, in addition to the Capitol Police Board, also did not share all relevant information internally."

The GAO warned it now is important to change the processes that failed.

Just the News revealed, too, that Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., cited the concerns that a special House committee set up by Pelosi, and consisting of only harsh critics of President Trump, did not address. In fact, that committee never addressed the apparent failure on the part of Pelosi to provide adequate security that day.

Norman, during an interview on "Just the News, No Noise," a television program, said, "Some of the police were involved. Unfortunately, some of the FBI agents were involved. The information they had, they had a blueprint for what was going to happen, and they didn't think about it and look at the consequences."

Former Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and said following the riot he had been given information by police "that there were intelligence and security failures but Democrats under former Speaker Nancy Pelosi suffocated the release of such information publicly," the report said.

"There are no secrets in Washington when you do something really stupid like they did like Pelosi did," he said. "It looks like, at least from first glance, [the GAO] actually are telling the truth for once, which is great."

The GAO also warned the FBI failed to process information from social media platforms and failed to share information.

Other targets of the report included the Homeland Security Department.

Just the News reported, "The report validated months of reporting by Just the News about the details that law enforcement forwarded to Capitol Police as early as a month before Jan. 6, citing several instances surfaced by Just the News stories, including, for example, a tip the Capitol Police received on Jan. 5, 2021, regarding plans to block and confront Democratic members of Congress from entering the Capitol through the tunnel system via the basement of the Library of Congress."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Staff members for both Republicans and Democrats on two congressional committees have been given a classified briefing from the State Department on the federal government's decision to bankroll a "purported 'disinformation' tracking group" that blacklists conservative media outlets.

The news is from a report by the Washington Examiner, which for weeks has been investigating the campaign to suppress conservative news in America.

Its work has focused on factors including the Global Engagement Center, part of the State Department, which in 2021 gave $100,000 to the Global Disinformation Index, which has targeted one side of the news.

Among the targets has been WND.

The news site's longtime vice president and managing editor, David Kupelian, explains how the site that was begun in 1997 has been in the bull's eye.

"In late 2020, three major international online ad companies that had long served ads on WND – our main source of revenue and sustenance – all suddenly decided, at almost the exact same time, to cancel WND in the run-up to the most important presidential election of our lifetimes. The ad companies blacklisting WND – namely Xandr, TripleLift, and Teads – all cited vague breaches of their terms of service, including, and I quote, ‘any content that is illegal or otherwise contrary to any applicable law, regulation, directive, guideline or order, including without limitation any misleading, unethical, obscene, defamatory, deceptive, gambling-related or hateful content,’ etc. So it has nothing to do with 'disinformation.' If they don’t like your politics, you’re cancelled."

Dozens of other websites, including Epoch Times, Hannity, Washington Times, Lifezette, Bill O'Reilly, Daily Signal, Judicial Watch, Chicks on the Right, Mike Huckabee, OANN, RSB Network, Charlie Kirk, Glenn Beck, American Thinker, Townhall, Newsbusters, Wayne Dupree, Louder with Crowder, CNS, Twitchy, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Free Republic, Law Enforcement Today and Drudge also were targeted.

The Examiner now is reporting that this week, staff members of those the House Oversight and Accountability Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee were briefed on the $100,000 grant delivered by the center.

"It's alarming that the State Department passed U.S. taxpayer dollars to a foreign organization that attempted to censor conservative American news outlets," Rep. James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky and chief of Oversight, told the publication.

"The State Department’s classified briefing provided to committee staff indicates that there may need to be stronger mechanisms in place to prevent domestic censorship."

He explained something needs to make sure that efforts to "counter foreign state and terrorist propaganda do not, intentionally or otherwise, spill into use on domestic speech."

GDI is a British group with two affiliated U.S. nonprofit groups that have been feeding blacklists of websites to web advertising companies.

Other targets have been identified as the Federalist, the American Conservative, One America News, the Blaze, the Daily Wire, RealClearPolitics, Reason, the New York Post, and the American Spectator.

The Examiner reported a source confirmed seven State officials were at the briefing, which was followed by weeks' explanations to Congress from the National Endowment for Democracy its contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars to GDI.

WND had reported only days earlier that Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin were demanding an investigation.

The senators want to know how taxpayer dollars have flowed to GDI, which intends to shut down disfavored speech.

"Free speech is fundamental to preserving our liberty," explained Johnson, of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. "If taxpayer dollars are being used to censor voices because they are critical of the administration’s disastrous policies, every American should be concerned. We need to further investigate this potential First Amendment violation."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., recently announced she had married her security guard, and an analysis by the Washington Examiner explains it's just the latest ethics issue to beleaguer the "Squad," Democrats recently voted into Congress who pursue extremist ideologies like climate change and such.

"The squad members have become left-wing celebrities, and it's given them a level of protection," charged Peter Flaherty, of the National Legal and Policy Center.

"There's a huge double standard."

The clique includes Bush, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and five other Democrats.

The analysis cited Bush's relationship with Cortney Merritts, who was paid more than $62,000 by her campaign in the last year.

Kendra Arnold, of the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, said it could become an issue if he was paid more than fair market value, since the Federal Election Commission then labels those payments as being for "personal use."

Watchdogs also have raised questions about gifts Bush has taken, including "dresses, jewelry, and shoes, " according to a Harper's Bazaar report.

There are strict limits on what gifts members of Congress may accept, including a $50 maximum value.

Her spokeswoman, Julia Albertson, claimed in 2021 that Bush "has never solicited or accepted any gifts that do not strictly comply…"

Arnold, however, said the gifts "are happening."

"It does need transparency," she said.

The analysis explained Ocasio-Cortez, now under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, has been in the headlines for "accepting free tickets" to the Met Gala and borrowing jewelry, shoes, and a "custom 'tax the rich' gown."

The National Legal and Policy Center, Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, and American Accountability Foundation all filed complaints over the events.

Tom Jones, of AAF, told the Examiner, "The full House should seriously consider sanctioning her, but the first thing she should do is repay the gift ... for so brazenly violating the housekeeping rules. This is basically a private dinner, where you can buttonhole AOC and go talk to her about whatever your pet issue is out of the sight of anyone else. You're not supposed to be able to do that. So that's problematic."

The report noted Omar has created her own controversies by paying about $3 million to a company called E Street Group, which happens to be co-owned by her husband, Tim Mynett.

When Republicans started looking into the situation, her payments to that company plunged by $2 million.

She's also been accused, in a complaint to the Office of Congressional Ethics, of previously marrying her brother. However, documents have not been revealed confirming that.

She also is accused of failing to disclose a lucrative book deal in her annual financial disclosure.

The report noted the issues with Tlaib date to 2020 when the House Ethics Committee ordered her to pay a $10,800 fine for illegally using campaign money for personal purposes.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

When the decision on whether to stage a SWAT-style raid on President Trump's home in search of government documents was looming last year, the FBI took the position that such an action was too combative.

However, prosecutors in the Department of Justice, which was well-known for its antagonism to Trump, including its involvement in the manufactured "Russia collusion" conspiracy theory that targeted Trump for years before it was debunked, wanted the flamboyant raid launched.

They won the argument.

A report from the Washington Post called the debate a "tense showdown" because officials believed there might be more classified documents there, and they wanted them back.

The report said prosecutors claimed evidence suggested Trump was knowingly concealing secret documents at his home. The report said they insisted on a "surprise raid" by the FBI.

However, the report said two senior FBI officials challenged that process as too combative. They wanted to work with Trump and his lawyers to search for documents.

"Prosecutors ultimately prevailed in that dispute, one of several previously unreported clashes in a tense tug of war between two arms of the Justice Department over how aggressively to pursue a criminal investigation of a former president," the report said. "The FBI conducted an unprecedented raid on Aug. 8, recovering more than 100 classified items, among them a document describing a foreign government’s military defenses, including its nuclear capabilities."

The report said FBI agents in Washington had urged caution, given the sensitivity of the situation. In fact, after Trump was raided, it was revealed that Joe Biden had classified documents in his home, apparently stashed next to his collectible sports car, as well as left behind at an office he formerly used. Prosecutors had been working with him to get them returned quietly.

The report said the witness account "reveals for the first time the degree of tension among law enforcement officials and behind-the-scenes deliberations as they wrestled with a national security case that has potentially far-reaching political consequences."

"The disagreements stemmed in large part from worries among officials that whatever steps they took in investigating a former president would face intense scrutiny and second-guessing by people inside and outside the government. However, the agents, who typically perform the bulk of the investigative work in cases, and the prosecutors, who guide agents’ work and decide on criminal charges, ultimately focused on very different pitfalls, according to people familiar with their discussions."

National Archives officials had for months been demanding boxes of Trump's presidential documents be returned, and when they got a shipment of 15 boxes, they found some classified documents inside. They then assumed Trump had more.

The Washington Examiner pointed out that, "Justice Department officials eventually won the battle, with the FBI conducting an unprecedented search of the former president's home on Aug. 8 that resulted in the discovery of more than 300 classified documents."

It all got started when the "National Archives sent a referral to the Justice Department and the FBI to investigate missing classified records that they suspected were in Trump's possession," the Examiner said.

It explained, "FBI agents who were worried about the political blowback from such a high-profile situation, given that it was the home of a former president, and wanted to take a more cooperative approach. The agency particularly pointed to mistakes made in prior investigations of Hillary Clinton and Trump that led to partisan attacks, officials said."

n fact, "Prosecutors learned that some agents were worried about the damage to their careers if they were found to be investigating Trump," the report said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Sixty-one percent of Americans in a new poll think it's likely that government agents helped provoke the Jan. 6 riot at the nation's Capitol, which Democrat leaders and most of the liberal media have labeled an "insurrection."

The survey by Rasmussen Reports of 1,000 "U.S. likely voters" contacted Feb. 26-28 also found overwhelming majorities in favor of releasing all the surveillance video footage of the Jan. 6 events, after a politically-charged, Democrat-led investigation into Jan. 6 released only partial portions of the videos.

"Sixty-one percent (61%) of voters believe it is likely that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot, including 39% who think it’s Very Likely. Thirty percent (30%) don’t think it’s likely undercover agents helped provoke the riot, including 18% who say it is Not At All Likely," reports Rasmussen.

Seventy percent of Republicans, and 57 percent of both Democrats and unaffiliated voters, believe it is "at least somewhat likely" that undercover government agents helped provoke the Capitol riot," the survey found.

Meanwhile, a new federal GAO report "faulted a number of law enforcement agencies for allowing the riot to develop" on Jan. 6, WND reports. Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Chuck Schumer refused President Trump's offer of security help that day, and with chaos growing, numerous live J6 videos show people streaming into the Capitol building with security guards holding the door open for them and even taking selfies with rally attendees.

Regarding the release of the J6 surveillance video, "Eighty-six percent (86%) of Republicans, 78% of Democrats, and 75% of voters not affiliated with either major party believe it is important that the public be able to view all the videos of the Capitol riot," according to Rasmussen, which reported the results Thursday.

Only 17 percent of those polled did not think it's important for the public to see all the Jan. 6 videos, the poll found.

Last month, Gateway Pundit and various conservative social media accounts publicized a newly released J6 video showing D.C. police firing stun guns into peaceful protesters protesting at the Capitol, as WND reported. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has pledged full access to 41,000 hours of J6 surveillance video to Fox News journalist and talk show host Tucker Carlson. McCarthy said the full array of video footage also will be made available to J6 defendants.

Only 47 percent of all "Likely Voters" polled said they think the Democrat-run congressional committee investigating Jan. 6 "did a good or excellent job," while 38 percent said it did a "poor job."

Here are some other findings from the poll:

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new report cites plans in the state of Montana to make it illegal to donate blood if the donor has had experimental COVID-19 shots.

"There is a scientific reason for it," explained the report in the Independent Sentinel.

The report notes that some 80% of the state's blood supply comes from vaccinated donors, but someone receiving such a donation will likely get blood with "a significant amount of spike protein from mRNA vaccines."

Montana's plan would ban donors who have gotten the mRNA vaccinations from giving blood. And it would also ban people who have been diagnosed with "Long COVID-19."

The Daily Montanan said opponents of the legislative plan charge that such a limit would "leave patients at risk of even death."

Cliff Numark, of Vitalant, a blood collection organization, said the change could lead to "adverse patient outcomes including unnecessary and unconscionable death."

Bill supporters, however, said the issue is about medical autonomy and the right to receive blood from donors not affected by the COVID-19 shots.

"I'm one of many who believe in the God-given right of medical freedom, which is having access to genetically unmodified blood during a time of need," Jo Vilhauer from Miles City, told the publication. "This is a vital part of health autonomy."

Other political opponents to the concept have been the Montana Nurses Association, the Montana Hospital Association, the Montana Medical Association, and the Montana Primary Care Association.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The results of the 2020 presidential election have been under challenge ever since they were tabulated.

Some challenges, like the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol, were out of line. Others continue to get attention through revelations about the events that day.

Some of those include the undoubted influence operation run by Mark Zuckerberg, who handed out, through foundations, some $400 million to mostly leftist election officials who used the cash windfall to recruit voters from Democrat districts.

Then, too, there was the coordinated suppression by legacy and social media of accurate reporting about the Biden family's scandalous international business dealings, revealed on a laptop computer Hunter Biden abandoned.

A subsequent poll shows that had Americans been more widely aware of Joe Biden's involvement, it is almost without doubt that he would have lost the election.

Whatever the details, however, the issue apparently has Democrats still terrified.

That's evident from Senate Leader Chuck Schumer's orders to Fox chief Rupert Murdoch that he orders Tucker Carlson, and other Fox hosts, to "stop spreading the Big Lie."

Leftists repeatedly have characterized any claims of misbehavior in the 2020 election, which is supported by evidence in multiple instances, is just a "Big Lie."

The comments from Schumer came after Murdoch's deposition testimony in a lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems against the network, alleging its hosts defamed the company by suggesting election failures by its machines.

Murdoch said he probably could have reduced the number of comments about election fraud by the network's hosts, but didn't.

Schumer said, "Rupert Murdoch could have stepped in but chose not to. @RepJeffries and I are demanding that he do what he should have done a long time ago: Order Tucker Carlson and other hosts on Fox News to stop spreading the Big Lie."

That's even though his own party has a long-established record of denying election results.

report from the Gateway Pundit reported Schumer wrote to Murdoch.

And said, "As noted in your deposition released yesterday, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and other Fox News personalities knowingly, repeatedly, and dangerously endorsed and promoted the Big Lie that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election. Though you have acknowledged your regret in allowing this grave propaganda to take place, your network hosts continue to promote, spew, and perpetuate elections conspiracy theories to this day."

They continued, "We demand that you direct Tucker Carlson and other hosts on your network to stop spreading false election narratives and admit on air that they were wrong to engage in such negligent behavior."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Those "white Christians" who adopt needy Native American children are guilty of "genocide," according to one state lawmaker in Minnesota whose rant was made available on social media.

"I'm sick of white Christians adopting our babies and rejoicing. It's a really sad day when that happens. It means the genocide continues," charged Heather Keeler, a state representative from Moorhead.

The Tennessee Star report continued, "If you care about our babies, advocate against the genocide! Help the actual issues impacting Indigenous parents, stop stealing our babies and changing their names under the impression that you are helping.

"White saviors are the worst!" she said.

She is pursuing her special interest as a lawmaker, supporting a plan to incorporate parts of the federal Indian Child Welfare Act into state law.

That federal law is currently under challenge and a ruling from the Supreme Court is expected this spring.

It classifies children by race and gives tribal authorities absolute control over the adoption of Indian children. It has been used to devastatingly negative results in several cases where children unwanted by their birth parents have been given care by potential adoptive parents.

Tribal authorities, however, then have stepped in and have sometimes dispatched the children to unrelated strangers who just happen to be on tribal rolls.

Rep. Alicia Kozlowski, a Democrat from Duluth, said, "Throughout history, the United States and Minnesota have carried out intentional and horrific methods of removal and disconnection of our native children from their families, their culture."

The bill would require, in state law, "The state of Minnesota recognizes all federally recognized Indian tribes as having the inherent authority to determine their own jurisdiction for any and all Indian child custody or child placement proceedings regardless of whether the tribe’s members are on or off the reservation and regardless of the procedural posture of the proceeding."

Keeler claimed, "Raising our next generation and keeping them in our indigenous families is essential to preserving our culture, language, traditions, and way of life."

Alpha News reported Keeler said, "We need to protect our indigenous families and the integrity of our relatives. Our next seven generations are sacred to our community, and taking them away and stripping them of their identity is a form of genocide."

A Chinese virologist who fled the CCP in April 2020 said Monday that not only did COVID-19 come from a Chinese lab in Wuhan, but China released the virus on the world intentionally.

Dr. Li Meng Yan said that the admission that the virus leaked from a Chinese lab is only the first step to recognizing the truth about how the pandemic happened.

"Maybe for people who don't have this kind of biosafety lab 3 or 4 experience on coronavirus, maybe it's easy for them to accept the accident lab leak. However, I'm a scientist, working in [a] research lab using coronavirus. And I can tell you, based on the print protocol and also the other surveillance system, it would be impossible for the lab leak [to] accidentally happen in such [a] lab and cause the Wuhan outbreak and also the pandemic," Yan said.

Yan was one of the first to report instances of human-to-human transmission of the COVID-19 virus in China in January 2020 to authorities there, but was quickly silenced because at the time China was claiming that the virus did not spread from human to human.

First step

She suggested as far back as September 2020 that China released the virus intentionally, and told Fox News' Tucker Carlson that she still believes the release was intentional.

"So definitely now we just reached the first step. It was from China's lab, and we need to pursue the truth of origin, and we need to keep going on," Yan said.

Yan doesn't think the government intentionally caused the Wuhan outbreak, which saw residents being boarded into their houses and crematories working around the clock, according to surveillance in the area.

I don't think the outbreak in Wuhan was intentional. I would say it was because [the] CCP government and the military scientists underestimated the transmissibility," she added. "That's why finally it got out of control and the cost [was] a local outbreak. However, we should know that [the] CCP government intentionally let it go all over the world to kill millions of people all over the world later."

Was China trying to destroy the West?

Yan's comments dovetail with suspicions by some on the right like Carlson that China released COVID-19 as a biological weapon against Western economies to try to destroy them and elevate its own economy.

While the U.S. economy did weaken temporarily, China seemed to also underestimate both the strength of the economy before COVID-19 and the global nature of economics.

Most of the impacts of COVID-19 on the economy have been global, and have impacted China just as much as the West.

If China gets away with having brought about a pandemic without having any consequences for it, COVID-19 could be just a test run for future attacks of a similar nature, or worse.

COVID-19 has killed almost 7 million people around the world, according to estimates. China needs to be held accountable for these deaths and to make restitution of some kind.

If that doesn't happen, we can expect a lot more of the same.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has revealed the extent of potential criminal evidence against Hunter Biden that has been shared with Congress.

The senator disclosed to Attorney General Merrick Garland that lawfully protected whistleblower disclosures to his office indicate that the Justice Department and FBI had over a dozen sources who provided potentially criminal information relating to Hunter Biden, according to The Daily Caller.

Grassley said that the alleged volume and similarity of the information would demand that the Justice Department investigate the truth and accuracy of the information.

He also asked Garland what steps the Justice Department has taken to determine the truth and accuracy of the information given to Grassley’s team.

Venue for the Disclosures

Grassley made the disclosure during a hearing with Garland held by the Senate Judiciary Committee after asking hypothetical questions about protections for whistleblowers who match the description of the people who came forward to his office.

The senator asked Garland what steps the Justice Department has taken to determine the truth and accuracy of the information given to Grassley’s team. Garland largely refused to give detailed answers about the active investigation into President Joe Biden’s adult son, deferring to Delaware’s U.S. Attorney David Weiss.

The attorney general said any information about Hunter Biden should have gone to Weiss and the “FBI squad” assisting him.

He insisted that if Weiss needed to go to another jurisdiction to bring a case, he would “assure” that the U.S. attorney would be able to do so.

While Hunter Biden has said he expects to be cleared of wrongdoing, Republicans have raised concerns about influence peddling, particularly regarding his Chinese business dealings and access to areas where classified documents have been located.

Reason for Investigation

Hunter Biden, 53, is under federal investigation for possible tax fraud, illegal foreign lobbying, money laundering, and lying about his drug use on a gun-purchase form.

Investigators reportedly believe they have enough evidence to charge him with tax crimes and lying on the gun form. Hunter and his uncle, first brother James Biden, have a history of seeking business in countries where Joe Biden holds sway over US policy, such as China, Russia, Mexico, and Ukraine, creating conflicts of interest and corruption concerns.

Grassley later cast doubt on Garland’s claims that the probe by Weiss — one of the few still-serving US attorneys appointed by President Donald Trump — was truly independent.

Grassley asked if Weiss, the US attorney in Delaware, sought permission from another US Attorney’s Office, such as in the District of Columbia or California, to bring charges. Garland didn't know the answer to that but insisted that Weiss has been told that he is not to be denied anything that he needs.

Hunter Biden reportedly still owns a 10% stake in BHR Partners, which manages $2.1 billion in assets. The company has “unique mixed ownership,” which combines the resources and platforms of China’s largest financial institutions, and the networks and know-how of the US-based investment fund and advisory firm shareholders. In 2016, BHR Partners facilitated a deal in which a Chinese firm bought a Congolese cobalt mine from US and Canadian companies.

© 2023 - Patriot News Alerts