This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

There have been a number of plans and suggestions over the years to meet the demands of the Palestinians in the Middle East with a two-state solution, one Jewish state and another for the Palestinians.

But they've been rejected each time by the Palestinians, who instead have been turning to terrorism.

It now appears that's the goal, after all, as members of the Hamas terror organization, which is the "government" in the Gaza Strip after an election many years ago, and the cancellation of all elections since, have confirmed.

According to a report from Fox News, terror organization members say they want the war with Israel to "become permanent on all the borders."

There's conflict there now because of a terror attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians on Oct. 7 that left 1,400 dead, thousands hurt, and several hundred as victims of kidnappings.

The New York Times they cited the plans from Hamas for a "permanent" state of war.

According to Fox, Khalil al-Hayya, of Hamas' top leadership team, told the Times the terrorists "succeeded in putting the Palestinian issue back on the table, and now no one in the region is experiencing calm."

Back "on the table," however, might not be desired, as Israel has run a weeks-long campaign of air strikes on Hamas assets inside Gaza, and just recently has started moving in with soldiers and tanks in pursuit of its goal of destroying every Hamas militant.

Joining al-Hayya was terror media adviser Taher El-Nounou, who told the Times, "I hope that the state of war with Israel will become permanent on all the borders and that the Arab world will stand with us."

The New York publication explained that Hamas, with the death and destruction it delivered to unsuspecting civilians, emphasized its standing as a "military."

The Times report speculated that the terrorism was launched just as the issue of the Palestinians' demand for the land belonging to Israel was waning.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In a series of statements that literally ignore the Hamas terrorism last month that killed 1,400 innocent civilian Israelis, including babies who were beheaded and whole families burned alive, nine leftist nations, so far, have announced they are cutting links to the Middle East democracy.

report in the Hill said the nations withdrawing their ambassadors or otherwise cutting ties are South Africa, Turkey, Jordan, Colombia, Chad, Chile, Honduras, Bahrain and Bolivia,

The report said the nations were citing "humanitarian concerns" for their decisions, but they didn't address the fact that there was a cease-fire in the region until Oct. 7 when Hamas terrorists, likely on drugs and carrying orders to commit atrocities, attacked innocent Israeli civilians, killing 1,400.

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S.

Bolivia fully severed ties with Israel and the other eight withdrew their ambassadors.

The announcement by South Africa claimed disappointment in Israel's "refusal" to follow international law even though it was targeted by the terrorists and has only responded in self-defense.

Jordan claimed the situation involved a "raging Israeli war on Gaza, which is killing innocent people…" and, called for a cease-fire, which was in place until Hamas terrorists broke it.

Turkey's president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, claimed Israel was violating international law by defending itself.

"We will support formulas that will bring peace and calm to the region. We will not be supportive of plans that will further darken the lives of Palestinians, that will gradually erase them from the scene of history," he claimed.

Chile, too, complained that Israel's defense was a "punishment" of Palestinian civilians. In fact, Hamas routinely locates its military bases at or near civilian population centers and facilities like hospitals, so that its own population serves as a shield against military responses.

Israel, on the other hand, has issued warnings to civilians to evacuate certain areas before its military enters.

According to the Hill, Colombia and Chad insisted on a cease-fire now that Hamas already has successfully inflicted hundreds of deaths on Israel's population.

And Honduras, Bahrain, and Bolivia said they were cutting ties over "Israel's actions in Gaza."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The United Kingdom doesn't have the First Amendment that America has, and it's allowed a stunning situation to develop: Police threatening a man for speech that supports the free speech of another.

The situation has been profiled in a report by Christian Concern.

It developed when Councilor Anthony Stevens, who now is being supported by the Christian Legal Center, told the media his "harrowing" story of being arrested in front of his family.

His offense had been to make comments on social media … defending free speech.

He was defending the right to express opinions for another councilor, King Lawal, who recently got into trouble for explaining on social media that the Bible considers pride a sin, a statement that left "Pride" promoters enraged.

The report explained, "On 8 August, Cllr Steven's home was swooped on by police without warning. He was searched in front of his wife and children, then detained at Kettering police station, where he was grilled about a recent tweet where he shared a petition in support of fellow Conservative councilor, King Lawal."

Stevens' arrest immediately drew the attention of Baroness Foster, who told Northamptonshire police their actions were an "appalling episode and breach of free speech."

The report said police then responded with a threat, by Det. Inspector Mark Hopkinson, to Stevens that said police were "aware" of his statements to the media.

"Northamptonshire Police will review any media publications or other comments made by anyone in a public forum which directly relate to an investigation to ensure the information contained within it could not impact on any future proceedings, or impact on your right to a fair trial," the warning said. "As such I would like to take this opportunity to advise that you consider taking legal advice prior to any contact with media sources or making comments within public forum about this case, or the circumstances."

Steven's own lawyers then told police that his comments enjoy a "high level of protection" under the law.

"The arrest of our client, a democratically elected office-holder, for social media posts about matters of public interest, is self-evidently a matter for legitimate media attention, public debate, and criticism," they said.

They accused Hopkinson of "an outright attempt to intimidate our client and media organizations and to stifle legitimate criticism of the police. Such behavior is wholly unacceptable for a police officer in a free country."

Stevens said, "I was shocked when the police turned up at my house unannounced and came onto my property. Frankly, it was frightening, and no doubt intended to be so. I was then arrested and humiliated in front of my wife and children. Even if the police had legitimate questions to ask me (which I am yet to hear), there was no need to ambush me in my own house, arrest me, search me, keep me in the cell for the whole day, interrogate me, or confiscate my phone."

The underlying case, involving Lawal, involved his loss of his membership in multiple organizations for noting that the Bible condemns "pride," which of course is the slogan used by the LGBT ideology.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., is demanding answers from Jennifer Granholm, Joe Biden's secretary of Energy, about money, lies and ethics.

The Missouri senator has written to the DOE calling for answers from Granholm about a number of issues.

Hawley's letter went to DOE Inspector General Teri Donaldson and sought an investigation of Granholm "for misleading the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee about her financial holdings in April of this year, and her multiple violations of federal ethics laws."

"Senior officials have no business trading stocks, especially stocks in the industries they regulate. The repeated ethics violations by Energy Department officials undermine the public’s trust in our government and the rule of law," the senator wrote.

Hawley also made a point, during a recent Senate Energy Committee hearing, of asking the IG to review alleged ethical lapses at the DOE, "in light of reports that hundreds of DOE officials hold stocks related to the agency's work."

Earlier this year Hawley demanded Granholm provide an explanation for misleading testimony during a Senate committee hearing where she claimed she did not own any personal financial stocks, when in fact, she held individual stocks as recently as May of this year.

Granholm also recently sported a metaphorical black eye for a stunt that occurred while she was taking a multi-day drive in an electric vehicle to promote that industry.

One of her staffers drove a gas-power vehicle into a parking spot reserved for EV charging in order to "save" the spot for Granholm's expected arrival. The owner of another EV wanted to use the parking spot for charging and was denied access, prompting a call to local police to complain about the elitism favoring Granholm.

The senator's letter said the DOE should review Granholm's "misleading" statements about her holdings, her "repeated violations of federal ethics laws," and the general lack of compliance in the department to rules regarding the ownership of regulated companies.

"Prior to her false testimony before the committee, Secretary Granholm had already violated federal stock disclosure laws nine times. Then, during her testimony before the committee on April 20, 2023, Secretary Granholm testified three times, in response to my questions, that she no longer held any stocks. This was not true. At the time, she held stocks in six separate companies," the senator wrote.

He said she then waited weeks to sell those stocks, and "waited several more weeks" to tell the committee she had not told the truth.

He said the violations "undermine the public's trust in our government."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Economic development changes many things, especially the values of properties.

And that has become an issue in Ocean Springs, Mississippi, where a neighborhood situated next to the "Railroad District" provides housing for many black residents.

It hadn't gotten much attention over the years. But now, "thanks to the revitalization of the city's nearby downtown, the homes that once were looked over are being eyed for redevelopment," according to a report from the Institute for Justice.

And to clear the pathway for changes, the city designated the neighborhood as a "blighted" slum.

Without letting property owners, who now are past the deadline to challenge the change, know.

The change is significant because the designation opens the door for the forced sale of homes there.

"Ocean Springs cannot brand neighborhoods as slums in secret," said IJ Senior Vice President Dana Berliner. "Depriving people of their property rights without any process is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. Ocean Springs should be happy to have such a closely-knit, warm community. It shouldn’t try to destroy it."

The legal team explained that some property owners, among those "people who inherited homes, business owners, and a church that is a pillar of the black community," now are working with the institute the challenge the city's scheme in court.

"Cynthia Fisher has lived in the Railroad District for 70 years. In 1980, she moved around the corner from the home she grew up in and inherited after her mother passed away. That home is now declared blighted. Her daughter lives in the home today and Cynthia has no intention of selling. Yet the blight label could allow the city to force her to sell one day," the IJ reported.

"This neighborhood means everything to me," Fisher said. "We’re proud of our neighborhood and while we may not have a lot of money to put in our homes, we keep them well. What the city did, labeling our neighborhood as a slum without telling us, was wrong."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A renowned commentator on Israel and Jewish affairs, Caroline Glick, has launched a warning to Israel that America, through the Joe Biden administration, is no longer a friend.

In fact, Secretary of State Antony Blinken was sent to Israel following the recent terror attacks by Hamas, which killed hundreds and hundreds of civilians, sometimes by burning families alive, other times by beheading babies, for a nefarious reason, she explains.

He was dispatched essentially to blackmail Israel into allowing "resupply" of Hamas provisions in Gaza, on the threat of America withholding military supplies needed by Israel.

Further, Joe Biden's recent visit there was staged to force a delay in Israel's response to the Hamas terror, as commanders were ordered to stand down until his trip was completed, she charges, describing Biden himself as acting as a "human shield" for Hamas.

Here are the comments:

Glick explains that Israel's newest threat is from the Biden administration itself.

She cited sources who told her of Blinken's threat to withhold supplies, and his demands of a channel to "resupply" Gaza, or, in fact, Hamas, which controls Gaza.

"Tony Blinken wasn't trying to help Israel at all," she said. Instead, he was demanding those "resupply" lines.

Glick explained, in a contemporaneous commentary at, where she is a senior contributing editor and host of the "Caroline Glick Show," the issue of "humanitarian aid" for Gaza.

"The implications of this position are devastating for Israel. According to reports, there are 'hundreds of trucks' lined up on the border in Egypt to enter the Gaza Strip carrying so-called 'humanitarian aid.' These trucks, if permitted to enter, will not be inspected in any significant way. There is no reason to believe they are carrying baby formula and foodstuffs that will be delivered to the needy. There is every reason to believe they are carrying war materiel and jihadist fighters who have arrived to augment Hamas," she explained.

"To the extent that there is food in the trucks, who will it feed? The hostages? The infirm? Who will the medicine be delivered to? The hostages? Will the fuel in the trucks be used in refrigerators to feed the captive Israelis? Of course not."

She noted that all of the "ministries" in Gaza are, in fact, Hamas itself.

"So whatever and whoever is in the trucks carrying 'humanitarian aid,' all of it will be delivered to Hamas and will be distributed to benefit Hamas," she wrote.

In fact, she wrote, the world is collaborating with Hamas by not allowing those in Gaza to escape to another territory.

"By … demanding that Israel allow Hamas to resupply while calling that resupply 'humanitarian aid,' the Biden administration is trapping the civilians of Gaza it claims to care about protecting. They will remain under Hamas’s jackboot. They will remain its human shields and cannon fodder."

She also said a United Nations resolution "stipulates that all U.N. member nations must 'Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,'" so resupplying Hamas is not allowed.

She issued a dire warning:

As a superpower, the United States is in a position to side with Israel and Hamas simultaneously. And that is clearly the Biden administration’s current policy. The administration’s goal, apparently, is to block Israel from winning and force it to fight to a draw—in the best-case scenario. This is perfect for Hamas, which would survive, and with its friends in the United States, the United Nations, Iran, Qatar and throughout the Arab and Western world, rebuild itself stronger than ever. For Israel, it would be a calamity of biblical proportions. Alone in the world, and treated infamously by its ostensible U.S. ally, Israel would emerge from the war with its regional position in tatters. The peace with Egypt and Jordan would likely not long survive. The Abraham Accords would be undone. And the very notion of normalization of ties with Saudi Arabia would be pushed down the memory hole. Iran would stand as the regional superpower, and within months could be expected to test a nuclear weapon. Israel’s future, in short, would be bleak."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A Democrat congresswoman sitting on the House's Judiciary Committee's Weaponization of the Federal Government subcommittee hearing Thursday saw her "gotcha" moment blow up in her face as the anti-Pelosi J6 tweet she sought to hang around the neck of an FBI whistleblower turned out not to be his.

Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Ca., thought she had the goods on suspended FBI whistleblower Marcus Allen, an Iraq War vet and FBI "staff operations specialist" who testified that he faced severe retaliation for questioning the government's narrative surrounding Jan. 6.

Sanchez read the contents of a "Marcus Allen" tweet in which the author blamed former House Speaker and Democrat Nancy Pelosi for "staging" Jan. 6.

The problem for the congresswoman, which she never acknowledged as she pressed on with her hostile questioning, is that the "Marcus Allen" tweet she quoted was from a different "Marcus Allen."

Twitter conservative Greg Price commented: "It would appear Linda Sanchez found a random Twitter account with 118 followers with the same name as the witness that she brought to the hearing and claimed was his haha."

According to the weaponization committee's interim report exposing alleged FBI mistreatment of whistleblowers, "The FBI suspended [Allen's] security clearance for simply performing duties of his job – conducting case-related research using open-source news articles and videos and sending his search results to his task force colleagues."

As the Washington Free Beacon reported, Allen "was accused of disloyalty to the United States for allegedly promoting 'conspiratorial views' about January 6. Allen said he 'questioned the official narrative' of the events that day, but condemned 'all criminal activity' during the insurrection."

The interaction between Sanchez and Allen went like this:

Rep. Sanchez: Mr. Allen, have you ever used Twitter, yes or no?

Allen: I have utilized Twitter, yes.

Sanchez: OK, and is your account: '@MarcusA970506645?

Allen: That is absolutely not my account, ma'am.

Sanchez: OK, that's not your account. Well, on December 5th, 2022, an account under the name Marcus Allen retweeted a tweet that said--

Allen: –That is not my account, ma'am--

Sanchez--But you haven't let me finish the question, sir [another congressman jokes: "Might have been the football player?"]--you haven't let me finish the question. And the time is mine. On December 5th, 2022 an account under the name of Marcus Allen retweeted a tweet that said, "Nancy Pelosi staged January 6th. Retweet if you agree." Do you agree with that statement, yes or no?

Allen: That, that – no, ma'am, that's not my account at all. I have no idea–

Rep. Sanchez: I'm asking whether you agree with that statement, yes or no?

Allen: Can you please rephrase the statement?

[Subcommittee chair Jim Jordan tells Sanchez her time has expired.]

Sanchez: I just want him to answer. ... Do you believe that Nancy, do you agree with the statement that this person tweeted that Nancy Pelosi staged January 6th, yes or no?

Allen: No.

Sanchez: Thank you.

According to the committee's report, "The disclosures from these FBI employees highlight egregious abuse, misallocation of law-enforcement resources, and misconduct with the leadership ranks of the FBI."

In his testimony, Allen said, "My family and I are surviving on early withdrawals from our retirement accounts while the FBI has ignored my request for approval to obtain outside employment."

Sanchez's failed attempt to implicate Allen was only the most outrageous by Democrats intent on diminishing the whistleblowers' credibility. Longtime Fox News D.C. reporter Chad Pergram summarized Sanchez's line of questioning in two tweets: "1) Dem CA Rep Sanchez at [House Select Committee's] weaponization of gov't [hearing] on FBI whistleblowers who say they faced retaliation: "I think it's important that we recognize this hearing for what it actually is ... this hearing is a vehicle to legitimize ... January 6 and the people who perpetrated it; 2) Sanchez: And why? Because Donald Trump is running for president again. And if you normalize the events of January six, if you repeat his election fraud lies, then maybe he doesn't seem quite so extreme."

Fodder for Twitter
Naturally, Twitter conservatives had a blast poking fun at Sanchez and her arrogance in pushing through with an "interrogation" of Allen based on a false premise. A sampling of those tweets follows, including one by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fl., who, in the spirit of her line of questioning, demanded an answer for a "Linda Sanchez" tweet:

In related news, Gaetz provided video evidence at the hearing that the FBI's D.C. FBI Field Office, in conversations with the Bureau's Boston Field Office, essentially confirmed that Allen was correct in his suspicion that FBI undercover agents had infiltrated the pro-Trump J6 protests.

Gaetz played a video in which a Boston FBI official said he was privy to discussions in which D.C. FBI officials said they could not provide open access to the thousands of hours of J6 surveillance video for investigation purposes – as requested by the Boston Field Office – "because there may be ... UC's (undercover officers) or CHS's (confidential human sources) on those videos whose identity we need to protect."

"So, Mr. Allen, you got retaliated against for saying the very thing that the Washington Field Office was telling Boston," Gaetz said at the hearing.

Gaetz tweeted: "BREAKING: The Washington, D.C. FBI Field Office CONFIRMED that undercover officers, confidential informants, and FBI assets were present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, despite FBI Director Wray testifying to the contrary!"

The 2024 presidential election is some distance away yet. The primaries for the GOP and Democrat nominees are closer.

And if a poll that surveys the Republican race is an indicator, President Donald Trump will be on the ticket for his party.

No one's sure yet whether Joe Biden, who is well into his 80s and has exhibited many signs of a cognitive slowing in recent years, will be there.

But Fox News reports that Trump's support is surging.

The poll asked Republican primary voters their opinions on a list of 15 announced or possible candidates.

Trump was picked by 54% of the respondents, up from 43% just a month or so ago.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis saw his numbers fall, from 28% then to 24% now.

No one else was above single digits, with Mike Pence down slightly at 6% now, the Trump-hating Liz Cheney at 3%, and a long list below that figure.

Fox reported, "Trump made gains among almost every key demographic except for white men with a college degree, where DeSantis is up by 12 points."

The poll showed that of those who supported Trump in 2020, 60% still do, while 25% go for DeSantis and 4% for Pence.

In second place for both Trump and DeSantis voters were DeSantis and Trump.

"The rumor that Trump is going to be indicted by the district attorney in Manhattan has helped him quite a bit among Republican primary voters," says Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who conducts Fox News surveys with Democrat Chris Anderson. "They view the case as politically motivated, and it reanimates feelings that Trump is still fighting forces they see as corrupt and out of control."

On the Democrat side, well over half of Democrat primary voters want someone other than Joe Biden.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

There long have been concerns that Hunter Biden, and others in the Biden family, were selling access to Joe Biden – as vice president and now president.

There's evidence of significant payments to the family – for which there was no apparent reason.

Just this week, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., released a summary of bank records showing how a $3 million payment from a Chinese company came into the United States, was broken up, and eventually infused $1.3 million into the accounts of President Joe Biden's family members.

Now Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro chair of public interest law at George Washington University, criminal defense attorney, columnist, legal analyst, and expert witness before Congress on multiple occasions has termed that influence peddling, a "raw form of corruption."

"The Biden family business has long been influencing peddling and the extent of these transactions is breathtaking," he wrote. "For those of us who have denounced influence peddling for years in both parties, the Biden family is in a class to itself. The family has long been associated with influence peddling to the degree that they could add an access key to their family crest."

report at Just the News explained Comer found that a Biden family associate, John Robinson Walker, had used his company to "transfer money to Biden family members."

The committee said "it traced a $3 million payment that was sent from a Chinese company to Walker in March 2017 – just two months after Joe Biden stepped down as vice president – and then money totaling $1.3 million was distributed to accounts tied to Hallie Biden, the widow of the late presidential son Beau Biden, presidential brother James Biden and presidential son Hunter Biden," according to the report.

A fourth "Biden" also was paid.

Of course, there's also been evidence of payments to the Bidens from other sources that have been unfriendly to the United States, including one apparently involving millions that came from Russia.

Comer's report said, "The committee is concerned about the national security implications of a president’s or vice president’s immediate family members receiving millions of dollars from foreign nationals or companies without any oversight. Current financial disclosure laws and regulations do not require non-dependent family members to provide any information to the public."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A longtime Catholic liberal arts university has announced it plans to kill study programs in theology, math, English, and more so that it can spend more money on programs that draw more student "interest."

The plan that already has been announced to faculty and students at Marymount University in Virginia would eliminate bachelor's degrees in religious studies, philosophy, math, art, history, theology, sociology, England, economics, and secondary education.

The school announcement said it wants to "reallocate resources from those programs to others that better serve our students and reflect their interests."

Constitutional scholar and popular legal commentator Jonathan Turley said the move poses several problems, including that student choices "are not the guide for universities on core academic standards. Universities are places where students come to be educated, not dictate the meaning of education."

Then he noted low graduation rates are problems for the school's admission and education programs.

"Solving low graduation rates by eliminating whole core subjects is like solving low attendance rates at church by eliminating Sunday services," he said.

The school's chief, Irma Becerra, said, "Over the long term, it would be irresponsible to sustain majors [and] programs with consistently low enrollment, low graduation rates, and lack of growth potential. Recommendations and decisions on programs marked for elimination are based on clear evidence of student choices and behavior over time."

Turley noted, "Rather than make the difficult choices to be more competitive as a liberal arts university, Marymount is jettisoning core degrees to play the market. It is a form of academic self-mutilation that cuts away the very degrees that define a liberal arts university. It will prove fatal to the reputation of this university and sever its connection to traditional higher education."

A report from Fox News called the plan "controversial."

"Marymount University's plan has sent shockwaves through the campus community, drawing widespread condemnation from students and alumni," the report noted.

"Cutting portions of the School of Humanities as well as math and art programs would be detrimental to the diversity of our student body," student government president Ashly Trejo Mejia wrote in a letter to the school’s president, Fox reported. "We fear that removing programs will alter the foundation and identity Marymount University was built on."

Marymount was launched in 1950 as a two-year women's Catholic school before it expanded to its current university status. It has, until now at least, some 4,000 students.

Faculty, too, wondered about the school's commitment to its educational mission.

"If they want to change the mission, then say that and say what that change is," Ariane Economos, director of the School of Humanities and the liberal arts core curriculum, said in an interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education. "But getting rid of theology and religious studies at a Catholic university, that doesn’t fit with the mission."

Turley explained, "The problem is not the obvious irony of eliminating theology degrees at a university that once prayed for God to 'Direct Us by Thy Light.' The problem is the university is reinventing itself in a new image but is offering no vision of what that image entails beyond what the market will bear."

© 2023 - Patriot News Alerts