This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Puts out 2nd video saying Democrats 'have lost their minds'
Saying the left-wing media and Democrats "have lost their mind" over an earlier video of him posted on X, Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., put out his own response Wednesday, saying he stands by his response to a fired federal bureaucrat who pursued him as he got on an elevator.
In the first video, Banks says the man taping him, a terminated HHS employee, probably deserved to be fired because he seemed "like a clown."
Subsequent to media outrage, Banks posted his own video, noting that the man questioning him earlier had a "left-wing, woke job in the federal government that should have never been a job to begin with."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Investigative journalist Laura Loomer meets with president before action taken
President Trump has dismissed several "disloyal" staff members of his National Security Council team, shortly after he met with investigative journalist Laura Loomer who reportedly raised doubts about them.
The Washington Examiner pointed out that Loomer previously has charged that there were members of the staff who were disloyal to Trump, and further there have been "vetting failures" at the NSC.
The report said the firings came a week after there was a leak of a Signal app group chat, but NSC spokesman Brian Hughes said the organization doesn't comment on personnel matters.
In that Signal chat case, someone added the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, a virulently anti-Trump publication, to an administration discussion about terrorists in Yemen.
Loomer posted a statement saying, "I woke up this morning to learn that there are still people in and around the West Wing who are LEAKING to the hostile, left-wing media about President Trump's 'confidential' and 'private' meetings in the Oval Office. I want to reiterate how important it is that people who gain access to the White House or the administration respect the privacy of their conversations with President Trump and his senior staff.
"Out of respect for President @realDonaldTrump and the privacy of the Oval Office, I'm going to decline on divulging any details about my Oval Office meeting with President Trump. It was an honor to meet with President Trump and present him with my research findings. I will continue working hard to support his agenda, and I will continue reiterating the importance of, and the necessity of STRONG VETTING, for the sake of protecting the President of the United States of America, and our national security."
The Gateway Pundit, in its report, called it a "'neocon' bloodbath."
The report continued, "Per CNN, here are the names of the three known terminated officials and their titles:
Brian Walsh, a director for intelligence and a former lead staffer for now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Thomas Boodry, a senior director for legislative affairs who formerly served as NSA Director Mike Waltz's legislative director in Congress. David Feith, a senior director overseeing technology and national security. He previously served in the State Department during Trump's first administration."
Three House committees launched probes against ActBlue over its questionable donor verification practices, Just the News reported. They found that the progressive fundraising platform changed its rules on verifying donors to make them "more lenient."
Last year, Congress began investigating Act Blue over allegations that its rules, changed at least twice, allowed foreign donors and other unverified contributions. The committees released their report with the findings on Wednesday.
The report states that the platform showed "a lack of commitment to stopping fraud and paint a picture of complacency on ActBlue’s fraud-prevention team," including fraud prevention vendor Sift. "Put simply, the documents reflect a fundamentally unserious approach to fraud prevention at ActBlue—one that has left the door open for large-scale fraud campaigns on Democrats’ top fundraising platform."
During President Joe Biden's 2024 campaign that turned into then-Vice President Kamala Harris' bid, Act Blue directed staff to "look for reasons to accept contributions." This was on top of its previous practice of not collecting the CVV codes for credit card transactions.
According to the New York Post, the GOP-led House committees found that standards changed twice during key times in the 2024 campaign season. The changes, which came in April and again in September, resulted in as many as 28 additional fraudulent contributions each month.
Moreover, they resulted in up to 6.4% of questionable donations that were missed. An internal memo showed that the company was already keyed into foreign sources, including "Brazil, Colombia, India, Iraq, the Philippines and Saudi Arabia, and other countries," the news outlet noted.
"Look out for these donations: Giving to Center for American Progress Action Fund. Mostly from Brazilian donors (unlikely to give to this organization)," the memo said.
Sure enough, a December 2024 audit of "known instances of fraud" revealed hundreds of donations were collected from those countries. In addition, prepaid U.S. gift and debit cards used on another 237 donations were traced to IP addresses outside the U.S. between September and October 2024, when ActBlue shut down the option.
ActBlue has also acknowledged that it received 1,900 phony donations between September 2022 and November 2024. However, House Republicans are convinced these shady donations are more "widespread" than the company is letting on.
The report from the House Oversight and Administration Committees stated that "ActBlue acknowledges that serious gaps in its fraud prevention systems remain," the 478-page report said. "Internal communications explain that 'if someone could coordinate a big attack where each individual donation fell below the [fraud review] threshold, they would go through,'" the report went on.
It conclude that "despite repeated instances of fraudulent donations to Democrat campaigns and causes from domestic and foreign sources, ActBlue is not demonstrating a serious effort to deter fraud on its platform." The lawmakers asserted that it impacted the Biden and Harris' presidential bid.
These levels are significant as Democrats and their pet causes received almost $2 billion from donations gathered through ActBlue for the 2024 campaign. In the hours after Biden turned his bid over to Harris, she received a whopping $46.7 million went to her campaign.
"At best, ActBlue’s conduct displays a profound disrespect for the principle that only Americans should decide American elections. At worst, it may violate the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), which states that persons who 'knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person' may face criminal liability," the report said.
The investigations seem to suggest that untold sums of dirty money may have made it into Democrats' coffers. If it's true, that amounts to election interference of the worst kind.
More discoveries from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have uncovered more obscene fees being paid by taxpayer dollars.
According to a recent report by Fox News, the Department of Veterans Affairs has been in the habit of paying hundreds of thousands a month for minor website changes and maintenance.
This was before the new administration canceled the contract due to an internal staff takeover facilitated by DOGE.
The agency discovered the $380,000 per month bill while parsing through loads of data DOGE received from the VA, showing the charge for site maintenance.
"Good work by @DeptVetAffairs," DOGE said in a post on X on Wednesday.
"VA was previously paying ~$380,000/month for minor website modifications. That contract has not been renewed, and the same work is now being executed by 1 internal VA software engineer spending ~10 hours/week."
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins defended the cuts being recommended by DOGE at the VA as part of the Trump administration's money saving efforts.
According to Collins, the changes will allow his department to serve veterans better, something that should be an undisputed goal for the agency.
Good work by @DeptVetAffairs
VA was previously paying ~$380,000/month for minor website modifications. That contract has not been renewed and the same work is now being executed by 1 internal VA software engineer spending ~10 hours/week.
— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) April 2, 2025
DOGE has moved through federal departments at an astonishing pace, making recommendations to the president to cut funding to entities and projects that many Americans didn't know existed.
As of April 2, figures distributed by DOGE assert that the agency has saved Americans $140 billion in frivolous spending, which equates to $869.57 per taxpayer.
Musk has been the face of DOGE since President Donald Trump signed an executive order to establish the agency on Jan. 20, the day he took office.
The organization was given 18 months to complete the task of optimizing the federal government, streamlining operations, and cutting spending.
Critics of DOGE critics claim that the organization is dangerous because it has too much access to federal systems.
Musk's detractors say that DOGE shouldn't be permitted to be involved in the cancellation of federal contracts or make cuts within federal agencies.
As it stands, DOGE does not make cuts; rather, it makes recommendations to the president for changes to current budgets and systems.
White House national security advisor Michael Waltz faces significant scrutiny for allegedly using a personal Gmail account for official government business.
This incident triggers parallels to prior controversies involving private email use by prominent political figures, the Daily Mail reported.
Recent reports reveal that Michael Waltz and a senior aide were engaged in government communication through personal Gmail accounts. The content of these emails reportedly included discussions on "highly technical" topics related to sensitive military operations and advanced weapons systems, raising considerable security concerns.
Using a commercial email service for such delicate matters is deemed insecure and has sparked considerable criticism. In relation to this, Waltz has also been known to use the encrypted messaging application Signal for handling government discussions, which in itself has been a source of controversy.
In a previous instance, a mishap with Signal led to a journalist unintentionally participating in a group chat concerning a military operation. Additionally, The Wall Street Journal highlighted the use of Signal by Waltz for discussions relating to Somalia and the Russian conflict in Ukraine.
Despite these incidents, reports suggest that President Trump considered but ultimately decided against dismissing Waltz from his position. The administration appears to be attempting to steer past the negative publicity, as evidenced by statements from the White House.
White House National Security Council spokesman Brian Hughes commented, "I had seen no evidence of Waltz using his personal email." He further clarified his stance by stating that Waltz "didn't and wouldn't send classified information on an open account."
Such practices of using personal emails for federal business are firmly prohibited for officials within the executive branch. This guiding rule is intended to safeguard sensitive information and to maintain the integrity of government communications.
However, similar dilemmas have emerged in the past with other notable figures. Controversies surrounding Hillary Clinton, Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner involved the use of private means of communication for official purposes, leading to considerable media attention and inquiries.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the situation by remarking, "This case has been closed here at the White House as far as we are concerned." Her comment reflects an attempt to quell ongoing discussions surrounding the issue.
The allegations have sparked discussions about accountability and security protocols within the government. Critics argue that such practices could undermine national security and public trust in federal institutions.
The impact of such disputes on the broader political landscape cannot be overlooked. Public comparisons to past incidents underscore a recurring pattern of inconsistencies in handling official communications.
The matter continues to be debated in political and media circles. Moving forward, it raises questions about how government officials manage sensitive information in an era dominated by electronic communication.
Ensuring that proper channels are employed for secure communication is paramount. The challenges associated with technology and privacy underscore the ongoing need for stringent policy adherence.
Overall, this incident serves as a reminder of the critical importance of adhering to secure communication protocols. It highlights the necessity of upholding accountability standards within the government.
Failed presidential candidate Cory Booker made a bid for the history books with a marathon speech denouncing President Trump on the Senate floor.
The New Jersey Democrat's remarks set a new record, eclipsing the one set by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina almost 70 years ago.
Booker began speaking at 7 p.m. ET on Monday and went on for 25 hours and five minutes, eclipsing the historic filibuster delivered by Thurmond, then a southern Democrat, against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
While Booker's speech resembled a filibuster, it technically wasn't one because he was not blocking a piece of legislation. It was instead a cry of protest from liberal America after months of shambolic opposition to President Trump's second-term agenda.
“These are not normal times in our nation,” Booker said as he began the speech Monday evening. “And they should not be treated as such in the United States Senate. The threats to the American people and American democracy are grave and urgent, and we all must do more to stand against them.”
The speech was dismissed by some as the latest example of Booker's tendency to engage in theatrics. During Trump's first term, Booker faced mockery for likening himself to Kirk Douglas in Spartacus while opposing Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination.
This time, Booker was channeling Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington as the Democratic senator talked - and talked - and talked about Trump and his supposed threat to democracy.
At moments in the speech, Booker got small breaks from his fellow Democratic senators, who asked him questions.
Booker couched his dramatic remarks in civil rights rhetoric, invoking the late congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis. He made a direct link between his speech and the efforts of the segregationist Thurmond to block civil rights legislation with a filibuster that went on for 24 hours and 18 minutes.
Finally, Booker ended his speech with some scatological humor.
“Do I look that bad? Alright, I want to go a little bit past this, and then I’m going to deal with some of the biological urgencies I’m feeling," he said.
After months of wandering the political wilderness, Democrats hailed Booker's speech as an invigorating jolt. Some have even predicted that Booker, who failed to make a splash in the 2020 presidential cycle, has positioned himself at the head of the pack for the 2028 Democratic primaries.
There is a broad consensus that Democrats have lost touch with the cultural mainstream, and the party is bereft of clear leadership, presenting an ambitious politician like Booker with an opportunity.
Has Booker's "Spartacus" moment arrived at last? While Americans might respect Booker's stamina, it's going to take more than some symbolism and feel-good speeches to get Democrats out of the jam they're in.
Ultimately, the public respects action over rhetoric, which may help explain why Trump is more popular than Democrats. Even his critics would have to admit that he is getting things done, even if they do not like what that entails.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'Just the existence of the possibility ... gives Trump power'
A new report has confirmed there is a constitutional path for President Donald Trump to serve a third term.
The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, adopted after the 16 years of Franklin D. Roosevelt's reign in the White House, states a person cannot be elected a third time.
But Trump himself has been teasing the idea, recently telling NBC, "A lot of people want me to do it. I'm not joking."
The report, at the Washington Examiner, notes that the issue is being debated by legal scholars, with leftists and Democrats rejecting the idea.
But others have noted, including in a 1999 law review article, that Trump could be Vice President JD Vance's running mate in 2028, assuming that presidential bid develops, and then trade places. Or Trump could be appointed to the vice presidency through a resignation, then move up to the higher office through a resignation.
That article brought out the possible open door about whether the writers of that amendment wanted presidents unable to be "elected" a third time, or to "hold" office a third time, eventually suggesting the "elected" understanding is best.
The explanation is that Vance could resign, elevating Trump to the Oval Office again.
New York University law professor emeritus Stephen Gillers said during an interview that it is plausible but not likely.
He explained, "Just the existence of the possibility … gives Trump power."
Further U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., has proposed legislation that would allow presidents to serve for 12 years, a move that would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, and ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures.
"If the man who created the disastrous 'New Deal' gets more than two terms, then the man who created the 'Art of The Deal' should get the same," he said.
Jeremy R. Paul, a law professor at Northeastern University, claimed any "reasonable interpretation" of the 22nd Amendment would mean Trump cannot "run again."
The report said, "Paul points to the 12th Amendment, which states that 'no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President,' as an additional barrier. Though some might argue that Trump is not ineligible to serve, only to be elected, Paul calls that a 'ludicrous argument' that would lead the courts into lawless territory."
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said, "There's a lot of things the president talks about … ultimately it gets people talking and addresses some other issues too," Other controversial Trump topics have been takeovers of Greenland or the Panama Canal.
WND recently reported that Steve Bannon, former Trump aide and popular talk-show host, suggested Trump will run, and win.
"I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028. So I've already endorsed President Trump," Bannon told NewsNation anchor Chris Cuomo.
"A man like this comes along once every century, if we're lucky. We've got him now, he's on fire, and I'm a huge supporter, and I want to see him again in 2028."
Bannon said at the time, "I think we'll have a couple of alternatives, let's say that. We'll see what the definition of term limit is."
"We've had greater long shots than Trump 2028," Bannon said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Environmental agendas? Traditionally Democrat. Immigrant advocates? Usually Democrats. Promoting labor causes? Also Democrats.
Until now, when the party's absolute hatred for all things President Donald Trump, and his Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk, has prompted members to abandon their long-held ideals.
Now, according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, "Democrats have shown that very self-destructive quality of rage in adopting anti-immigrant, anti-free speech, anti-labor, and even anti-environmental positions to get at Donald Trump or his supporters."
He was referencing the exploding political violence of the left, especially that which has targeted Musk and his companies – even innocent owners of Tesla vehicles.
"What is most striking, however, is how Democrats have torched their core beliefs to pursue a scorched Earth campaign against Musk," he said.
The Democrats now are at risk, he said, of becoming "the very thing that they despise in others."
In fact, they are "jettisoning their most cherished values to strike out at those they hate."
He said the real issue is that those "rage addicts" "like it; they need it."
Even their advocacy for funding from billionaires, like George Soros, becomes a failing when another billionaire, Elon Musk, does it, because he's been supporting Republicans.
Such "scorched earth" actions now have infested the actions of Democrat lawmakers in New York, who are trying to "weaponize" state laws against Musk, he said.
He cited plans by state Sen. Pat Fahy, an Albany Democrat, who wants to ban Musk's Tesla corporation from direct sales in the state.
That's despite Fahy's long advocacy for electric cars.
"The move will make it more difficult not just for Musk but other EV dealers to survive, but climate change policies be damned. Fahy and her colleagues want to get at Musk in any way they can," Turley explained.
Turley documented:
He noted in California, labor advocates opposed more work at SpaceX that would benefit workers, because of Musk's connections.
And he cited the Democrats' "greatest hypocrisy" in their willingness to abandon environmental priorities "for political revenge."
The Fahy issue is that Tesla was allowed to sell cars directly to consumers at some locations because it was viewed as good for the state and the environment.
"The question is, what do Democrats like Fahy now stand for when everything they are is now defined by those they hate?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla, X, and SpaceX, has been working with President Donald Trump in the administration's Department of Government Efficiency for months now, hunting down and eliminating government waste, fraud, corruption, and even criminal activity in its spending.
Not surprisingly, he's accumulated a few enemies along the way to cutting thousands of government jobs, hundreds of millions in wacky grant programs, and billions in spending.
He's taken it in stride, repeatedly going to social media to discuss the savings for American taxpayers, along with the atrocities they had been getting federal money. He's tackled issues such as illegal aliens being given Social Security numbers, and the benefits – and even voting privileges – they obtain because of that.
So it was perhaps with a hopeful attitude that some publications such as Politico reported Wednesday that Musk soon was to leave DOGE.
That was confirmed in a terse statement from the White House that the "scoop" actually "is garbage."
The reports had claimed that Musk would be "stepping back in the coming weeks."
Musk himself slammed the journalistic lie, saying, "Yeah, fake news."
DOGE originally was set up as a temporary structure to attack the waste and corruption in government, and Musk is expected to relinquish his White House work at that time, some months out yet.
The reports said, though, that Trump and Musk had "decided in recent days that it will soon be time for Musk to return to his businesses and take on a supporting role."
They said his exit is "looming."
The reports even suggested that Musk "is likely to retain an informal role as an adviser & continue to be an occasional face around the White House grounds."
One report claimed Trump told Cabinet members and inner circle confidantes that Musk "is stepping back."
The reports complained of his "unpredictability" and claimed he was a "liability."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently has been critical of district judges across the nation "shaping national policy" by asserting that they have control over certain Executive Branch responsibilities, issuing nationwide injunctions, and more.
During a recent interview with "Kudlow" he warned that this is a pivotal moment in history as, "You cannot have individual, random district judges who get up in the morning and say, 'I think I'll play president tonight, today. And some of their rulings are crazy."
But it's getting worse, to the point he believes America now is living through a potential "judicial coup d'etat."
"There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the Judicial Branch's effort to fully override the Legislative and Executive branches," he said in testimony to Congress.
He pointed out that 15 lower court judges "effectively seized control of various Executive Branch duties" during just the first six weeks of President Donald Trump's second term.
"This is potentially a judicial coup d'etat," he confirmed. "It clearly violates the Constitution and more than 200 years of American history."
He said during the "Kudlow" interview, "There are already more of these [rulings] coming down the road than the Supreme Court has ever heard in a single term. I would hope that the Supreme Court Chief Justice [John Roberts] would intervene, indicate that there's something clearly wrong here, and that they're going to follow a procedure so that the executive branch is not being dictated to by random individual district judges."
He said Roberts' response to the crisis so far has been abysmal.
"He put out a press release about 10 days ago lecturing President Trump and saying there's an appeals process. That's nonsense. If you are involved with crime, with violence, with national security, you can't have some judge make rendered an injunction," Gingrich said. "And then, six weeks, eight weeks, nine weeks from now, maybe it'll get taken up."
The Gateway Pundit noted his testimony to Congress was before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet and the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.
Gingrich also pointed out that there were 12 federal judges appointed by President John Adams "on his way out of office to hamstring incoming President Thomas Jefferson's agenda."
Impeachment was too slow, so Jefferson and Congress "simply abolished the courts in which they served via the Judiciary Act of 1802," he said.
He also noted the huge number of nationwide injunctions that judges are using to target the Trump administration.
And more than 90% are from "judges appointed by Democratic presidents."
"The notion that unelected lawyers can micromanage the Executive Branch – and override a Commander in Chief who received 77.3 million votes – should trouble every American," he warned.