This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Daily Wire staffer Luke Rosiak has posted a series of social media statements about "the most DOGE-able agency of all time."
That would be the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service, which is supposed to offer voluntary mediation between unions and managers.
There's nothing like the original, so here is the string, which was spotted and collated by Twitchy.
When Elon Musk uses his influence and resources in an election cycle, it's safe to say there's a lot on the line, and that's exactly what's playing out in Wisconsin regarding the state's upcoming Supreme Court race.
According to Fox News, Musk's America PAC is now offering Wisconsin voters $100 to sign a petition to express "Opposition to Activist Judges," which is already drawing mountains of criticism from the left.
In addition to the petition incentive, it was reported that the PAC is also offering "$100 for referring registered state voters to sign" the petition, leading to a new wave of momentum against the judicial political activism on the left.
Early voting in the race will kick off soon, on April 1. There are multiple ramification for the state, and the nation, depending on which side ultimately controls the state's high court.
Millions spent
Prior to the PAC incentivizing voters to sign the petition against the activist judges, the America PAC "had already spent millions ahead of the state's Supreme Court contest, a filing available on the Wisconsin Campaign Finance Information System website shows," Fox News reported.
There was no mistaking what the petition is aiming for.
"Judges should interpret laws as written, not rewrite them to fit their personal or political agendas," the petition reads.
It added, "By signing below, I'm rejecting the actions of activist judges who impose their own views and demanding a judiciary that respects its role—interpreting, not legislating."
While the race, on the books, is non-partisan, in reality it's far from that, as the partisan divide is quite noticeable.
Social media reacts
The idea of paying voters to sign the petition was met with mixed reviews across social media, with some cheering it and others wondering if it's ethical.
"Signing this petition was the easiest thing I’ve done all morning. Down with activist judges!" one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "This petition will be massive."
Only time will tell if Musk's PAC has the resources and manpower to influence enough voters to get the desired outcome on Election Day in the state.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court has ruled that two Douglas County, Colorado, sheriff's deputies do not have immunity in a lawsuit over their decision to sic a police canine on a defenseless suspect.
"It is clearly established under Tenth Circuit law that it violates the Fourth Amendment to use force without warning against a non-violent, non-resisting suspect who is given no chance to comply," explained the opinion from Judge Carolyn McHugh of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. "It was clearly established under our case law in February 2022 that using a canine to restrain a non-violent, non-fleeing suspect could constitute excessive force."
The case developed when a deputy and a dog handler were sued for blindly sending a police dog into a home with a broken window that they were investigating in Highlands Ranch.
According to a report from Courthouse News, it happened on Feb. 22, 2022, when someone called 911 to say a man was breaking a window to climb into a home.
Deputy Scott Kelly and canine handler Tyler Kyle responded.
They heard a voice inside, and claiming they feared a "hostage" was being held, sent the dog, Sig, in through the window. The dog promptly found – and bit – the sleeping homeowner, Tyler Luethje.
Luethje said he broke the window because he couldn't find his key.
The officers handcuffed him, shoved him into a patrol car wearing only his sweatpants, and called for an ambulance, the report said.
Then deputies searched his home but failed to find evidence of a crime.
Luethje sued in 2023, charging excessive force and unlawful search and arrest, violations of the Fourth Amendment.
A trial judge refused to give the deputies immunity because they had no justification for using force and lacked probable cause for an arrest.
The deputies then insisted the appeals court protect them, which it refused to do.
The court concluded that the deputies had no reason to enter the home without permission.
McHugh found the deputies' claims stretched "the facts alleged beyond recognition."
An official for the sheriff's office said it is "clear" that the deputies "acted legally and properly."
The New York Court of Appeals has struck down a New York City law Thursday that would have allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections, the Daily Caller reported. Liberal and conservative justices alike in the state's highest court voted 6-1 to block the law.
The New York City Council passed the law in December 2021 and was allowed to into effect by New York City Mayor Eric Adams. The law went into effect in January 2022 and was immediately challenged by Republicans in the state.
It opened the city's elections to "lawful permanent residents" in the city, meaning some 800,000 noncitizens would get to cast ballots. Many celebrated the court's decision to restore common sense to New York City elections.
The Law's Origins
According to the Associated Press, the 2021 law was written with the rationale that permanent residents and those permitted to work in the U.S. should be able to vote even if they aren't American citizens. It would also allow so-called "Dreamers," who came to the U.S. illegally as children, could be given a voice.
"We build a stronger democracy when we include the voices of immigrants," former City Councilmember Ydanis Rodriguez said when advocating for the law. Rodriguez is also the city's Department of Transportation commissioner.
After some trepidation, Adams came out in favor of the law at the time as well. "I believe that New Yorkers should have a say in their government, which is why I have and will continue to support this important legislation," the mayor said at the time.
According to Fox News, some believe that because noncitizens who live in New York City are taxpayers, they should have a say in the local government. "These New Yorkers pay billions in taxes and yet have no say in local policies on public safety, garbage collection, or housing — all matters that affect their day-to-day lives," attorneys wrote in defense of the law in court filings.
There are some jurisdictions, including 11 Maryland towns, that allow their residents to vote even without citizens. However, national election laws still prohibit noncitizens from voting for president.
Faulty Premise
Armed with their feel-good motivations, the people advocating for the law felt that New York's state Constitution left the door open to noncitizens voting. The language of the document guarantees citizens who are 18 and over the right to vote.
However, the Constitution does not explicitly say anything about noncitizens, at least according to those pushing for the law. In his opinion, Chief Judge Rowan Wilson confirmed that the state is clear about the intentions even if it doesn't spell out prohibitions.
The judge said that their reading would make it okay "to enact legislation that would enable anyone to vote – including… 13-year-old children," Wilson wrote. "The New York Constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens," he added.
"It is plain from the language and restrictions contained in that ‘citizen’ is not meant as a floor, but as a condition of voter eligibility: the franchise extends only to citizens whose right to vote is established by proper proofs," Wilson wrote. Thursday's decision answered the question once and for all.
The insanity of allowing noncitizens to vote in elections is something that can only come from Democrats. President Donald Trump and the Republicans are once again rejoicing that commonsense has struck down yet another Democratic attempt to rig elections.
The Trump administration has announced that the Small Business Administration will be cutting more than 40 percent of its workforce as part of a major restructuring to save costs and improve efficiency.
SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler revealed that an astounding 2,700 positions out of its workforce of nearly 6,500 employees are set to be cut confirming that the agency is yet another federal agency that is bloated and inefficient.
Loeffler issued a statement explaining, "The SBA was created to be a launchpad for America’s small businesses by offering access to capital, which in turn drives job creation, innovation, and a thriving Main Street."
She continued by saying, "But in the last four years, the agency has veered off track — doubling in size and turning into a sprawling leviathan plagued by mission creep, financial mismanagement, and waste."
The SBA is no longer fulfilling its intended mission and now the massive bloat and waste that was allowed to grow under the Biden administration will be completely cut.
Massive Reforms
The cuts to the SBA are part of a greater initiative by the Trump administration to cut costs across the board by stripping down federal agencies, and in some cases, completely dissolving those agencies.
Loeffler's press release noted that many of the cuts being made to the SBA will come in the form of voluntary resignations, elimination of pandemic-era roles and other term appointments, and a “limited number” of reductions in force.
Loeffler also made it clear that the Office of Advocacy and the Office of the Inspector General will not be impacted by cuts and the SBA's core capabilities will also not be impacted by the cuts.
Like many federal agencies, the SBA will have a narrow focus and be hyper-efficient in order to meet the demands of President Donald Trump who is determined to cut the federal government's size as much as possible as quickly as possible.
Loeffler acknowledged this effort saying, “Just like the small business owners we support, we must do more with less."
Dire Straights
The Biden administration has left President Trump in a tough spot with unspeakable waste and expenses adding onto pre-existing trillions in debt. However, unlike in 2016, Trump is racing against the clock to fix the dire financial situation the nation is in.
Trump, with the help of billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, is working hard to balance the budget and finally reverse the debt counter that has been going up for decades.
This won't be an easy task, especially considering the trillions in costs created by the pandemic. Furthermore, it appears that in the last year, the Biden administration went on a spending spree further exacerbating the already dire situation and leaving Trump with the bill.
The cuts at the SBA eliminating thousands of federal jobs will ease the burden on taxpayers while maintaining core functions. This in combination with the cuts across the whole federal government will hopefully stem the bleeding.
The recent disclosure of over 63,000 pages of documents related to the John F. Kennedy assassination has sparked renewed discussion regarding the possibility of a "deep state" and the CIA's role within it.Journalist Glenn Greenwald has called attention to a 1961 memo by Arthur Schlesinger, President Kennedy's adviser, igniting further debate around the concept of a "state within a state."
Finalized under an order by former President Donald Trump, the files were made public by the U.S. National Archives, including 2,200 new documents in the vast collection. Trump's commitment to releasing the documents was made evident during an appearance at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, where he mentioned the substantial volume of material now available for public scrutiny.
Arthur Schlesinger's Memo Criticizes CIA
Central to this discussion is a memo authored by Schlesinger in 1961, in which he expressed grave concerns about the CIA's clandestine operations. Schlesinger argued that such operations risked straining relationships with allied nations and presented potential foreign policy challenges. He called for radical changes, including possible disbandment, as he depicted the CIA as functioning independently of its governing body.
This assertion aligns with the ideas underpinning the "deep state," a term used to describe unauthorized influence by internal government actors. Greenwald has criticized the way the term has been dismissed in certain political circles. He highlights Schlesinger's memo, suggesting it lends historical weight to claims of manipulation by powerful groups within the government.
Trump's Role in the Document Release
The release of these documents followed Trump's directive to provide greater transparency. During his presidency, Trump was known for advocating against the "deep state," echoing sentiments shared by those who believe in the organizational influence of hidden government operations.
Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963, remains one of America's most controversial events, sparking numerous theories and investigations. The arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald, who was later killed, and the findings of the Warren Commission, which determined Oswald acted alone, failed to quell suspicions of a broader conspiracy.
Historical Context and Conspiracy Theories
Theories suggesting CIA involvement, along with claims of a second shooter, are among the more persistent ideas debated by both experts and the general public. This latest development has re-fueled such speculations, with critics and theorists alike examining the newly available archives for concrete evidence.
Schlesinger's 1961 assertions provide a curious echo to warnings issued by President Eisenhower, who cautioned against the burgeoning "military-industrial complex" before leaving office in 1961. Eisenhower's concerns about unsanctioned influence on government policy mirror the themes explored in the recently unveiled documents.
The Impact of Greenwald's Perspective
Greenwald's analysis amplifies these discussions, challenging the dismissal of deep-state theories as mere conjecture. By connecting Schlesinger’s memo to ongoing public discourse, Greenwald argues that the term does not stem from modern commentary alone but is rooted in historical documentation.
The response to Greenwald's claims and the larger body of released files continues to be varied. Observers are left to interpret the documents and their implications, navigating between established historical narratives and emerging theories.
This unprecedented unveiling of documents promises to further shape our understanding of the past, leaving much up for debate. As scholars, historians, and theorists dive into these pages, the quest for truth about JFK's assassination and the potential CIA involvement remains deeply complex.
Enduring questions about governmental influence and transparency persist, echoed by a public eager to sift through the extensive documentation now at their disposal. With each page turned, the possibility of new insights into this historic event lingers in the collective imagination.
Whether these files bring us closer to definitive answers or only compound long-standing mysteries, the conversation continues to capture the attention of the nation.
President Trump is opening an audit into a $7 billion solar panel program created by Joe Biden, as EPA director Lee Zeldin continues a crackdown on dubious "climate" spending set aside by the previous administration.
The Biden team sold its $7 billion "Solar for All" program as an effort to deliver "environmental justice" to poor communities.
Now, the Trump administration is raising questions about where all of that money is going.
Biden's $7 billion fund
The funding is part of a $27 billion pot called the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund - also known as Biden's "green bank" - that was created under his signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act.
"Under the $7 billion Solar for All program, the 60 grant recipients will create new or expand existing low-income solar programs, which will enable over 900,000 households in low-income and disadvantaged communities to benefit from distributed solar energy," the Biden administration said at the time.
President Trump froze the $7 billion for the program on his first day back in the Oval Office.
According to a review of the program by RealClearInvestigations, the funding mainly benefits Democrat-run states and non-profits aligned with the progressive agenda.
Where's the money going?
The biggest winner, Grid Alternatives, was awarded $311.4 million to perform its work, which is guided by "equity, anti-racism, economic justice (and) environmental justice," according to its website.
Some states that received money from Solar for All are among the cloudiest in the nation, such as Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, the Daily Caller noted.
Gloria Taylor-Upshaw, an audit official for the EPA Office of The Inspector General, sent a letter announcing an audit to Julie Zavala, a deputy director of the EPA office responsible for administering the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
“Our objective is to describe the status of funds, top recipients, and potential risks and impacts of the EPA’s Solar for All program within the Office of the Administrator’s Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund,” the letter reads. “We plan to conduct work at headquarters and regions, if necessary.”
Zeldin cracks down
The review comes after Zeldin announced the termination of the other $20 billion in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund - money Biden set aside for a handful of "politically connected, unqualified and in some cases brand-new” climate nonprofits, according to Zeldin.
A federal judge appointed by Barack Obama has temporarily blocked Zeldin's termination of the $20 billion.
Zeldin has accused the Biden administration of a shady effort in its waning days to reward political allies with tax dollars - and Zeldin has pledged to get that money back.
“Not only does EPA have full authority to take this action, but frankly, we were left with no other option,’' Zeldin said in a video. “This termination is based on substantial concerns regarding program integrity, objections to the award process, programmatic fraud, waste and abuse, and misalignment with the agency’s priorities.”
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An irate subway rider in New York City failed quite miserably in her attempt to steal a man's red MAGA hat – this after berating him for supporting President Trump.
"He's a racist! If you voted for Trump, you are a racist!" she can be heard complaining, as reported by the Gateway Pundit.
"How can I be racist?" the Trump fan fires back while pointing out he is a person of color.
Watch the video, including the lady's comeuppance at the end:
This woke hate peddler attacked a stranger on the NYC subway.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the massive chores facing President Donald Trump when he took office was to remove bias from the federal government, and its contractors.
The Democrats under Joe Biden openly had weaponized government, filing charges against Trump and his associates for matters that now have been dropped into the dustbin.
The anti-Trump ideology, often called Trump Derangement Syndrome, was rampant, extending even to Congress which orchestrated evidence and testimony to try to make it look like he was responsible for the Jan. 6, 2021, events at the U.S. Capitol.
Now those members of Congress who pursued that agenda are subject to investigation, as are Department of Justice officials responsible for the weaponization.
And Trump also has targeted those private law firms that appeared to have been part of that weaponization. He's ordered that federal contracts cannot be handed to those organizations that have been part of that weaponization.
Now, however, he is withdrawing his March 14 executive order concerning the bias at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, a major Washington law influence, after officials there agreed to de-bias their operations.
The president wrote, on social media, that the law firm agreed to the following:
1. Paul, Weiss agrees that the bedrock principle of American Justice is that it must be fair and nonpartisan for all. Our Justice System is betrayed when it is misused to achieve political ends.
Lawyers and law firms play a vital role in ensuring that we live up to that standard as a Nation. Law firms should not favor any political party when it comes to choosing their clients. Firms also should not make decisions on whom to hire based on a person's political affiliation. To do otherwise is to deny some Americans an equal opportunity for our services while favoring others.
Lawyers abandon the profession's highest ideals when they engage in partisan decision-making, and betray the ethical obligation to represent those who are unpopular or disfavored in a particular environment.
2. Paul, Weiss affirms its unwavering commitment to these core ideals and principles, and will not deny representation to clients, including in pro bono matters and in support of non-profits, because of the personal political views of individual lawyers.
3. Paul, Weiss will take on a wide range of pro bono matters that represent the full spectrum of political viewpoints of our society, whether "conservative" or "liberal."
4. Paul, Weiss affirms its commitment to merit-based hiring, promotion, and retention, and will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies. As part of its commitment, it will engage experts, to be mutually agreed upon within 14 days, to conduct a comprehensive audit of all of its employment practices.
5. Paul, Weiss will dedicate the equivalent of $40 million in pro bono legal services over the course of President Trump's term to support the Administration's initiatives, including: assisting our Nation's veterans, fairness in the Justice System, the President's Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects.
The White House explained, "The president is agreeing to this action in light of a meeting with Paul, Weiss Chairman, Brad Karp, during which Mr. Karp acknowledged the wrongdoing of former Paul, Weiss partner, Mark Pomerantz, the grave dangers of Weaponization, and the vital need to restore our System of Justice."
Pomerantz was a key player in the weaponization of the courts against Trump.
He, in fact, left his position with the prominent legal team to step down to a line-level job in the Manhattan district attorney's office to "investigate" Trump's finances.
He was part of the groundwork of a lawfare attack on Trump, even though he later left his position and in his resignation letter, complained loudly that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg had not yet pursued an indictment of Trump.
Pomerantz claimed there was evidence against Trump.
He then wrote a book in which he likened Trump to a career criminal, drawing a threat of a defamation case.
Legal professionals determined Pomerantz violated professional standards by releasing a book about an ongoing case.
Despite the legal firm's admission that Pomerantz had done wrong, he still claimed he did not.
Bragg eventually brought a case against Trump, on strange charges. He obtained convictions from a leftist Manhattan jury on business records misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations had expired. He claimed, against Trump, those violations were felonies. The conviction is on appeal.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Constitution provides that the federal judiciary determines what is the law in America, after it is passed by Congress and signed by a president.
It is the president who is given the authority to run the Executive Branch, make national policy and determine international policy.
Yet since President Donald Trump look office in January, dozens of judges have assumed the role of the president, determining what should be national and international policy, insisting that they can control events, even jetliners, that are not even in America.
They have decided against removing terrorists from America, against cutting jobs that the bureaucrats added to their legal duties, ordered billions of dollars of tax money handed out to foreigners, and more.
Trump, whose agenda to eliminate waste, fraud and corruption across the American government has been successful so far at eliminating thousands of jobs and tens of billions of dollars in tax spending, now has lost patience.
He's warning that those judges, pursuing their own political ideologies with their court rulings that included nationwide injunctions, purporting to control, from a district judge's gavel, an entire nation, are actually a threat to the existence of the United States.
That would put it just beyond the "constitutional crisis" that many observers have called the rogue activism by judges.
"Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country!" Trump warns on social media.
"These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings."
He continued, "Lawyers endlessly search the United States for these Judges, and file lawsuits as quickly as they find them. It is then the obligation of Law abiding Agencies of Government to have these 'Orders' overturned. The danger is unparalleled! These Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes. They want all of the advantages with none of the risks.
"Again, a President has to be allowed to act quickly and decisively about such matters as returning murderers, drug lords, rapists, and other such type criminals back to their Homeland, or to other locations that will allow our Country to be SAFE. It is our goal to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and such a high aspiration can never be done if Radical and Highly Partisan Judges are allowed to stand in the way of JUSTICE.
"STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!"
It is the Federalist that confirmed in a report "Rogue judges are turning judicial review into judicial rule."
"President Donald Trump made headlines this week by continuing deportation flights of illegal immigrants, including members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang, despite a federal judge's ruling that attempted to halt the practice," the report said. "U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, issued an order barring the administration from carrying out deportations to El Salvador. The White House called the decision 'lawless' and said the order was moot because the flights had already left and crossed into international waters. It has stopped further such flights for now."
Trump repeatedly has been attacked by leftists in the judiciary for doing his Executive Branch responsibilities. "As an attack on the rule of law," the report said.
"But the real assault is coming from the courts themselves. For too long, judges have operated under the assumption that their authority is limitless, that elected officials must bow to their rulings no matter how far they stray from the Constitution. Boasberg's ruling is not judicial review, but judicial rule — a clear case of a court attempting to override a core executive power in the name of politics."
The report warns that courts have become "de facto rulers in black robes. The Constitution and Congress grant courts the authority to review executive actions, but not to dictate governance. When judges take issue with the legitimate exercise of executive power, they don't defend democracy — they undermine it," the report warned.
It explained, "Boasberg's ruling is just the latest example of a judge substituting his own political preferences for executive decision-making. Immigration enforcement is a core constitutional power of the executive branch. The president has the legal and constitutional authority to direct deportations and manage foreign relations. A district court judge does not."
Other subjects on which judges have attacked Trump for doing his duty include birthright citizenship, ending taxpayer money for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, managing the federal workforce and more.
"When a judge blocks a policy because he personally opposes it, rather than because it violates the Constitution, he is no longer functioning as a neutral arbiter. That's exactly what Judge Ana Reyes did when she turned a courtroom into a political spectacle, using a hearing on Trump's military readiness executive order to mock the government's legal arguments and ridicule a Department of Justice attorney's religious beliefs. Instead of engaging in legal analysis, she signaled her disdain for the administration's policy positions in open court. Judges like Boasberg and Reyes aren't interpreting the law — they're rewriting it."
The report noted, too, that the lower courts are so engrossed in their political ideologies that they have ignored a warning from the Supreme Court that they "do not have the authority to micromanage national security decisions made by the executive."
"The real threat to democracy isn't an executive who enforces the law against a judge's wishes. It's a judiciary that believes it alone has the right to decide what the law is," the report found.
