This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawsuit over anti-Semitism by officials in the New York village of Atlantic Beach is being revived because they refused to abide by a settlement reached earlier that would have allowed a Jewish organization to operate a center in town, according to a report from First Liberty Institute.
The fight is over scheming by officials there to exclude Chabad of the Beaches, a Hasidic Jewish group, from opening a religious center.
In private messages Mayor George Pappas said, "Very true," when a fellow town official said, "Most people don't want the Chabad and just don't want to say it. Any secular Jew doesn't want them."
The private messaging deteriorated further, with comments like that Jews "procreate" too much, "don't tip" and "are "buying the world."
The town had claimed that it wanted to condemn the property, an old bank, and take it for municipal use, as soon as the Jewish group bought it.
But the lawsuit earlier noted that the property had been for sale for years, and the town never made any effort to acquire it until after the Chabad purchased it.
The legal team explained the newly filed complaint seeking to reopen the case pointed out, "In private communications produced in this case, Village officials freely and frequently engaged in open anti-Chabad and anti-Orthodox sentiment and trafficked in vile antisemitic tropes, including that Jews are 'buying the world,' 'procreate' too much, and 'don't tip.'"
It continued, "These messages reveal that the Village's proffered reason for seizing Chabad's property is and always has been pretextual."
The case came up in 2022, but in 2023 a settlement was reached.
That plan was "subject to several conditions, including the approval of basic building permits. Because the Village refused virtually all of those permits—including the use of the building for religious purposes—the agreement has been terminated and the lawsuit re-opened with an amended complaint," the legal team said.
A federal court already has issued an injunction preventing the village from taking the property, and now the new complaint seeks punitive damages.
"What we once suspected is now confirmed: Village leadership has been driven by blatant, openly expressed religious animus against their Jewish neighbors," said Jeremy Dys, First Liberty Institute lawyer.
"Rather than a neutral act by an unbiased city council, what we now know is that the decision to try to take Chabad's property by eminent domain was driven by a religious hostility to Hasidic and Orthodox Jews that has no place in our country."
When the Jewish group bought the bank, the town demanded to take it for a community center.
"In the two years since Chabad first challenged the attempted taking of its property, the Village has not had a single meeting, presented a single plan, or lifted a single shovel to build the community center it claimed was central to the future of the village. Those claims appear to have been pretext shielding the Village's religious animus," the lawyers explained.
WND reported earlier when U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert imposed a preliminary injunction against any action against the property until the case is fully resolved.
The judge expressed concern over the town's actions: "It is not the taking of the property, but rather the alleged resulting interference with Chabad's constitutional Free Exercise rights, that warrants finding irreparable harm upon the present record."
The judge had noted the town's decision "to acquire the property by eminent domain will burden Chabad's religious exercise by curtailing its outreach mission to the Jewish community and by eliminating its highly visible presence in the Village. Based upon the record evidence, and considering 'the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to [it], and the . . . administrative history,' as well as statements made by community members, the Village's acquisition decision was made in a manner intolerant of Chabad's members' religious beliefs and which would restrict Chabad's practices because of its religious nature. Thus, the Village's acquisition decision was targeted and not done neutrally, thereby requiring the Court to apply strict scrutiny in deciding whether that decision is constitutionally permissible."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A U.S. congressman dropped a bombshell Wednesday concerning the source of mystery drones flying over New Jersey, saying they're being launched from an Iranian "mother ship" off the eastern seaboard of the United States, a claim being denied by the Pentagon.
"From very high sources, very qualified sources, very responsible sources, I'm gonna tell you the real deal," said U.S. Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J.
"Iran launched a mother ship probably about a month ago that contains these drones. That mother ship is off … the east coast of the United States of America. They've launched drones is everything that we can see or hear and again these are from high sources. I don't say this lightly."
Van Drew, a member of House Judiciary Committee, told Harris Faulkner of Fox News: "Iran made a deal with China to purchase drones, mother ships and technology in order to go forward. The sources I have are good. They can't reveal who they are because they are speaking to me in confidentiality.
"These drones should be shot down whether it was some crazy hobbyist that we can't imagine or whether it is Iran. I think it very possibly could be. They should be shot down. We are not getting the full deal and the military is on alert with this."
Realizing the gravity of Van Drew's statement, Faulkner responded:
"Look, you've given us some pretty dire information just here. And I want to make sure that our viewers are digesting this. Iran has the capability to pull up along our eastern seaboard and launch drones the size of an S.U.V. into the skies of several states, particularly New Jersey, where we know the incoming president has a large home. Also in the same county or nearby where some of these drones in New Jersey have been seen.
"That capability exists. It's possible some of those drones are here. So I have two questions. How are they fueling them? They have to land somewhere, drones don't fly forever. Why don't they close down the airspace? Yes it's inconvenient, yes, it's the holidays. Shut it down! But if you start shooting things and you don't know how they are fueled, that's gonna be mass explosions. This isn't like one spy balloon. Congressman, this is serious!"
Van Drew replied: "We've got to bring them down and we've got to find a way to bring them down. I don't know exactly where they are landing, obviously.
"I have some information and again, this isn't just Jeff Van Drew, oh let's get on Harris Faulkner's show and say something outrageous. I'm telling you the straight deal from very high-positioned individuals who are telling me this.
"And the bottom line is they're launching 'em. They are across the country. We don't even have anything like this. Our government and also certainly our hobbyists don't. So think about it. Not only do I have the information, but it's also common sense."
"We've got to get them down, we've got to determine how they function, what they do, make sure that we can get them and, you are right, in a safe way," Van Drew continued.
"When I say shoot them down, get them down any way that you can, but right now they are probably extracting information. This is a clear and present danger to the United States and to our president-elect and it's a serious business."
The U.S. military was asked about Van Drew's claim at a briefing Wednesday afternoon, and completely denied it.
"There is not any truth to that," said Sabrina Singh, deputy press secretary for the Pentagon.
"There is no Iranian ship off the coast of the United States and there's no so-called 'mother ship' launching drones towards the United States."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The behavior of a researcher funded by the National of Institutes of Health, in hiding the results of a long-running study on the effects of puberty blockers on children, already has been called out by U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
In his recent letter to NIH Director Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, Rubio drew specific attention to an NIH-funded study by Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy, of the Center for Transyouth Health and Development at Children's Hospital Los Angeles.
Despite the Obama administration's decision to support Olson-Kennedy's study more than nine years ago, the findings have yet to be released, allegedly out of fear of the political repercussions.
Rubio has charged that Olson-Kennedy was part of a group of researchers who received nearly $6 million from NIH to study physical and mental health outcomes for children who receive puberty blockers and cross-sex hormone treatments as part of "transitioning" to the opposite sex.
Olson-Kennedy outlined a few of her findings in a 2020 report that said approximately a quarter of the children in the study who received these transgender medical treatments were experiencing depression or suicidal ideation.
"According to [Olson-Kennedy], she fears the findings will be used to show that puberty blockers do not improve the mental health of youth," Rubio warned.
Now the fact that those findings have been concealed may bring more trouble to Olson-Kennedy.
A report in Just the News explains that "the walls are closing in on perhaps the most influential youth gender-transition physician in America after she admitted hiding the results of her federally funded study that failed to find mental health improvements from so-called gender affirming care, contradicting her prior characterization of the study's population to explain the results."
A lawsuit with Olson-Kennedy as a defendant has been brought by UCLA student Kaya Clementine Breen, who detransitioned and reportedly can back her claims by using Olson-Kennedy's own case notes about her.
Breen lawyer Jordan Campbell told Just the News that those notes cannot be shared yet.
But multiple Republican senators just last week joined House Oversight Committee Republicans to demand the NIH turn over information on Olson-Kennedy's study and the results.
The report explained that decision on the study "helped create a false medical consensus on puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgical interventions for gender-confused youth."
"This case is about a team of purported health care providers who collectively decided that a vulnerable girl struggling with complex mental health struggles and suffering from multiple instances of sexual abuse should be prescribed a series of life-altering" drugs at age 12 and breast removal at 14, the lawsuit by Breen charges.
The court filing charges the sexual abuse started at age six or seven and may be related to her "anxiety, depression, presumed autism, and undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder."
The case charges, "This so-called 'treatment' of Clementine by her providers represents a despicable, failed medical experiment and a knowing, deliberate, and gross breach of the standard of care that was substantially certain to cause serious harm."
Other defendants are CHLA, UC San Francisco's St. Francis Memorial Hospital, surgeon Scott Mosser and his Gender Confirmation Center of San Francisco, and therapist Susan Landon.
Among those claims made by the medical industry representatives, the lawsuit says, is that "Breen would kill herself if subsequently denied testosterone."
The claims by Breen charge that Olson-Kennedy, in "minutes," diagnosed her with "gender dysphoria and recommended surgical implantation of puberty blockers" based on a "handful of platitudinal statements" – such as "I mostly have boy friends."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
We have heard so much talk about "Good Samaritans" these days – especially with the Daniel Penny case in the news. Penny was just cleared of charges in the Manhattan criminal case against him.
Penny physically subdued Jordan Neely, a homeless, allegedly mentally ill man, who was threatening other riders in a subway in New York City in May 2023. Neely, who had previously been arrested 42 times, including three times for assaulting women on the subway, died shortly after the incident, which was recorded on video by a bystander. Penny is white; Neely was black.
Many opine that it's criminal that Daniel Penny was ever even charged, with Neely's death having been a clearly unintentional tragedy occasioned by Neely's threatening behavior. Others call Penny a vigilante racist. Already some critics have noted that any potential would-be Good Samaritans might think twice before trying to help. Why get involved?
To many, it was tragic that Daniel Penny had to go through the anguish of the case. To Black Lives Matters protesters, Penny is a racist.
But step back a moment from this particular case, and look at the notion of a "Good Samaritan," which is deeply imbedded in society. Where does this ideal even come from?
Jesus told a parable one day, and He changed all of history. It is the parable of the Good Samaritan. It's found in Luke 10.
To paraphrase the story, a traveler is robbed and left for dead on the side of the road. A priest walks by and goes to the other side, ignoring the poor man. So also does a Levite – a Levite being a man of the tribe of Levi who served as an assistant to the priests.
But then another stranger sees the man in danger and stops to help him and to bring him to safety. The kind man was a Samaritan. And the parable concludes with Jesus telling His hearers, "You go, and do likewise."
Today we think of a Samaritan as one who goes around doing good, precisely because of the influence of this particular parable. But Samaritans were viewed as "half-breeds" whose blood and worship were no longer Jewish, and therefore looked down upon by the Jews. Thus, the parable of Christ had a twist for its first-century audience. The hero of his story was a hated Samaritan.
Jesus changes everything. He changed our views on charity, and He changed our views on treating others with dignity, regardless of their socio-economic class.
The Good Samaritan ethic, showing kindness to a stranger in need, has become a hallmark of our civilization. And like many aspects of our culture, it gets back to the Bible.
This influence is even recognized by legal scholars. For example, in a U.S. District Court case from 1983, Crockett v. Sorenson, the judges wrote of the influence of the Scriptures on American law – including the concept of the Good Samaritan.
They wrote, "Anglo-American law as we know it today is also heavily indebted to principles and concepts found in the Bible. … The 'good Samaritan' laws use a phrase lifted directly out of one of Jesus' parables."
Jesus went around doing good, taught others to do the same, and thereby unleashed the forces of charity in our society – through the Luke 10 parable and others as well.
The link between believing in Jesus and charitable giving and volunteering is well-documented.
Dr. Byron Johnson, a Baylor professor of social sciences, who is the founding director of the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, has been documenting the positive impact of practical Christianity.
For example, one of his 2021 research papers is entitled, "How Religion Contributes to the Common Good, Positive Criminology, and Justice Reform." He writes of the "staggering economic benefit to American society" by volunteers.
And whence come the volunteers? "As it turns out, religious affiliation and participation is one of the key factors predicting volunteer engagement, both in sacred and secular organizations. In sum, the more religious people happen to be, the more likely they are to volunteer."
Johnson adds, "Americans not only give financially, but they are also generous with their time. Volunteers donate to charity at considerably higher rates than non-volunteers."
As the late Mother Teresa, a quintessential Good Samaritan, once said: "Today God has sent us into the world as he sent Jesus, to show God's love to the world. And we must sacrifice to show that love, just as Jesus made the greatest sacrifice of all."
Good Samaritanism is good for society, even if some naysayers abide by the principle that "no good deed should go unpunished." Above all, Jesus' imprimatur of the Good Samaritan ethic alone makes it worthwhile, whatever the cost.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Want to see at art exhibit? At a public university?
You'll need to sign a waiver.
It's a report from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression that has confirmed the art is "controversial."
It's because, the report explains, featured are "prominent conservative politicians alongside swastikas, Nazis, anti-Semitic slogans, and the infamous white hoods worn by the Ku Klux Klan."
FIRE notes that art often is controversial – "Every great work of art is offensive to someone" – and it is working with the National Coalition Against Censorship to deliver to Eastern Tennessee State University a statement that the waiver signature requirement "places a real burden on the public's ability to anonymously enjoy art."
"In turn, this threatens to turn away potential viewers who may otherwise want to engage with protected works of art. Given the controversy over this exhibit, people who prefer not to alert bureaucrats to their personal activities are not going to put their names down on a list of attendees — and certainly not with lawmakers, ETSU officials, and the public up in arms about the exhibit," the organization explained.
The annual exhibit honors Fletcher Dyer, who was a graphic design student at ETSU when he died during his senior year in a 2009 motorcycle crash.
He once said, "I dream of making a difference in some way with my art. I might attempt to right political, social, and religious wrongs by showing the rest of society a glimpse of how I feel about serious issues in the world."
Since his death, the school has sponsored the FL3TCH3R Exhibit in his honor.
This year's product, with its various ingredients, "has drawn ire from elected officials and the public," FIRE reported.
ETSU President Brian Noland has refused to drop the exhibit events, but also has refused to leave it barrier-free, with the waiver signature requirement.
That apparently, along with warning signs, is to alert attendees about ideas they may find offensive.
But, FIRE reported, that mindset, is just like the "trigger warnings of the 2010s," a mindset that indoctrinates that people "must be protected from difficult ideas."
ETSU explains it is not the university's duty to "attempt to shield individuals from free speech," including those ideas that can be "offensive, unwise, immoral, indecent, disagreeable, conservative, liberal, traditional, radical, or wrong-headed."
FIRE is asking that the school remove the "onerous waiver requirement."
Former first lady Melania Trump explained in her memoir Melania that she was heartbroken after an institution she banked with for a long time suddenly refused to do business with her family, Florida's Voice News reported. Florida Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis shared that this practice is about to be examined.
So-called "debanking," where a bank refuses services to customers on ideological grounds, is becoming a common practice. These institutions are squeezing out clients based on religion, gun ownership, and other views.
The Trump family was famously subject to this, as Melania Trump noted. "I was shocked and dismayed to learn that my longtime bank decided to terminate my account and deny my son the opportunity to open a new one," the former and soon-to-be first lady said.
Now that President-elect Donald Trump is returning to the White House next year, many anticipate renewed scrutiny. Indeed, Patronis vowed to "open up the hood" on these banks.
In a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Saturday, Patronis signaled a possible investigation into this brazen discrimination. "I cannot wait to open up the hood on how these federal agencies worked with lending institutions to de-bank Americans," Patronis wrote.
"The unelected bureaucrats who targeted gun owners, Christians, and Trump supporters are going to have a day of reckoning," he added. The problem for the Trump family began shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
The Hill reported weeks after the event that several financial institutions cut ties with Donald Trump and his businesses. Florida's Banks United, where Donald Trump held anywhere between $5.1 million and $25.2 million in money market accounts, declined his business.
"We no longer have any depository relationship with him," the institution flatly reported without giving a reason. Professional Bank, another Sunshine State institution, followed suit.
In New York, Signature Bank and Deutsche Bank decided to no longer do business with Donald Trump. The former went so far as to also call on him to resign his then-presidency while the latter was looking to dump $300 million in his loans.
This kind of treatment is not just a problem for the Trup family. It has been cropping up across the financial services industry, including Bank of America, which has garnered a reputation for such actions.
In April, 15 state financial officers from 13 states sent a letter to CEO Brian Moynihan about the company's selective cancellation of accounts based on ideology, Fox News reported. Some of those targeted included Indigenous Advance Ministries, a Christian anti-trafficking organization, and Timothy Two Project International, which trains Christian pastors.
"Americans should never have to worry that their personal financial decisions will be weaponized against them. This practice has become all too common, and banks must urgently course correct to uphold their fiduciary duty and safeguard the constitutional freedoms of Americans," Kentucky State Auditor Allison Ball, one of the signors, said in a statement.
The letter claimed that "systemic drivers of religious and political bias may be at work within the company as a whole." Bank of America has pushed back on that claim, but it is just one of several institutions that seem to be quietly doing the same thing.
It's unconscionable for these banks to deny services based on religion or political viewpoint. It seems Patronis and others are about to shed some light on these shady practices, and it's about time.
South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol has been banned from leaving the country after he was charged with treason for declaring martial law last week.
Yoon made the bizarre decision to declare martial law on Tuesday night, saying that he was doing it to combat “unscrupulous pro-Pyongyang anti-state forces.”
He also blamed the majority leftist-led National Assembly for making it impossible for him to govern by blocking his policy objectives, saying that they were aiding “North Korean communist forces.”
National Assembly members had to climb over gates and walls as well as fight through armed soldiers to get to their chamber to vote against the martial law, which the constitution of South Korea allows them to do.
It seems like some soldiers did not try as hard as they could to prevent the lawmakers from convening, which may be due to the irregularity of the situation.
The assembly voted unanimously against martial law and opened a treason investigation against Yoon. They tried to impeach him but were blocked by factions in the People's Power Party (PPP), to which Yoon belongs.
The travel ban was imposed on Yoon because he was considered a flight risk. The assembly is also considering banning the first lady, Kim Keon-hee, from leaving the country as well.
Some other members of his administration are also banned from traveling due to their involvement in the decision to declare martial law.
The ban could prevent Yoon from engaging in diplomacy, as presidents often need to do.
Yoon is technically still in charge of the military, but the legislature has vowed to ignore any subsequent declarations of martial law from Yoon.
Yoon promised that “there will never be a second martial law” and said that the PPP will decide his fate as president.
“This declaration of martial law was born out of desperation as the president, the ultimate head of state. But it has caused anxiety and discomfort to the people in the process,” Yoon said. “I am deeply sorry for this, and I sincerely apologize to the people who must have been greatly surprised.”
Leftist groups have been calling for Yoon's resignation during daily protests, but there have been conservative rallies in his support.
It's good to see democracy working and squelching this kind of power grab.
The Illinois Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal to move up a pre-trial release hearing for the police officer accused of murdering Sonya Massey.
Sean D. Grayson was charged with first-degree murder for the July killing of Massey during a 911 call. Grayson has a hearing set for January 2 with the Circuit Court to go over the conditions of his release.
The Office of the State Appellate Defender filed an emergency motion last week to release him sooner, but it was denied by the state's top court.
On November 27, the Illinois Appellate Court found that Grayson's pre-trial detention was not warranted and ordered the Circuit Court to set conditions for his release.
The appellate court said it was unconvinced that Grayson poses a danger to the community, noting he was fired from his job as an officer.
“The trial court’s focus on defendant’s failings as a law enforcement officer, while understandable, distracted from the central question of how to address any risk he posed after being stripped of his office,” the court ruled.
Grayson's pre-trial release hearing was scheduled for last week, but prosecutors then submitted a Petition for Leave to Appeal (PLA) asking the Illinois Supreme Court to review the appellate court's ruling. The hearing was pushed back to January 2, pending the appeal.
Grayson's emergency motion argued he should not be kept in jail during the state's appeal, but the top court denied the request.
According to Sangamon County State's Attorney John Milhiser, Grayson has demonstrated that he "cannot comply with conditions and is a danger to the community," although it's far from clear how Grayson remains a threat to anyone.
The former Sangamon County Sheriff's deputy responded to a 911 call on July 6 from Sonya Massey, who reported fears of an intruder. Grayson shot and killed Massey after she said, "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" while handling a pot of boiling water.
Massey's family condemned Grayson's pending release at a press conference last week as he filed his emergency motion.
"This man is still a threat to everybody in Springfield,” Massey's father said. “Somehow it needs to make sense. We all saw the film. We saw what occurred."
Prosecutors have argued Grayson's release would risk triggering "societal upheaval," an argument Grayson's lawyers blasted as an appeal to the mob.
"The State offers no support for its insinuation that public opinion, not statutes, rules, and case law, should govern this Court’s actions."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A warning has been issued in a column in the Federalist that the United Nations has a scheme to make criminals out of people who believe in science, who say men and women are different.
It is Stefano Gennarini, a vice president for legal studies at the Center for Family and Human Rights who has noted the looming U.N. treaty "that weaponizes international criminal law against opposition to transgender policy."
He describes it as a "parting gift" from Joe Biden to the U.S. and the world as the aging Democrat has agreed to advance the ideology that it is a "crime against humanity," or "a "gender-based persecution" for politicians who deliberately "misgender" someone.
Misgendering is when someone calls a man a man, when the man wants to be called a woman.
The U.N. General Assembly recently set up a timeline for a plan already condemned by the Vatican to finalize those criminal prosecutions as early as 2029.
The Rome Statute now defines gender as "the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society," but the report said "Western countries" are getting closer to their goal of simply avoiding that, by using domestic courts "to prosecute citizens who commit crimes against humanity … ."
The new scheme drops the definition of gender, a move which, the report said, includes the "legal effect" of enshrining "an open definition of gender as a social construct in international criminal law."
It would advance the ideology already being used in the European Union and various U.N. agencies to use "gender persecution" for categories including LGBT issues, misgendering, abortion and more.
"With the new treaty, Western leftists want to label anyone who publicly opposes gender ideology as an international criminal — an enemy of humanity. They want the crime of gender persecution to include things such as denying children cross-sex hormones and surgeries, not recognizing same-sex marriage or adoption, laws against LGBT propaganda in schools, women-only sports, and even denial of abortion," the report said.
Such actions already are being pursued by prosecutors of the International Criminal Court, the report said.
"Even more troubling, the Biden administration has already praised the weaponization of gender persecution in order to promote social engineering on LGBT issues," it said.
The report noted U.N. staffer Emily Kenney has claimed the greatest obstacle to that gender-based persecution is that it is nearly invisible, and the result is "introducing gender ideology in the crimes against humanity framework calls into question every aspect of social, political, and economic life as a potential crime against humanity, to the point that even victims can't tell they are victims."
That, the warning said, could result in "the arbitrary exercise of police power and is a license for the kind of political persecution of opponents seen in totalitarian regimes."
The article noted, "The woke ruling regime in the West is building a web to control people's lives and actions — and even their thoughts. They have done it through censorship and propaganda on social and traditional media around the world. In the United Kingdom, they are arresting people for expressing the wrong kinds of opinions about sexuality, including protesting silently outside abortion clinics and preaching what the Bible says about sexual morality.
"Now they want to use international criminal law to police the way everyone thinks."
President-elect Donald Trump told "Meet the Press" host Kristen Welker that he plans to start pardoning those convicted of offenses on January 6, 2021 on his first day in office.
Host Kristen Welker said, “I asked the President-elect if he plans to follow through on his campaign promise to pardon those who attacked the Capitol on January 6, including the more than 900 people who pleaded guilty to a crime.”
Trump said, “I’m going to look at everything. We’ll look at individual cases. But I’m going to be acting very quickly.”
Welker said, “Within your first 100 days, first day?”
Trump said, “First day.”
According to the Justice Department, more than 1,488 defendants in all 50 states and D.C. have been charged with crimes related to the Capitol breach. 894 defendants have pled guilty, while another 186 who contested the charges have been found guilty.
Of those, 562 were sentenced to serve time in jail for their crimes, while the rest received probation or other sentences that didn't involved jail time.
But all those who pled guilty or were convicted will have a criminal record, which can be limiting when searching for jobs, housing, and other necessities of life.
They may also have their voting rights taken away.
Trump can right these wrongs if he pardons these individuals, many of which were charged with much more serious crimes than they needed to be.
Most of those in the Capitol that day were doing nothing more than simply trespassing, but were made out to be violent or dangerous by the media and Democrats.
Using terms like "insurrectionists" and even "rioters" has turned the whole thing into some sort of attempted coup, which it definitely was not. For most, it was more like a temper tantrum or a curiosity excursion than any kind of concerted attempt to stop electoral count voting or overtake the government.
Trump also reacted to the prison many of them were put in, which reportedly had or has terrible conditions.
"These people have been there. How long has it been? Three or four years, OK? By the way, they’ve been in there for years, and they’re in a filthy, disgusting place that shouldn’t even be allowed to be open," he told Welker.