President Joe Biden's Department of Justice has taken mountains of criticism over its seeming weaponization of the system against the other side of the aisle, particularly against former President Donald Trump.
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has, on multiple occasions, suggested that the DOJ is nothing less than "impartial," but many, including GOP lawmakers, do not believe that's the case.
Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney strongly disagreed with Garland's insistence that the Justice Department is impartial, calling him a "dirty cop."
"Don't let anybody think anything otherwise. That's why they're doing all these press conferences," Tenney said on the Friday edition of the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show.
Tenney's criticism came in the wake of Garland's speech last week during which he insisted that the Justice Department has not been weaponized against anyone, as many critics have claimed.
"Our norms are a promise that we will fiercely protect the independence of this Department from political interference in our criminal investigations. Our norms are a promise that we will not allow this Department to be used as a political weapon,” Garland said during his speech.
However, numerous Republicans believe the DOJ has been especially protective of Hunter Biden during the multiple investigations into his activities and criminal past.
Tenney, in her criticism, pointed to severa specific examples of obvious weaponization of the DOJ against certain people, and instances where it protected others of certain political stripes.
"There was a woman named Lesley Wolf who also was a part of that case, who made sure they [the DOJ] didn't go and investigate a storage unit where it was revealed that Hunter Biden had evidence stored," Tenney said.
Users across social media had their own opinions regarding the DOJ's seeming protection over Hunter Biden.
"She is correct…Thank God he wasn’t approved for the Supreme Court," one X user wrote.
Another X user wrote, "Garland is to Biden/Harris as Hermann Göring was to Hitler, His enforcer."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Several influential and powerful industry organizations have come to the Supreme Court arguing in support of a family fighting a town's eminent domain decision to take property they intended to use for a hardware store.
According to the Institute for Justice, which is fighting on behalf of the Brinkmann family, the fight is over the Brinkmann family's purchase of property in Southold for a hardware store, and the city's confiscation of that property for a "park" that is supposed to be left entirely undeveloped.
The case argues the town had no legitimate reason for its confiscation of the property.
The IJ explained, "When every legal effort to stop someone from using their property has failed, can the government simply take the land using eminent domain? That is the question at the heart of a new U.S. Supreme Court petition filed by a family-owned hardware store business whose property was taken by a small Long Island town."
The legal team explains now the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Southern California, the National Association of Realtors and the New York State Association of Realtors have filed arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs in the case.
The Realtors organizations charge that if "eminent domain could be employed at any time … to shut down a law-abiding development because the government disfavors it," it would leave the real estate industry in tatters.
The IJ explained "The government's power to take people's property using eminent domain is limited by the Constitution to only those situations where the taking is for a 'public use.' But what if the government lies and invents a public use to shield an illegitimate taking aimed at stopping a homeowner or business from doing something perfectly legal with their property?"
The report notes Southold officials tried a number of ways to prevent the hardware store being added to their business district, and all failed. So they simply claimed that specific property was required for an undeveloped park and took it.
"The town of Southold says that, so long as the government lies about why it's taking your property, it can take it for any reason at all—even because town officials just don't like you," said IJ Senior Attorney Jeffrey Redfern. "That's wrong, and a diverse coalition of amici explain why."
The SCLC brief, in fact, cites the injury to Bruce's Beach, a black resort in California that was shut down by Los Angeles County officials in 1924.
There, too, the city of Manhattan Beach claimed it was needed for a park, "but that was mere pretext—the property instead stayed vacant for over three decades. The real purpose of the taking was to drive out Bruce's Beach and the surrounding community," the report said.
The legal team explained unless the case outcome is reversed, "The predictable result of giving local governments this much power over private property would be that only political insiders would be able to develop property."
But town officials tried to interfere in the land purchase, imposed an exorbitant "impact" fee for a study never done, and pushed a "moratorium" on building permits.
At the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges said, "the government can take your property for almost any reason at all—including because it just doesn't like you—so long as the government lies about why it is using eminent domain," explained IJ lawyer Jeff Redfern.
Former President Donald Trump's claim that crime has been increasing was incorrectly fact-checked by ABC's David Muir during the debate Tuesday, The Gateway Pundit reported. Department of Justice data proves Trump was correct that crime is up by more than 40%, as ABC proves its bias.
During the presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump said that crime is increasing in the U.S. due to illegal immigration under her watch. "Crime is down all over the world except here. Crime here is up and through the roof," Trump said.
"Despite their fraudulent statements that they made, crime in this country is through the roof. We have a new form of crime. It’s called migrant crime, and it’s happening at levels that nobody thought possible," he added.
Muir jumped in to refute Trump's statement by asserting that "the FBI says overall, violent crime is actually coming down in this country." In reality, the Justice Department's numbers show a massive increase in crime since Trump left office.
According to recently released Department of Justice statistics, 4,558,150 violent crimes were reported in 2020. That number shot up to 6,419,060 in 2023, representing an increase of 40.8% in the years President Joe Biden and Harris have been in office.
Trump released a statement on his Truth Social Thursday with the statistics that proved him right. "MASSIVE NEWS! The Department of Justice just released brand new Crime Data showing I was absolutely and completely right at the Debate," Trump wrote.
"In fact, the Data is even worse than we could have ever imagined. Compared to 2020, Violent Crime is up nearly 40 percent, Rape is up 42 percent, Aggravated Assaults are up 55 percent, Violent Crime with a weapon is up 56 percent, Violent Attacks on strangers are up 61 percent, Car Theft is up 42 percent, and the most serious forms of Violent Crime are up 55 percent," Trump added.
"Our Cities are UNDER SIEGE. And this does not include the Migrant Crime and Migrant Rape spree that has overtaken our Cities in recent months. Kamala Crime is destroying America, and gangs are taking over!" he concluded.
The fact that Muir would even interject is appalling, considering this was supposed to be a candidates' debate. What's worse is that as Fox News pointed out, they did not fact-check Harris once during the evening while challenging Trump five times, including on crime.
Muir also challenged Trump on a developing story about Springfield, Ohio, pets being attacked by migrants. The moderator also objected to claims about late-term abortion despite proof that serval states have no limit on gestational age.
The moderator also jumped in while Trump answered a question about his role in stopping the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol. Trump asserted that he gave then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "10,000 National Guard or soldiers" ahead of the rally, which ultimately turned into unrest, but that "Nancy Pelosi rejected" the offer.
Muir said, "The question was about you as president, not about Former Speaker Pelosi." However, Muir never challenged Harris on the debunked "very fine people" comment Trump never made about neo-Nazis at a 2017 rally in Charlottesville or her other lies.
The mainstream media is corrupt and biased against Trump. This was a disgraceful moment for the supposedly objective media, showing why people increasingly mistrust them.
Prince William said Tuesday that he is cautiously optimistic following Kate Middleton's announcement that she's cancer-free after nine months of treatment, Fox News reported. He cautioned that there "is still a long way to go" for his wife, the Princess of Wales.
In March, Kate announced in a video that she had been diagnosed with cancer and would be treated with chemotherapy. She didn't disclose what type of cancer she has, but her diagnosis followed an abdominal surgery in January.
Kate once again released a video, this time to update the public. "Although I have finished chemotherapy, my path to healing and full recovery is long, and I must continue to take each day as it comes," the princess said.
The prince similarly expressed his hopefulness but with the same caveat. "It's good news, but there is still a long way to go," he told reporters.
The princess shared the good news about her illness and what it has been like for her family. "As the summer comes to an end, I cannot tell you what a relief it is to have finally completed my chemotherapy treatment," Kate said in the stylized video clip posted to X, formerly Twitter.
"The last nine months have been incredibly tough for us as a family. Life as you know it can change in an instant and we have had to find a way to navigate the stormy waters and road unknown," Kate went on.
"The cancer journey is complex, scary, and unpredictable for everyone, especially those closest to you," the princess added. She spoke about having the support of her husband and the public as well as the perspective her illness has imparted.
"To all those who are continuing their own cancer journey – I remain with you, side by side, hand in hand. Out of darkness, can come light, so let that light shine bright," Kate later concluded.
A message from Catherine, The Princess of Wales
As the summer comes to an end, I cannot tell you what a relief it is to have finally completed my chemotherapy treatment.
The last nine months have been incredibly tough for us as a family. Life as you know it can change in an… pic.twitter.com/9S1W8sDHUL
— The Prince and Princess of Wales (@KensingtonRoyal) September 9, 2024
Following the release of Kate's message, it became clear that she and William were moving away from how the royal family typically deals with such subjects. Rather than the stilted, factual delivery of her cancer announcement, Kate chose a softer approach this time around.
Kate's words overlaid videos of her relaxing outdoors with her husband and children. It was an intimate look at her family as seen through the eyes of the video's producer William Warr, creative director at Details Film, the Associated Press reported.
This was a welcomed change to many who followed the royals. Public relations and crisis consultant Mark Borkowski noted that the clip was "a tectonic shift in how the royal family controls its image" in the past.
"Kate’s journey is profound and deeply personal, but they’ve learned that emotion can be controlled – and weaponized – in small, potent doses. By doing this through a polished film, they maintain dignity and control while still appearing relatable," Borkowski pointed out.
Cancer does not discriminate between commoners and royals. Kate and William have shown great resilience in the face of such tragedy, and their openness will surely help others battling the disease.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A former Israeli ambassador to the United States is warning that a Kamala Harris presidency would cost Israel … a great deal.
Yoram Ettinger, in an interview with Israel365, said the problem is that she is taking advice from pro-Palestinian advisers.
"Kamala Harris' foreign policy team includes figures like Philip Gordon and Elan Goldenberg, who are known for their pro-Palestinian leanings and their disdain for Israeli policies," he said.
"Gordon was (Barack) Obama's top adviser on Palestinian issues, advocating for policies that undermined Israel's security," Ettinger warned.
He pointed out that Goldenberg is affiliated with J Street, a group that often criticizes Israel.
"Goldenberg's track record with J Street suggests he supports policies that would press Israel into dangerous concessions," Ettinger explained. "His influence could push Harris' administration toward policies that compromise Israel's safety and sovereignty."
And he cited another adviser, Rebecca Friedman Lissner, who "has been vocal about limiting America's global role, which could translate into diminished support for Israel on the international stage. A Harris presidency might see a significant weakening of America's commitment to Israel."
In the interview, Ettinger noted, "A Harris administration might delay or restrict military aid to Israel. This could severely impact Israel's defensive capabilities at a time when regional threats are intensifying."
The result could be that progress toward Middle East peace would be delayed.
"The Biden administration (of which Harris is a part) has been lackluster in advancing the Abraham Accords. A Harris administration is unlikely to prioritize or expand upon these important agreements, leaving Israel more isolated."
The Abraham Accords are a series of peace agreements involving Israel and its Arab neighbors. They were created and adopted during President Donald Trump's first term in office.
Ettinger said, "American voters often prioritize domestic issues, but the next president's foreign policy decisions will have profound consequences for Israel's security and its relationship with the U.S."
President Trump, on the other hand, "was unequivocally the most pro-Israel in history. He made the historic move of recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and relocating the U.S. embassy there, defying decades of diplomatic inertia."
He also cited Trump's sanctions against Iran, which "crippled the Iranian economy and curtailed its ability to fund terrorism."
Under Biden and Harris, America has opened the channels to tens of billions of dollars going to Iran, which has been followed by a surge in terror activities.
He said, "Trump's stance on the Golan Heights and aid to the PA showcased a principled approach that unequivocally supported Israel's security and sovereignty."
The report explained the comments are a "crucial alert for pro-Israel voters. The choice between Trump, who has shown unwavering support for Israel, and Harris, who Ettinger argues could undermine the U.S.-Israel alliance, could significantly impact Israel's future."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Social media on Wednesday delivered a truth bomb to Linsey Davis, one of the ABC employees who acted as "moderator" during the presidential debate between President Donald Trump and Democrat candidate Kamala Harris.
Openly siding with Harris, Davis "corrected" Trump when he objected to the Harris abortion ideology that apparently includes leaving babies to die after birth.
Davis claimed that doesn't happen.
But social media responded immediately with confirmation from a prominent Democrat that that's exactly what would happen.
And it even cited Harris' vice presidential pick, Tim Walz, under whose governorship in Minnesota that process was formalized – and then concealed.
The dispute involves possibly life-saving treatment for infants who survive botched abortions.
Trump said, "You can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia — not the current governor, who is doing an excellent job, but the governor before — he said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we'll execute it. And that's why I did that, because that predominates, because they're radical. The Democrats are radical. … Her vice presidential pick says abortion in the ninth month is absolutely fine. He also says execution after birth is execution — no longer abortion because the baby is born OK, and that's not OK with me."
An NBC fact-checker claimed that statement was wrong.
But the reality is former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, stated, "If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired."
NBC claimed it "debunked" Northam's comments because he was talking about infants with deformities. But it admitted in such scenarios, Northam promised, "The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother."
Further, former White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany posted a link to a report confirming that under Walz, in Minnesota, "Under Gov. Tim Walz, babies born alive in botched abortions were left to die."
Those statistics actually no longer are available, the report confirmed, because Walz then eliminated the requirements to report such situations.
That report explained,
"As Democrats and media outlets accuse former President Donald Trump of dramatizing the Democratic abortion agenda, data from the Minnesota Department of Health shows that at least eight babies who survived abortions in the state were left to die.
"Under a 2015 Minnesota law, the state formerly was required to report whether abortions resulted in the live birth of a baby, what actions were taken to preserve the life of that baby, and whether the baby survived."Those reporting requirements exposed that between Jan. 1, 2021, and Dec. 31, 2021, physicians performed five abortions that resulted in a baby's live birth.
"No measures were taken to help the first baby, who reportedly had 'fetal anomalies' that resulted 'in death shortly after delivery.' Two of the babies were given 'comfort care measures' as they died. No measures were taken to "preserve life" of the last two babies, who were previable.
"Previous data from the Minnesota Department of Health reveals that physicians have been leaving babies to die after failed abortions for years. In 2020, no babies were reported born alive through botched abortions, according to the Minnesota Department of Health.
"But between Jan. 1, 2019, and Dec. 31, 2019, three abortions resulted in born-alive babies who were then allowed to die. The first baby reportedly had 'fetal anomalies' but also had 'residual cardiac activity' for two minutes, yet no efforts were taken to preserve that baby's life, and "the infant did not survive.
"The second baby died while 'comfort care measures' were provided. The third baby was previable and did not receive any attempts to preserve his or her life. It does not appear that any of the babies born alive in botched abortions survived.
"Due to efforts by the state's Democratic governor, who served from 2019 until the present, Minnesota will no longer even keep track of born-alive babies."
A commentary at Twitchy called it the, "Mother of ALL truth bombs about abortion."
It explained, "All Kamala did during the entire debate was get nasty and claim anything and everything that made her look bad didn't happen. And she did so knowing ABC would do nothing to hold her accountable for it."
And there was additional confirmation from legislative testimony of allowing abortion up to the moment of birth.
Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman broke ranks with Democrats ahead of Tuesday night's high-stakes debate, conceding that Kamala Harris will face off with a "good debater" in Donald Trump.
“It’s going to be a straight-up debate,” Fetterman told CNN’s State of the Union.
“She’s going to do great, of course, but Donald Trump will be good too. I mean, we can all remember he wrecked all of the Republicans. He’s a good debater,” Fetterman added.
With no additional matchups lined up between Trump and Harris, Tuesday night's debate could have a big impact on a very close, and unusually short presidential contest, which was reset this summer in an unprecedented shakeup.
Fetterman was a notable supporter of Joe Biden after his disastrous June debate, which led him to end his re-election bid under pressure from his party. While Fetterman supports Harris now, he maintains that Biden would have beaten Trump.
“I do believe fundamentally that Joe Biden would have beaten Trump, and it was going to be very close, and I have always predicted that as well too, and now Harris,” Fetterman said.
Meanwhile, there are signs that Harris' '"honeymoon" is over, with a sobering New York Times poll Sunday showing Trump ahead nationally.
Still, Fetterman disagreed with those who see the ABC News debate as a make-or-break moment, maintaining the presidential race will be "close" no matter what.
“At the end of the day, I don’t believe this debate’s going to be definitive because it’s going to come down to this choice, and it’s going to be close,” he said.
Trump is said to be making little formal preparation for the debate outside of discussing policy with his aides. Harris has taken a more intensive approach at a hotel in Pittsburgh, spending hours in mock debate sessions.
Ultimately, Fetterman believes voters in Pennsylvania will reject Trump's "chaos" and choose "order."
"I think a majority of Pennsylvanians are going to decide, ‘Hey, I want four years of order and fairness and unity and a different way forward.’ And I don't think they want the kinds of dark days and chaos that Donald Trump provided for our nation," the senator said.
Trump is a formidable debater indeed, a one-of-a-kind opponent. If Harris turns to an anxious mess and starts spewing "word salad" on national TV, it will be hard to sell her as the candidate of "order."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Four men residing in Delaware have been charged with an international sextortion and money-laundering scheme, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The sextortion plot targeted thousands of victims throughout the U.S., Canada and United Kingdom. The four accused were arrested or self-surrendered between Aug. 20, and Sept. 5.
According to an unsealed indictment, Sidi Diakite, 30; Almamy Diaby, 22; Abdul Aziz Sangare, 26; and Abdoul Aziz Traore, 31; allegedly posed online as young females, initiating conversations with young men – some of who were minors – and offered to provide or did provide, sexual photographs, video recordings, webcam, or live cam sessions to their online victims.
During these sessions with their victims, the con artists would record their victims as they exposed their genitals and engaged in sexual activity. They allegedly then used these images to extort money from the victims.
"The conspirators thereafter sent the victims copies of the victims' fraudulently obtained sexual images and threatened to distribute the victims' sexual images to the victims' friends, family members, significant others, employers, and co-workers, and to publish the victims' sexual images widely online, unless the victims transferred funds to designated recipients," according to the DOJ.
The four conspirators allegedly engaged in cyberstalking, interstate threats, extortion, money laundering, and wire fraud – successfully extorting approximately $1.9 million from victims through the use of CashApp and Apple Pay.
The indictment further alleges the four men operated infrastructure to transfer the extorted funds outside of North America to other conspirators located as far as the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, which is on the Ivory Coast of Africa.
In April, two women were also arrested for being part of the extortion scheme, with crimes going back as far as May 2020. Hadja Kone, 28, was arrested in Wilmington, Delaware, while Siaka Ouattara, 22, was arrested by Côte d'Ivoire authorities.
If convicted, the conspirators are facing a potential maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for each conspiracy count, a maximum sentence of 20 years for each money laundering count, and 20 years in prison for each wire fraud count.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The governor of Pennsylvania has issued an executive stripping state employees of their First Amendment rights and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression says it is looking forward to fighting him in court.
The FIRE explains that Josh Shapiro's "sweeping executive order" insists that public employees, even when not on duty, now are gagged from expressing any opinion that someone, somewhere, somehow, could define as "scandalous" or "disgraceful."
The Fire called that "an impossibly vague restriction effectively prohibiting wide swaths of speech protected by the First Amendment."
"Free speech is the keystone of our democracy, and today it's threatened in the Keystone State by Gov. Shapiro," explained Aaron Terr, the foundation's chief of public advocacy. "No elected official can slap a gag order like this on state workers. This is an abuse of power, and we're looking forward to challenging this flagrant government overstep in court."
The organization noted that the gag order is for "teachers to toll booth operators, librarians to linemen" and is "flatly unconstitutional."
The foundation sent a letter a few weeks ago expressing concern about the flagrant outrage, but Shapiro's office refused to respond.
Now the organization is going public.
"The state is strategically putting all the chess pieces in place to punish everyday Americans for nothing more than saying something the government doesn't like," charged Terr. "Our job is to smack those pieces off the board before someone gets fired for speaking their mind."
The FIRE explained, "Broad and subjective terms like 'scandalous' and 'disgraceful' reach a vast array of speech protected by the First Amendment. FIRE explained in its Aug. 5 letter that although the state exercises significant authority over its employees' speech when they speak as part of their job duties, government employees still have robust First Amendment rights to speak as citizens on important issues."
And, in fact, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decisions are binding on the state, earlier blocked a state agency enforcement of an agency's ban on workers wearing political masks.
Concern that that would be a problem was "merely conjectural," it said.
"This isn't a close call. Pennsylvania's expansive restriction on state employees is unconstitutional. If the executive order is not promptly amended, FIRE looks forward to challenging it in court to defend public workers' crucial First Amendment rights," the foundation warned.
The problem is because months ago Shapiro "quietly inserted" the vague censorship language into his administration's code of conduct.
"The revision ensnares not only conduct, but speech — a departure from a preexisting management directive that used the same language but didn't clearly include expression," the report said.
His administration then followed with a warning about "antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate speech."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Google, and other tech behemoths, long have been thought to be in Kamala Harris' camp, advocating for her and for the leftist ideologies that she adopts and promotes, and imposing an anything-but-neutral agenda on users.
Now we know for sure. From the mouth of an insider:
Dakota Leazer, a Google company growth strategist, is on video explaining, "Google was essentially promoting through its ads rhetoric that was very pro-Kamala."
Appearing in an undercover video released by James O'Keefe, he says Google has been actively coordinating with the leftist campaign of Harris, who was picked by Democrat party elites to replace the aging and failing Joe Biden.
He said it has been manipulating its search engine advertisements to favor her in the 2024 election.
"It seemed to link out to legitimate news publication sites. So, it seemed like it was an ad from PBS, but it was really an ad for the Kamala campaign," he said, a deception that would make users "believe they were reading unbiased reports from reputable sources," the report from O'Keefe confirmed.
"Leazer also confesses that Google's primary objective is to generate ad revenue through fear-based content, explaining, 'I think whatever demographic is most fearful is going to be most profitable,'" the report said.
O'Keefe reports, "According to Leazer, the left currently represents the most fearful demographic, which is why Google has been pushing pro-Kamala narratives for profit, explaining, 'I think right now the left is more fearful than the right is.'"
O'Keefe revealed that shortly after the video was released, Leazer deleted his TikTok videos, "including the ones where he is seen wearing Google merchandise. He has also removed his bio and contact information. This follows his exposure on hidden camera, where he admitted Google has been coordinating with the Kamala Harris campaign and manipulating search engine ads to favor her in the 2024 election."
A report at the Gateway Pundit said the video from O'Keefe Media Group follows on reports that Harris was editing news headlines with Google search ads "to make it appear major news outlets such Reuters, CBS News, CNN, NPR and AP are on her side. While these major news outlets are shilling for Harris, her campaign edited the news headlines without the outlets' consent or knowledge."
The scenario was that the Harris campaign had been buying online ads and making up headlines and story descriptions, then using the names of established publications in the ads. The ads link to real news organizations, but those stories don't support the headlines being fabricated by the Harris campaign.
The Daily Caller reported it is WDAY Radio, a broadcaster based in Fargo, N.D., that was reviewing its options for legal action.
The report noted "the Kamala Harris campaign deceptively edited WDAY headlines to make it look like they supported her in an ad campaign."
Harris's campaign has taken advantage of the names of publishers including NPR, CNN, the Guardian, Independent, Reuters, AP and WDAY, the report said.
"We feel insulted and violated by what was done here," explained Steve Hallstrom, president of Flag Family Media, which owns WDAY, in an interview with the Daily Caller.
"You have a political campaign that used our news brand and our URL to effectively lie to people about the headline we wrote. They lied to every single person that saw that ad. It's misleading, it's dishonest, and it hurts us as the company, our news brand. So as of today, we're starting to make some calls here. We are considering all of our options here, including legal action," he said.