This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A major New York publication has called out Colorado's leftist governor for "gaslighting" the public about a threat to lives and safety created by the takeover of apartment buildings by a gang of Venezuelan thugs, allowed into the United States under his Democrat party's open southern border policies.
Gov. Jared Polis had claimed such problems, documented by officials in the next-door city of Aurora officially, on police records and on video, were just someone's "imagination."
The New York Post, in a holiday posting by its editorial board, pointed out Polis also is an extremist on the border, having "contributed to the migrants' overrun of the state."
"He signed a sanctuary law in 2019, prohibiting probation officers from 'providing an individual's personal information to federal immigration authorities,' and in June, he signed measures making it easier for migrants to get drivers' licenses and government aid," the publication noted.
So "the gang's power-grab in Aurora is inconvenient for Polis," and that has resulted in his "don't believe your lying eyes" approach, it said.
Later, Polis took to social media, appearing to back down on his initial suppositions, to claim that "taking over buildings has no place in Colorado."
The Post charged, "Migrant gangs are turning Aurora, Colo., apartment complexes into hellholes, and the Democratic governor is turning a blind eye. It's an unhappy consequence of being a suburb of sanctuary-city Denver: Venezuelan migrants have spread from the Mile High City, with allegedly gang-affiliated ones claiming apartment buildings as their turf, terrorizing residents."
The editorial cited video evidence showing "suspected Tren de Aragua members stalking through the complex with guns. Another, from the same complex, shows two men breaking into a unit with a tire iron."
Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman has confirmed that at least two apartment buildings have fallen into the hands of an "organized criminal effort" that comes from "a failed policy at the southern border."
Aurora councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky has been advocating for a solution for some time already, providing evidence.
Polis, however, opened the schism between the cities by flat-out denying it is happening.
A statement from his office said the invasion was "a feature of Danielle Jurinsky's imagination" and, the Post said, he then "sneered that Polis 'really hopes that the city council members in charge stop trashing their own city when they are supposed to keep it safe.'"
"This is gaslighting at its worst," the Post said.
Official reports now confirm that several of those gang members have been arrested on suspicion of criminal activity, and the Post noted, "Was it Jurinsky's 'imagination' when local ringleader Jhonardy Jose Pacheco-Chirino and some of his thugs reportedly beat a man at one of these complexes? Or when he was involved in a shooting that wounded two men at the same complex?"
She's accused the Biden-Harris monopoly of causing "suffering" for residents and criticized officials in next-door Denver for incentivizing the criminal activity by creating free housing and other taxpayer-funded benefits for illegals.
Reports explain members of Tren de Aragua, a notorious Venezuelan gang, have taken over buildings, and Jurinsky personally has helped some residents move out.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The federal government is proposing to "help" parents battle a new problem that it created for them, and the chief of the Family Research Council is saying, "Thank you, no."
It is FRC President Tony Perkins who has written at the Washington Stand about a plan from Vivek Murthy, the U.S. surgeon general, who has complained that "Parents and caregivers today face tremendous pressures from familiar stressors, such as worrying about their kids health and safety and financial concerns, to new challenges like navigating technology and social media."
His "advisory" also insists he wants a "fundamental shift" in the way the mental health and well-being of parents is valued and prioritized.
And he's suggesting ways to "support parents and caregivers."
"The government, through its policies, plays a significant role in the current stress levels parents face. Now they propose more government to solve the problems they've created. It's time for a collective response: No, thank you," Perkins explained.
In fact, the Biden-Harris administration has had, essentially, two major points to attack families, transgenderism and abortion, during its years in office so far. That ideology has gone so far as to have court-approved plans to counsel children into a transgender ideology and then conceal those maneuvers from parents.
Perkins explained, "It's essential to scrutinize what this administration means by these changes. Over the last few years, we've seen radical ideologies — particularly regarding gender identity — infiltrating classrooms and creating divisions between parents and their children. Under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the policies promoted by this administration keep parents in the dark about what happens at school — which, by the way, only adds to the stress that Dr. Murthy talks about.
"One of the recommendations in this advisory is to increase government access to children at even a younger age, through early childhood education and daycare. While this may be well-intended (or at least sound well-intended), the idea will only fuel a parent's stress in the teenage years. Why? Because a child's worldview is largely formed between the age of 15 months and 13 years. Under this construct, the government is going to shape the minds of your children in those early years. And nothing causes more stress for a parent than seeing their child reject the values they have prayerfully tried to instill in them."
Perkins is not without expertise, either.
"As a father of five, with our youngest now 16, I can attest to the challenges of raising children. But make no mistake — raising children is a labor of love, and nothing is more rewarding than knowing that you are shaping the future with every step you take. Dr. Murthy addresses the many stressors of parenting, both old and new. They include financial concerns, economic instability, time demands, and worries about children's health and safety. Additionally, he mentions modern challenges like parental isolation, managing technology and social media, and cultural pressures. The advisory suggests a shift in culture, policies, and programs to ensure parents and caregivers can thrive."
He explained the solution isn't complicated, and doesn't involve handing more control over children to government bureaucrats.
"The Bible offers sound advice for parents. Proverbs 22:6 says, 'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.' The bottom line is, we should never outsource the upbringing of our children."
Pop star Adele is taking a break from music.
The "Rolling In The Deep" singer was in tears as she told fans in Germany about the "incredibly long" pause ahead.
Adele broke the news at the last show of her residency in Munich. The singer, 36, hinted at exhaustion and plans to build a family with her 43-year-old fiancé, sports agent Rich Paul.
"I have spent the last seven years building a new life for myself and I want to live it now. I want to live my life that I've been building and I will miss you terribly," she told fans.
Adele released her last studio album, "30", in November 2021. She began her Las Vegas residency at Caesars Palace the following year.
The singer confirmed Saturday that her upcoming stretch of shows in Las Vegas will be her last for some time.
"I've really enjoyed performing … it's been three years now, which is the longest I've done and probably the longest I'll ever do," she said.
"But I have 10 shows left after this, back in my (Las Vegas) residency … but after that, I will not see you for an incredibly long time and I will hold you dear in my heart for that whole length of my break," she said.
"And I will fantasize about these shows and any shows that I've done over the last three years, and I'll really, really hold them in the bottom of my heart forever. It has been amazing," she said.
The singer has one child with her ex-husband Simon Konecki. She told fans in May that she wants to have a girl, once her work obligations are finished.
"Once I am done with all my obligations and all of my shows, I want to have a baby," she said in Las Vegas.
"I want a girl because I've already got a boy. I feel like she might be like the person I love the most in the world, but also probably hate the most in the world — that is what I feel will happen."
Adele had already hinted in July that she needed a break from music.
“I don’t have any plans for new music at all,” she told German outlet ZDF. “I want a big break after this and I think I want to do other creative things, just for a little while."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Attorney Jonathan Ross for the Eastern District of Arkansas announced Thursday the Drug Enforcement Administration is investigating the largest known pharmacy burglary ring in DEA history.
"An indictment of 42 defendants who worked together to burglarize over 200 pharmacies, across 31 states, including more than 11 pharmacies located right here in the Eastern District of Arkansas. Today's announcement is the second public announcement about this case. In December, we announced phase one of operation #RichOffMeds," Ross said.
Ross added the December announcement highlighted the robberies of pharmacies in Arkansas, carried out by defendants from the Houston, Texas, area. The investigation has now moved on to the second phase, which has expanded from 20 pharmacies in Arkansas, to now over 200 pharmacies across 30 additional states.
"As we know, the opioid epidemic is still with us, 107,543 Americans died from drug overdose in 2023, of which 81,083 were due to opioids. Theft and illegal distribution of prescription, opioid, and other scheduled medications, fuels the addiction and overdose crisis throughout the United States," Ross said.
Theft and illegal distribution of opioid and other scheduled medications results in millions of dollars of proceeds to criminal organizations and escalates dangerous criminal activity.
"This case involves an organized crime ring from the Houston, Texas, area, that targeted independent, non-chain pharmacies throughout the United States for theft of opioid medication such as oxycodone, hydrocodone, other prescription drugs such as Xanax and Adderall, promethazine with codeine cough syrup," Ross said.
Ross said the perpetrators used the internet to scout rural pharmacy locations, traveling by rental car or commercial airline to these locations to carry out the burglaries.
On November 28, 2023, the Little Rock DEA, along with other state and local law enforcement partners located in Houston, arrested 18 organization members who were charged in the initial indictment. On July 2, 2024, a further 24 perpetrators were charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Most of these defendants appeared in the U.S. District Court in Little Rock Thursday, while the remaining defendants will appear in court in September.
"During the arrest operations in Houston, law enforcement seized 11 firearms, approximately $79,000 in U.S currency, and custom jewelry retailed at approximately $510,000, which are proceeds from the sale of stolen pharmaceutical drugs," Ross said.
Steven Hofer, special agent in charge of the New Orleans Field Division for the DEA, said the investigation spanned over three years, and the arrests marked a significant victory in stopping criminal drug trafficking networks.
"This criminal organization prioritized money and greed over the safety and well–being of the American people. Millions of Americans rely on their prescription medications every day, and when those drugs are not available, the well–being of our communities suffer. These criminal groups wreaked havoc in the local communities, to bring easy money into their organizations," Hofer said.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during a "CBS Sunday Morning" interview that she supports a binding code of ethics for the nation's highest court.
“From my perspective, I don’t have any problem with an enforceable code,” Jackson said while plugging her new memoir.
“A binding code of ethics is pretty standard for judges. And so I guess the question is, ‘Is the Supreme Court any different?’” Jackson said. “And I guess I have not seen a persuasive reason as to why the court is different than the other courts.”
She did qualify her support as being "general," rather than supporting any specific legislation at this point.
The court has come under criticism in recent months for not having its own binding code of ethics after stories broke of several justices not disclosing gifts they received from wealthy friends, mainly rides on private jets and luxury vacations.
It was first reported that Justice Clarence Thomas did so, but it was later revealed that he was told he didn't have to disclose the gifts from Harlan Crow, a wealthy businessman and longtime personal friend.
There were no cases that ever came before the court involving Crow, but the left screamed about it for months anyway.
The court adopted its own code of ethics last year, but it was non-binding.
Jackson refused to discuss Thomas during the interview.
According to reports, most of the current justices accepted some kind of gifts, and many former justices also did.
Jackson is the newest member of the court, appointed by President Joe Biden.
She may have avoided accepting gifts because of the controversy surrounding them or just may not have disclosed any gifts yet if she did receive any.
Gabe Roth of Fix the Courts said about justices accepting gifts:
Supreme Court justices should not be accepting gifts, let alone the hundreds of freebies worth millions of dollars they’ve received over the years. Public servants who make four times the median local salary, and who can make millions writing books on any topic they like, can afford to pay for their own vacations, vehicles, hunting excursions and club memberships — to say nothing of the influence the gift-givers are buying with their ‘generosity.’ The ethics crisis at the Court won’t begin to abate until justices adopt stricter gift acceptance rules.
“It really boils down to impartality,” Jackson told CBS. “That’s what the rules are about. People are entitled to know if you’re accepting gifts as a judge, so that they can evaluate whether or not your opinions are impartial.”
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A doctor in Wyoming is pursuing a First Amendment lawsuit against Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon after the state's chief executive forced him off a health panel because of his private views about transgender body mutilations on children.
Ironically, state lawmakers adopted and the Republican governor himself signed into law the proposal, known as Chloe's Law, that was in dispute.
That law restricts physicians' abilities to perform gender reassignment surgeries on minors.
The problem was that the Wyoming Medical Society, of which Cubin was a member, opposed the plan.
Liberty Justice Center said it now has gone to court because of the situation in which Gordon forced Cubin to resign from the Wyoming Board of Medicine.
It explained, "Dr. Cubin is a member of the Wyoming Medical Society (WMS), a voluntary organization of Wyoming doctors that claims to represent the interests of physicians across the state. In early 2024, the organization expressed its opposition to a proposed bill known as Chloe's Law, which would restrict Wyoming physicians' ability to perform gender reassignment surgeries on, or prescribe hormone therapy for, minors. Because the WMS's public position on Chloe's Law did not reflect the perspective held by all of its members, Dr. Cubin contacted the WMS to request that the organization poll its members and present physicians on both sides of the issue. The organization repeatedly ignored his concern that the WMS was not accurately representing the views of Wyoming physicians."
Eventually, Cubin decided to express his own opinion, privately sending an email to state lawmakers to support the law, and to explain the society's "public opposition" did not represent all doctors.
The law passed and was signed by Gordon, but then only a few weeks later, Gordon removed Cubin from his post on the state Board of Medicine, "explicitly citing Dr. Cubin's personal email to the House of Representatives in support of Chloe's Law as the reason for removal."
The legal team explained, "By firing Dr. Cubin for exercising his right to free speech, the Governor engaged in illegal retaliation and violated Dr. Cubin's First Amendment rights."
Center lawyer Buck Dougherty said, "Governor Gordon unlawfully retaliated against Dr. Cubin for exercising his First Amendment rights. People who serve in government positions do not lose their right to speak out on important issues. We look forward to holding the Governor accountable for his actions in court."
Cubin explained, regarding the case now pending in federal court in Cheyenne, "I was removed from the Wyoming State Board of Medicine because I took a stand to protect the children in our state. I had been misrepresented by the Wyoming Medical Society and had no choice but to speak up for what I believed to be right.
"I urged our legislators to be circumspect about the information they were being provided and cautious about what they allow physicians to do to kids in our state—something that is now the law across Wyoming. I am proud to stand with the Liberty Justice Center and fight this violation of my First Amendment rights."
Fact-checkers slammed Vice President Kamala Harris for several contradictions during an interview on Thursday, Newsweek reported. Harris and her running mate Tim Walz sat for the interview with CNN's Dana Bash meant to help the campaign.
The interview was Harris's first since naming Walz her vice presidential running mate. She was asked softball questions, and Bash seldom pushed back on Harris's statements.
Despite the help from Bash, there were several times that Harris' answers were not completely truthful or at least evasive which could imperil her candidacy. She made claims about positive job numbers, her immigration record, and other key policy proposals.
One of the most glaring problems came when she was asked about banning fracking. This is an important issue to voters in key swing states like Pennsylvania, and it's clear that she has that in mind when suddenly flip-flopping on it.
Even a leftist media outlet couldn't ignore some of the incongruencies, though Newsweek attempted to spin them. Harris touted President Joe Biden's administration that created "over 800,000 new manufacturing jobs" as well as "300,000 new clean energy jobs."
This is not entirely true, as the numbers for manufacturing jobs are revised based on seasonal fluctuations, and green jobs are projected but not actual. However, one glaring omission was the role the COVID-19 pandemic played in the rebound in employment.
In the years following the lockdowns, businesses reopened, and people went back to work, resulting in a significant increase in jobs. Harris similarly falsly claimed that illegal immigration from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador was down by playing with the timing.
While the decrease was true as of 2023, the 2024 data already revealed an increase year over year in the number of these immigrants illegally crossing into the U.S. However, Harris's most dubious claim was her changing views on fracking.
When Harris was a candidate for president in the 2020 presidential election, she unequivocally supported a ban on fracking. She implied that those vies have changed, but the rhetoric on the issue only softened when she was reflecting Biden's views as his running mate.
Ohio GOP Sen. J.D. Vance, who is former President Donald Trump's running mate, slammed Harris. "If you look at the way that Kamala Harris has governed, she's actually governed as a far-left person," Vance said on Fox & Friends Friday, Fox News reported.
"She's just trying to pretend that she's not far left now because, of course, she wants to win the American people's votes over the next couple of months. But if she does, she's going to do the same thing that she's been doing for the last few years," Vance predicted.
He went on to point out that she is claiming to have moved to the center while her record shows she's a rabid leftist. "She has governed as a person who believes those things, and unfortunately, the American people are far off because of it," Vance said.
Harris is an avowed leftist who will continue to govern as such despite her lies. She had to tell a different tale in the interview because the truth is unpopular with the American people, and she knows it.
Any reasonable person knows that former President Donald Trump was 100% for fighting to mitigate the illegal immigration crisis at the southern U.S. border.
However, in recent weeks, Democrats have deployed a major gaslighting campaign to make it seem as if Vice President Kamala Harris and others on their side of the aisle have worked to secure the border.
The scary part is that those same Democrats have managed to convince members of the media, like Manu Raju of CNN, that Trump was responsible for killing a border bill, when in reality it was Democrats who tanked it.
According to Fox News, Oklahoma Republican lawmaker Markwayne Mullin publicly disputed the CNN anchor's claim that Trump was the one who privately lobbied to have the bill killed behind closed doors.
Mullin reminded Raju that Trump only got involved with the bill after top Democrats refused to negotiate the bill with Republicans.
"Chuck Schumer didn't one time reach out to Republicans and try to talk to us. They never had a working group together—," Mullin said before Raju became so triggered that he cut him off.
Fox News noted:
Raju asked about Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., the lead GOP negotiator for the Senate border security bill. Lankford, in February, urged critics to read the bill, arguing it would create a "faster and stronger system" of deportation and "flip the script" on Biden's immigration policy.
Mullin held nothing back as he corrected the record.
"What the left media has done, including yourself, they said it's ‘The Lankford Bill.’ It wasn't the Lankford Bill. Lankford was trying to negotiate on behalf of Republicans. The Democrats not one single time tried to actually negotiate with Republicans," the Oklahoma Republican said.
He added, "So, President Trump didn't kill it; the Biden administration killed it because they knew they wanted to try doing something because the administration has been awful on the border, and that hasn't changed."
Regardless, Senate Republicans have labeled the bill, backed by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as a "sham."
Many of those same Republicans have expressed frustrations that Democrats won't get behind a Republican bill in the House that deals with similar border issues, known as H.R. 2.
With the border security crisis expected to play a major role in the upcoming election, it's no wonder that the issue is making headlines once again.
Only time will tell if either bill ever makes it out of either of the two chambers. At this rate, probably not.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
ack Smith was "appointed" a special counsel to carry part of the Democrat party's lawfare campaign against President Trump.
He's brought several cases, and recently filed a replacement indictment repeating the claims from an earlier filing that accused Trump of election interference for his rhetoric about a "stolen" 2020 presidential race result.
Smith is facing his own headwinds, with a federal court ruling that he doesn't qualify as a special counsel as he wasn't appointed by the president, nor was he confirmed by the Senate.
That has prompted a judge already to dismiss one of his cases. And his other still must be evaluated for the legitimacy of its counts since the Supreme Court determined a president has significant levels of immunity for his actions.
Now it is the American Center for Law and Justice that effectively is accusing Smith himself of election interference for bringing a new set of "election interference" claims against President Trump just weeks before the 2024 vote.
"Smith is still trying to salvage his election interference case against Trump – by interfering in the election himself," the organization documented. "He will stop at nothing in his political prosecution of Trump."
The report said the new Smith claims narrow and reframe the original claims based on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling.
"Specifically, the indictment has been changed to remove allegations involving Department of Justice officials and other government officials. It clarifies Trump's role as candidate, and makes clear the allegations regarding his conversations with then-Vice President Mike Pence in his ceremonial role as president of the Senate," the ACLJ said.
"The new indictment removes a section of the previous indictment that had accused Trump of trying to wield the Justice Department to undo his 2020 loss. To be clear, a superseding indictment is a brand-new one that overrides the earlier one. And this time, instead of 'President Trump,' Smith is going after 'candidate Trump' – even though Trump held the office of president at the time in question," the report said.
But even "more alarming" is the timing.
"A DOJ policy prohibits any legal action against a political candidate just before an election. Doing so keeps the justice system from appearing to interfere in an election. The DOJ and Smith point to a 'policy' giving a 60-day window before Election Day, and Smith insists his indictment was filed in time. Yet we all know that only about 50% of Americans vote on Election Day. Over 90% of the country – 45 states – have some form of early voting at least 10 days before Election Day," the ACLJ reported.
The newest Smith tactic "still constitutes a clear case of election interference – and everyone knows it. Some might argue it's similar to FBI Director James Comey's interference when he publicly announced that he was reopening the FBI investigation into presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's emails just days before the 2016 election. Smith's move here is arguably worse, though, because he's not merely commenting publicly about an investigation but, instead, actually filing a criminal indictment, apparently attempting to revive a failing criminal prosecution," the report said.
Jay Sekulow, the chief of the ACLJ, noted, "Let me tell you what this new superseding indictment isn't. There isn't any new allegation on anything – zero, nothing. It's the same allegations as before, recast in a way to try to get around a Supreme Court decision that was a complete defeat for Jack Smith."
"At the end of the day, Jack Smith is a career political hitman – a destroyer. He's not the legal genius who will successfully prosecute you and put you away. But he'll bring the craziest charges against you that sound bad. Even if he loses in court, he only cares about ruining your reputation," the legal team explained.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
We now know why Tim Walz, the VP nominee picked by Democrat Kamala Harris for this year's election, made an incorrect statement – his detractors call it a lie – about his military service.
There have been several of those such statements, such as his claim to be in retirement as a "command sergeant major," about which he repeatedly boasted even though it was a title for which he never was fully qualified.
This dispute is about his claim to have carried weapons of war "in war."
A report in the Federalist explained the issue came up during a CNN interview with Harris and Walz.
Interviewer Dana Bash said, "I want to ask you a question about how you described your service in the National Guard. You said that you carried weapons in war but you had never deployed actually in a war zone. A campaign official said you misspoke. Did you?"
It was in 2018 that Walz pushed for gun control by saying, "We can make sure those weapons of war, that I carried in war, is the only place where those weapons are at."
But the Federalist explained, "The problem is, Walz never served in a combat zone. His unit was called up early in the war in Iraq — to Italy. Later, in 2005, he abandoned his National Guard unit as it was preparing to deploy to Iraq. Walz, who opted to run for Congress at the time, retired not long before the deployment."
Walz continued, "Well, first of all, I'm incredibly proud. I've done 24 years of wearing the uniform of my country. I'm equally proud of my service in a public school classroom, whether it's in Congress or the governor. … I think people know me, they know who I am. They know where my heart is and, again, my record has been out there for more than 40 years to speak for itself."
But the gun thing?
"Yeah, I said we were talking in this case, this was after a school shooting, the idea of carrying these weapons of war. And my wife, the English teacher, told me my grammar is not always correct," he said.
A report from the Twitchy site then pointed out another problem, with that answer, that Walz left unaddressed: His status as an English teacher.
"We will go as far as to say no one believed that excuse—or that the number of people who believe it is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero. Even if you run into people who say they believe it, we don't believe that they actually believe that. They are simply hoping you are stupid enough to believe it. No. Walz lied. And that claim that he just doesn't understand grammar runs straight into the teeth of just one fact. We will let Chinese defector Xi Van Fleet explain it to the class," the report said.
NPR even has confirmed that Walz was in China years ago, to teach English at Foshan No. 1 Middle School.