This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. House has gone to court in Steve Bannon's contempt of Congress case arguing that Nancy Pelosi's committee to "investigate" the events of Jan. 6, 2021, failed to follow the rules of the House, so the subpoenas issued to Bannon were illegitimate, and he could not be convicted of contempt for ignoring unfounded demands.
A report from Just the News explains the legal filing happened a week ago with no fanfare.
The report explained, "This new intervention from the House undermines the justifications the original Select Committee used to issue the subpoenas and provide ammunition for Bannon's appeal."
Because of the committee "failed in its formation to follow" House rules, its subpoenas therefore were invalid, it charges.
"The House brief argues the select committee was improperly constituted and that neither then-Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi nor the committee leadership followed the directives of House Resolution 503, which established the committee," the report said.
The filing fulfills a promise made by Speaker Mike Johnson to intervene.
Bannon for a time was an adviser in President Donald Trump's White House but refused to answer questions from the committee, explaining the information he held was covered by executive privilege and he could not provide it to Congress.
Pelosi and other Democrats then demanded he be prosecuted for not answering.
Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison, which he is serving now at a federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut.
Johnson had promised, "We're working on filing an amicus brief with his appellate work there in his case because the January 6 committee was, we think, wrongfully constituted. We think the work was tainted. We think that they may have very well covered up evidence and maybe even more nefarious activities."
The resolution creating Pelosi's committee, which spent months of time and millions of taxpayer dollars essentially trying to blame all the events that day on Trump, whose offer of additional National Guard troops was refused by Pelosi, required 13 members, including five Republicans.
Pelosi refused to allow the GOP members the party nominated, and instead picked two rabidly anti-Trump party members, both of whom shortly later were out of Congress.
WND previously reported Republican members in the House were working to nullify the entirety of the committee's work.
The Gateway Pundit reported some two dozen members are sponsoring a resolution that would designate the committee and its work illegitimate and cancel the subpoenas it issued during its time in the spotlight.
It explains that's significant because it would be, "Rescinding the subpoenas issued by the January 6th Select Committee on September 23, 2021, October 6, 2021, and February 9, 2022, and withdrawing the recommendations finding Stephen K. Bannon, Mark Randall Meadows, Daniel Scavino, Jr., and Peter K. Navarro in contempt of Congress," the resolution reads.
Navarro already served jail time on the basis of that committee's demands.
The Democrats long have claimed, without much foundation, that the events that day, when Trump supporters protested the decision to formalize Joe Biden as the election winner, were an actual "insurrection" against the United States, where by definition protesters would have been intending to take over the government's economy, military, foreign policy and much, much more. They've even tried to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot on the basis of their claims. The events actually were a protest that got out of hand.
It was Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., and Eric Burlison, R-Mo., who introduced a resolution "aimed at rescinding the congressional subpoenas issued to Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro. This proposal also seeks to officially repudiate the actions of the January 6 committee, which Massie and other Republicans have labeled as wholly illegitimate."
The Republicans charge that the committee staged a "show" investigation, assembling evidence they claimed supported the conclusion they already had reached, of Trump's guilt.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Now that Kamala Harris has been installed as the top of the Democratic Party's ballot this fall by leftist elites who pushed Joe Biden under the bus, so to speak, because of his declining mental abilities, some of her views are making the headlines.
Including that she has worked hard to force taxpayers to pay for transgender "health care," apparently to include body-altering chemicals and surgical mutilations.
It is in a video that she explains how she "worked behind the scenes" to make sure taxpayers were billed for such treatments for prison inmates in California, where she served as attorney general for a time.
In the video interview, Harris states, "I learned that the California Department of Corrections, a client of mine, a client of the attorney general … they were standing in the way of surgeries for prisoners. There was a specific case. When I learned I worked behind the scenes to make sure not only that woman got the services … they changed the policy in the state of California so that every transgender inmate in the state would have access to the medical care they desired and need."
While promoters of the ideology call it "medical care," it's actually the administration of drugs that alter a body's function, as well as cosmetic surgeries that sometimes remove healthy body parts.
There was a theme among social media commenters:
"This VP is bat**** crazy."
"She's dumber that goose ****."
And, "As a tax payer I do not want my taxes going to this. I work hard for my money to go to nonsense like this. Fix bridges, roads, pay off U.S. debt, help people with necessities like food and housing, etc. Things that actually matter."
Yet another was looking for help for his own perceived issue.
"You can get the medical care you desire in California prison? I identify as having a full set of hair but I'm bald. Will they pay for a hair transplant? Who I got to rob?"
Yet another used only one word: "Creepy."
Those who track such procedures note that surgeries often cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Missouri's GOP Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced a victory in a lawsuit against the Biden-Harris administration over the use of funding for a border wall, reported. Missouri and Texas sued after the administration refused to complete the project but recently obtained a court order compelling them to do so.
Bailey took to X, formerly Twitter, Tuesday to announce the victory and the fact that the administration will not appeal it. "BREAKING: I obtained a court order forcing border czar [Vice President] KamalaHarris and [President] Joe Biden to finish President [Donald] Trump’s border wall," Bailey wrote.
"They decided NOT to appeal, making our win FINAL. The rest of President Trump’s border wall is going up because of this lawsuit."
🚨BREAKING: I obtained a court order forcing border czar @KamalaHarris and @JoeBiden to finish President Trump’s border wall.
They decided NOT to appeal, making our win FINAL.
The rest of President Trump’s border wall is going up because of this lawsuit.
— Attorney General Andrew Bailey (@AGAndrewBailey) July 30, 2024
The Biden administration inherited $1.4 billion in funds from the Trump administration with the stiplation that the money "shall only be available for construction of barrier systems along the southwest border," a news release from Bailey's office explained. The Biden Administration refused to comply.
"When asked why the Biden Administration 'did not build a barrier, such as a wall, to keep migrants out,' it replied that '[i]t is not the policy of this administration' because '[w]e do not agree with the building of a wall.'" The Department of Homeland Security also refused.
They were so desperate to stop the wall project that the Biden administration called on Congress to cancel the funding altogether. "Yet when Congress did not capitulate to its demands, the Biden Administration ignored its constitutional obligations to abide by Congress’ appropriations laws and opted not to use the funding for the purpose Congress directed," Bailey's statement explained.
In response to this, Missouri and Texas sued the federal government. "Joe Biden refuses to carry out his constitutionally mandated responsibilities, so we took him to court to force him to do his job," Bailey said.
The Biden administration tried to thwart the lawsuit by denying Missouri had standing to sue. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals would ultimately decide it did and rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
This ruling comes at a time when Harris is attempting to distance herself from the open borders policies of the Biden administration. As the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Harris must contend with the destruction wrought by their unwillingness to stop it.
In March 2021, Harris was charged with finding out why so many people were attempting to cross the border in the first place, Fox News reported. However, she never made a dent in the problem and instead dug her heels into her failures.
She was asked by NBC's Lester Holt in June 2021 whether she planned to go to the U.S.-Mexico border that she was charged with securing. She ended up with one of her worst blunders. "You haven’t been to the border," Holt said to Harris.
"And I haven’t been to Europe," she replied and then laughed about it. This epitomized her devil-may-care attitude about this serious subject. Over the next several months, the border crossings would continue to shatter records as it became clear the administration had no appetite to stop it.
Thanks to the lawsuit, the Biden administration will now be forced to continue Trump's border wall. However, the best thing that could happen now would be for Trump to retake the White House and fix it himself.
Vice President Kamala Harris is on record stating she'd like to end private health insurance, Breitbart reported. This extremely unpopular position is one of many that will be problematic for the newly-minted presidential candidate.
In 2019, Harris championed all-out socialism as the senator representing California on her way to a presidential run. When asked about her plan for healthcare, Harris said she felt "very strongly" about switching completely to a government single-payer option.
"We need to have Medicare for all," Harris said. "We have to appreciate and understand that access to health care should not be thought of to be a privilege. It should be understood to be a right," Harris added.
Harris seemed adamant when giving her answer the first time she was a presidential hopeful. However, now that she's the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, Harris must answer for that record.
In 2019, GovTrack named her the most liberal senator, ranking her above avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). She and Sanders co-sponsored the "Medicare for All" bill, which would have eliminated the private health insurance option.
It was wildly unpopular with Americans and, therefore, rejected. This is an inconvenient fact in her past, as is GovTrack's concussion about her record that year.
In an effort to rehabilitate her image, the organization retracted its previous assessment of Harris that year. This comes as the vice president has also backpedaled on her radical plan for allowing a government takeover of the healthcare system.
Recently, campaign staffers told the New York Times that she doesn't support the single-payer option after all. This is just one of the many radical positions Harris is attempting to disavow just in time for the presidential election in November.
Harris leaned into her leftism while vying for a spot as the presidential nominee in 2020. It made her unpopular then and is sure to be her undoing this time around as well.
There are many problematic positions Harris took that she can't run from, even with the media and others changing history. Some of those include her tacit support of defunding police, her promise to "think about" dismantling Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and a "mandatory buyback program" for certain guns.
However, the one her opponent, former President Donald Trump, is hammering her with lately could have a profound impact on her chances in Pennsylvania. Harris is on the record saying she wants to ban fracking, which is an important industry in the Keystone State.
"She pledged to ban fracking — no fracking, oh, that’s going to do well in Pennsylvania, isn’t it? Remember, Pennsylvania, I said it. She wants no fracking. She’s on tape. The beautiful thing about modern technology is when you say something, you’re screwed if it’s bad," Trump said at a rally in Minnesota last weekend.
Harris will try her best to distance herself from her previous record on these issues to garner more votes. However, Trump is correct that it's all out there for the world to see, regardless of how Harris tries to pivot away from them.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lame duck Joe Biden has proposed a list of changes, including modifications to the U.S. Constitution, that would allow bureaucrats to have their way with the U.S. Supreme Court.
He wants to throw out justices after they've served just half of the time he spent in the U.S. Senate. He wants ways to force them to make decisions they otherwise might not make. And he wants to target President Donald Trump, the GOP nominee for 2024, with criminal charges.
What it all means, according to a pointed commentary by Jarrett Stepman, a columnist for the Daily Signal, is that Democrats want – and openly are working toward – a "one-party rule" under the "guise of 'democracy.'"
Stepman warned that Biden's agenda "would bring them another step closer to that reality," and would take away the stops that now prevent "the United States from becoming a banana republic, where losing power means being sent to prison—or worse."
Biden, whose declining mental abilities have been evident for a long now time, a decline cited by a special counsel who suggested not charging him for violating federal law regarding the handling of classified documents, boasted of his agenda in a column in the Washington Post.
Democratic nominee hopeful Kamala Harris endorsed it.
"In the plan, Biden—the byline says he wrote it, so let's pretend that's true for a moment—listed a series of radical proposals cloaked in language to give them the appearance of being reasonable," Stepman explained.
Biden claimed to have "great respect" for the nation's institutions and separation of powers.
Then he laid out his case "for their destruction."
His first point was to overturn by legislative action the ruling from the Supreme Court that the Constitution provides immunity for the president for his official acts in Congress.
Leftists were enraged by that decision because it throws a wrench in their lawfare campaign that has brought multiple civil and criminal cases against Trump.
In fact, the ruling said the president has immunity for official acts, but not necessarily for any other actions.
Biden's comments misrepresented the facts of the Democrats' lawfare, as he claimed "No one is above the law. Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States," and demanded changes. But that is exactly what the Supreme Court ruling already said.
Then he demanded term limits for Supreme Court justices, under a plan that would allow a president to appoint a new justice every two years,
He concealed whether his plan would impact the current sitting justices, but coincidentally, the three most senior all are conservatives, and if it would apply, his scheme would change the court from a 6-3 conservative majority to a 5-4 liberal bloc.
"How convenient," Stepman noted.
Biden's during his time in the Senate in 1983, called such court-takeover plans "bonehead."
The third article of intervention Biden proposed to control the decisions of the court is to impose a "code" on the Supreme Court through which lawmakers or bureaucrats could insist that justices remove themselves from cases even if there's no reason.
"It's a clear violation of the separation of powers and based on the completely fabricated narrative that the Supreme Court is mired in ethics scandals," Stepman explained. Leftists have, in fact, created "scandals" involving some of the conservative justices as part of their political attacks.
Stepman noted that the court is one institution that Democrats and other leftists have yet to establish control over, and interestingly, it wasn't a problem until the court "shifted to the right."
"It's a fairly ironclad rule in American politics that any institution the Left doesn't control it will ultimately seek to destroy. So it goes with the modern Supreme Court," he said.
The court, in fact, now "represents a potential roadblock to their absolute power over American government."
So they are demanding to remove justices with whom they disagree, and install some of their own ideological compatriots.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In news that recommends voters recall President Donald Trump's goal of draining the Washington "Swamp," those unelected but entrenched bureaucrats who make many decisions that cost Americans a great deal, a new report reveals that the "swamp" tax imposed by the Biden-Harris administration is "more than families spend on food, clothing, and education."
A Forbes report said the richest families in America spend some $15,000 a year on groceries – and the Washington Examiner said that's exactly what the "swamp" tax from Joe Biden and Democrat presidential nominee hopeful Kamala Harris costs families.
"As bad as those costs seem, they are likely much higher because the administration changed transparency rules after coming into office, hiding the impact of some regulations, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's annual report on the federal regulatory state, Ten Thousand Commandments," the report said.
Those regulations are costing the nation $2.1 trillion a year.
"Biden's pursuit of various whole-of-government initiatives and transformation of OMB into a cheerleader for, rather than a watchdog over, regulation, I think he can greatly contribute to household costs far worse than what we imagine," explained Clyde Wayne Crews, the author of the report.
The Examiner noted his report is "eagerly anticipated" by those who want to cut government rules and red tape – because "it gives an accurate picture of the costs of federal rules and shows how federal bureaucrats have taken over the job of Congress, which is supposed to write regulations."
The CEI said the annual cost of federal regulations and intervention is estimated to be $417 billion on environmental questions, $522 billion on economic rules, $316 billion on tax compliance, $214 billion on health issues, and more.
Stunningly, the report reveals that agencies imposed 3,018 final rules over this year, even though Congress adopted only 68 regulatory laws.
And it identified 97 "economically significant" rules imposed over just the last six months that each cost the nation $100 billion or more, the report said.
And the agenda has been by executive fiat as Biden and Harris "have sidestepped the political division in Congress to get their liberal programs through with executive orders and regulations," the report warned.
Crews continued, "Regulatory compliance costs and mandates borne by businesses result in higher prices, lost jobs, and lower output. Regulations undermine the economic success of American businesses and households and drag down the economy. Congress should intervene and fix this problem."
Trump had set a goal to kill two regulations for every new rule adopted, but the liberal bureaucratic establishment in government worked to block that.
The Examiner noted it's the first such report since the Supreme Court demolished the "Chevron precedent" which called for courts to submit to federal rules decisions by agencies.
Crews noted, "Prior editions of Ten Thousand Commandments have detailed Trump's streamlining effort (2021) and Biden's reversals (2022, 2023) and framed the latter's pursuit of ambitious whole-of-government spending and regulatory initiatives spanning climate, equity, economic, and social matters, as well as an appetite for censorship and surveillance. This 2024 edition sets a new high-water mark of $2.1 trillion. All previous estimates had the annual total cost of federal regulations below $2 trillion. Previous editions also explained why that figure was almost certainly an undercount."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A focus group assembled by the leftist MSNBC went off the rails for the organization when members were unanimous in confirming they know a black man supporting President Donald Trump.
And that the entry into the race of Kamala Harris, whose heritage is Jamaican and Indian, makes no difference.
All hands went up when the MSNBC host asked, "How many of you know a black man who has expressed to you that they're committed to voting for Donald Trump?"
And all four shook their heads no when MSNBC asked, "Has the emergence of Kamala Harris changed that?"
On social media was the comment, "Whoops! I don't think that was the answer the network was looking for!'
At the Gateway Pundit was an explanation:
"It's anecdotal, but MSNBC has held some focus groups that have been brutal to Kamala Harris. In Wisconsin, swing voters are worried about her involvement in a cover-up regarding the decline of Joe Biden's health. It's a character issue. What else is she willing to hide if she's willing to conceal these developments? CNN spoke to a Georgia voter who shared the same sentiments. Now, this group of black men were asked if they knew other members of their community who intended to vote for Donald Trump. They all raised their hands."
The comments continued, "The cancer of identity politics seems to be contained to college-educated white women who have become insufferable, even to self-identified liberals. Sure, some non-white progressives espouse this nonsense, but it's a wholly white progressive invention as they're the most intense on these issues.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Just exactly how the Department of Justice investigates foreign nationals sent to spy on the United States now needs to be under investigation, too.
That's according to Republicans in the U.S. House who are calling on the Government Accountability Office to launch that review.
Published reports reveal that Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., the head of the House Oversight Committee, says he's learned that Chinese nationals are posing as tourists, or sometimes delivery truck drivers, to "access" U.S. military bases.
Joining Comer in his comments was Glenn Grothmann, of Wisconsin, the head of the House Subcommittee on National Security, the Border and Foreign Affairs.
Those base invasions have happened as many as 100 times over recent years, the Washington Times reported.
"The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating how the U.S. Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes foreign nationals sent to the United States to collect sensitive information but are not professionally trained intelligence officers (IO), or 'nontraditional collectors,'" the members of Congress told GAO Comptroller General Gene Dodaro.
Foreign intelligence organizations often utilize traditional intelligence officers for higher-risk collection, but they also use nontraditional collectors such as foreign nationals on student visas to collect less high-risk information, they charged.
"While these individuals might not be professionally trained intelligence officers, they may still be positioned and motivated to collect information aimed at jeopardizing U.S. national security," they said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Officials with 2024 Olympic Games in Paris are offering an apology of sorts in connection with their intentional pagan reimagining of Jesus' Last Supper featuring an obese woman and drag queens, but many Christians are not accepting their sentiment.
"Clearly there was never intention to show disrespect to any religious group. On the contrary, we intended to show tolerance and community. If people have taken any offense we are, of course, really, really sorry," Paris 2024 spokesperson Anne Descamps told reporters.
But some online reaction to the statement is far from "apology accepted:"
"Sorry, @Olympics apology not accepted. There was no tolerance for Christians. In fact their God & their faith was attacked. You clearly announced in the beginning it was aimed at the last supper. Not a 'mistake' a miscalculation! Unacceptable! Demons and devil worship."
Robert Barron, the Catholic bishop of the Diocese of Winona-Rochester in Minnesota, posted a video saying, "It's anything but an apology. In fact it's kind of a masterpiece of woke duplicity."
"So we have a group of drag queens cavorting in a sort of sexually provocative way, clearly an imitation of DaVinci's Last Supper …
"I love this: 'We tried to celebrate community tolerance.' Yeah, tolerance, except for those pesky 2.6 billion Christians on the planet. Everyone's welcome, everyone's tolerated, all this lovely diversity until you get to anyone who disagrees with your ideology. …
"I wonder what planet they're living on if they think that harmony and peace and all this was achieved by this clear affront to Christians," the bishop continued.
"Christians were offended because it was offensive, and it was intended to be offensive, so please don't patronize us with this condescending remark about, 'Well, if you had any bad feelings we're awfully sorry about that.' Again, if people think this so somehow gonna mollify people all over the Christian world who are outraged by what happened, I would recommend thinking again.
"A real apology would be something like, this was a mistake, it should never have been done and we're sorry for it.' I don't think Christians should be mollified. I think we should keep raising our voices."
The Olympic imagery included an obese woman with a halo-like crown representing Jesus Christ in his final meal with His apostles, who were portrayed by drag queens and gay icons.
"The idea was to do a big pagan party linked to the gods of Olympus," Thomas Jolly, the opening ceremonies choreographer told the Paris-based BFM network on Sunday, according to France 24. "You'll never find in my work any desire to mock or denigrate anyone."
Mississippi-based telecommunications and technology company C Spire posted on X that it had pulled all of its advertising from the Olympics over the ceremony's mockery of painting created to show a biblical moment crucial to the Christian faith.
"We were shocked by the mockery of the Last Supper during the opening ceremonies of the Paris Olympics," the company posted. "C Spire will be pulling our advertising from the Olympics." The four-hour spectacle was held along the Seine River, featuring global stars like Celine Dion and Lady Gaga, both of whom are considered icons for the queer community.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Pat Boone has been releasing songs, well, just about forever. At age 90, his newest is called "Where Did America Go?" and it's earning the praise of Samaritan's Purse chief Franklin Graham.
"Pat Boone is a man who loves God and loves this country. I respect and appreciate him so much. At age 90, he has just released a new song 'Where Did America Go?' that should make us all stop and think – and pray for our nation," Graham wrote on social media.
On social media, Boone explained, "With this new song, I'm calling for us to come back together in the way that we were when this country became America. I hope you will connect with the truths in the lyrics of this song and find hope in the solutions that I present. I'm trying to put all these thoughts into words that we can all understand and agree with, and in a melody I think is singable and memorable. I hope you all enjoy the new track, and I hope that it resonates with you in these times."
A report at Decision Magazine noted Boone, "the iconic pop singer and devout Christian," reached stardom in the 1950s. He often was in competition with Elvis Presley for hits, fans and popularity.
The lyrics include, "That old Constitution / Still holds the solution. But we gave up our freedoms for sale."
The report cited Boone's concern that, "I don't see how America can keep going in this way. I'm deeply concerned. We've got elections coming up, maybe they'll make a difference. But I couldn't wait, I just felt I had to do something like my friend Bob Dylan did when we were in similar states of confusion."
The report explains, "The lyrics of the song call on listeners to reflect on the current state of division in the U.S."
And Boone described it as an alarm that America is in danger of losing its way.
More lyrics: "Can America still rise again? / Find our way back to where we were then? / Yes, that old Family Bible / Still holds our survival / It spells out the way we can win."