President Joe Biden is privately growing "angry and anxious" about his reelection. 

This is according to a report, published over the weekend, by NBC News.

The report is titled, Behind the scene, Biden has grown angry and anxious about the re-election effort. Biden locked up the Democratic nomination last week, but looking ahead to the general election, anxiety has seemed to increase. 

As we will see, there is every reason for Biden to be "angry and anxious."

Here's what has Biden worried:

According to NBC News' report, Biden has been particularly unsettled by his poor polling in battleground states.

"President Joe Biden was seething. In a private meeting at the White House in January, allies of the president had just told him that his poll numbers in Michigan and Georgia had dropped over his handling of the war between Israel and Hamas," NBC News reports.

The outlet continues, "Both are battleground states he narrowly won four years ago, and he can’t afford any backsliding if he is to once again defeat Donald Trump. He began to shout and swear, a lawmaker familiar with the meeting said. He believed he had been doing what was right, despite the political fallout, he told the group, according to the lawmaker."

This may help to explain the White House's shift, in recent weeks, with regard to the Israel-Hamas war.

It's clear that Biden now seems to think that a more pro-Palestinian approach will better suit his reelection campaign.

It's almost all bad

It is no secret that Biden is facing a steep uphill climb to reelection.

His approval rating, on average, currently sits at only 40.2%, according to Real Clear Politics. Some individual polls have Biden below 40%, which NBC notes is "is lower than that of the last three presidents who went on to lose re-election."

But, this is only part of Biden's problem. The polls show that he is significantly underwater on just about every major political issue, including the economy, foreign policy, immigration, inflation, crime, and much more.

And, perhaps, the most troubling polls of all are the ones showing that Biden is trailing Trump in just about every battleground state. Forbes, at the end of February, reported, "Biden is trailing Trump by an average of five points in the seven swing states: North Carolina (9), Arizona (6), Georgia (6), Nevada (6), Pennsylvania (6), Wisconsin (4) and Michigan (2), the Bloomberg/Morning Consult poll found."

Biden, since then, has begun an aggressive reelection campaign strategy that started with his State of the Union Address. But, this did not produce any positive bump in the polls. So, indeed, there is every reason for Biden to be "angry and anxious" about his reelection chances.

Steve Harley, the British musician known, among other things, for the song Make Me Smile, has died at the age of 73. 

Harley's passing has been confirmed by his family, which has released a statement via The Guardian.

"Desperately missed"

According to his family, Harley died at his home in Suffolk, England, on the morning of Sunday, March 17, 2024.

"We are devastated to announce that our wonderful husband and father has passed away peacefully at home, with his family by his side," the family wrote.

It continued, "The birdsong from his woodland that he loved so much was singing for him. His home has been filled with the sounds and laughter of his four grandchildren. Whoever you know him as, his heart exuded only core elements. Passion, kindness, generosity. And much more, in abundance."

The cause of death was cancer. Harley had been receiving treatment for it up until his death.

Harley's family said that the singer will be "desperately missed by people all over the world."

Who was Steve Harley?

Harley, whose birth name is Stephen Malcolm Ronald Nice, was an English singer and songwriter, who was the frontman for the band Cockney Rebel.

"He formed Cockney Rebel, which released a debut album, The Human Menagerie, in 1973 before foundering over creative differences. With a new lineup and rebranded as Steve Harley and Cockney Rebel, the band released the 1975 album The Best Years of Our Lives, which contained Harley’s biggest hit," the Associated Press reports.

This big hit was Make Me Smile. 

The outlet continues, "With its barbed lyrics – aimed at Harley’s former bandmates -- and infectiously catchy chorus, the Alan Parsons-produced Make Me Smile topped the U.K. singles chart. It went on to be covered scores of times and was used on countless soundtracks, including in the 1997 film The Full Monty and in ads for Carlsberg beer, department store Marks and Spencer, and Viagra."

Harley was also known for several other hit singles, including Judy Teen and Mr. Soft. 

Tour canceled

Rolling Stone reports that Harley's death comes not long after he announced that he had to cancel his music tour in order to undergo treatment for cancer. "While cause of death wasn’t revealed, Harley died just a month after he announced that he would step away from touring in 2024 'due to on-going treatment for cancer,'" the outlet writes.

At the time, Harley said that he "is hoping next year will be altogether different."

An opinion writer for the Washington Post is urging vice president Kamala Harris to resign for the sake of the country. 

The wake-up call comes courtesy of Kathleen Parker, a right-leaning member of the otherwise liberal newspaper's editorial board.

The Democratic party's embrace of identity politics has left them unable to fire an incompetent vice president, leaving Democrats - and the country - in peril, Parker argued.

"This is why I propose with all due respect that Harris step away from the ticket,” Parker wrote. “Please, Madame Vice President, do it for your country.”

Identity politics a double-edged sword?

Harris' place at the bottom half of the ticket has long been a source of anxiety for Democrats, who fear that she lacks the competence and gravitas to replace her boss.

Parker noted Harris' tendency to embarrass Biden "with her sometimes inane, rambling remarks and a laugh that erupts from nowhere."

Harris, the first black and female vice president, has often dismissed criticism of her as rooted in bigotry.

Despite her widely demonstrated shortcomings, she can likely rely on identity politics to keep Democrats from getting rid of her, Parker observed.

“The Kamala conundrum comes down to this: She was picked because she was Black and female, a combo tantamount to job security,” Parker wrote. “Now that she has become a burden to the Democratic ticket, Biden can’t fire her. He can’t risk alienating his base. Full stop," she added.

Stuck with Kamala

Despite her historically low approval ratings, Harris often tops opinion polls among Democratic primary voters when asked who should replace Biden.

The president faces his own problems, with a public broadly skeptical of his fitness for office and his wild claims of economic prosperity.

Parker's argument that Democrats can't get rid of Harris has been borne out by the vice president's increasingly high-profile role. Her recent stop at an abortion clinic was described by the media as "historic," and she was given the responsibility of making a speech on the war in Gaza.

While Harris may lack merit, she abounds in ambition. As Parker noted, she won't get fired, but she's not going to step aside out of civic virtue, either.

It appears that Democrats realize they're stuck with Biden and Harris, and - unfortunately, for now at least, so is America.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Keith Olbermann, formerly an MSNBC anchor known for his wild and outlandish ideas, such as his suggestion to dissolve the U.S. Supreme Court, now has gone on social media with an implied threat to President Donald Trump.

It was a Joe Biden campaign account that commented about Trump explaining he's been persecuted worse than any president in history, including Abraham Lincoln, and Olbermann said, "There's always hope."

Fox News cited Olbermann's reputation for "inflammatory" statements.

Fox reported, "One account that responded to Olbermann's post suggested the commentator's account should be 'permanently suspended' for appearing to endorse someone killing Trump, the presumptive nominee for the 2024 Republican nomination. Trump is trying to become only the second president since Grover Cleveland to win another White House term after losing a previous re-election bid."

Off the Press explained Olbermann appeared to "hope" that Trump "would be assassinated."

The Biden campaign statement had said, "Trump says he has been treated worse than Abraham Lincoln, who was assassinated."

It's not the first statement that could be seen as a threat to Trump.

The Gateway Pundit earlier reported that Alex Soros "tweeted out an obvious threat against President Trump on Sunday evening."

The image included a picture of a bullet hole and a sum of $47. Under the image, he said, "Last year, the crime and inflation crises largely evaporated. So did the leading theories about what had caused them."

The Pundit report noted, "Being subtle like a brick through a window the billionaire leftist posts a picture of a 'Bullet Hole' and '$47.' President Donald Trump is going to be the 47th President."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new study confirms Google, the gorilla in the room regarding internet searches, has interfered in American elections 41 times in recent years.

It is the work of the Media Research Center that was revealed in a report by Fox News.

Dan Schneider, MRC's Free Speech America vice president, and Gabriela Pariseau, editor, said in a summary, "MRC researchers have found 41 times where Google interfered in elections over the last 16 years, and its impact has surged dramatically, making it evermore harmful to democracy. In every case, Google harmed the candidates – regardless of party – who threatened its left-wing candidate of choice."

Their report continued, "From the mouths of Google executives, the tech giant let slip what was never meant to be made public: That Google uses its 'great strength and resources and reach' to advance its leftist values. Google’s outsized influence on information technology, the body politic, and American elections became evident in 2008. After failing to prevent then-candidate for president Donald Trump from being inaugurated following the 2016 election, Google has since made clear to any discerning observer that it has been — and will continue — interfering in America’s elections."

In response, Google claimed it was a "business incentive" to keep "both sides" happy, according to the report.

Fox reported, "MRC Free Speech America, a division of the conservative Media Research Center, believes the most recent example was recorded after Google artificial intelligence Gemini 'refused to answer questions damaging' to President Biden."

And, MRC found, from 2008 through February 2024, the web behemoth "has utilized its power to help push to electoral victory the most liberal candidates, regardless of party, while targeting their opponents for censorship."

Samples: Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, and Obama over Mitt Romney in 2012. And refusing to correct a "Google bomb" that smeared Rick Santorum at a time he was a leader, and when it used "its algorithm to exclude autofill results that were potentially damaging to Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Fox reported, "Other examples cited by the MRC include disabling Tulsi Gabbard’s Ads account just as she became the most searched candidate following the first Democratic Party primary debate in 2020, suppressing news critical of Biden, concealing most Republican campaign websites for the 12 competitive Senate races in 2022, and aiding Biden in 2024 by 'burying in its search results the campaign websites of every one of his significant opponents.'"

The evidence shows Google helped those who aligned most closely with its leftism as far back as 2008, and it targeted for censorship those who threatened that ideology, the report said.

"While its interference was first evident in 2008, its meddling has turned into an organizational mission to ensure that its candidates win on election day," the MRC report said. "Many studies reveal the results of the tech giant’s commitment.":

They cited other studies suggesting Google probably shifted 2.6 million votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and likely boosted Democrat votes by six million in 2020.

Google claimed the information was "baseless" and "inaccurate."

There are solutions, the MRC work suggested, including that House Speaker Mike Johnson should "direct relevant committees" to investigate the likely violation of constitutional rights involved in the censorship.

Also possible would be to declare Google a common carrier.

Or consumers should use other "better, less-biased" products.

Media Research Center founder and president Brent Bozell urged Congress to act.

"No organization has more control over information than Google, and they have repeatedly used that power to manipulate the public to vote for the most left-wing candidates in every major election since 2008. It’s un-American to attempt to manipulate elections this way. It’s time Congress acts to shut down this massive election interference scheme," Bozell told Fox News Digital."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Supreme Court heard arguments about a Biden regime agenda to push, using the influence of the federal government, and social media companies to censor ideas and comments that the administration dislikes.

And Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which brought the dispute to the court system, said it's just not allowed under the Constitution for politicians to pick "disfavored" statements and order them suppressed.

"Our clients, who include top doctors and scientists, were censored for social media posts that turned out to be factually accurate, depriving the public of valuable perspectives during a public health crisis. We’re optimistic that the majority will look at the record and recognize that this was a sprawling government censorship enterprise without precedent in this country and that this cannot be permitted to continue if the First Amendment is to survive," Younes said.

A ruling in the case isn't expected from the court for some time, but it likely will have a massive impact on the concept of free speech and the First Amendment across America.

The trial court judge likened the government's scheming in the case to the Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" that propagated nothing but lies.

Many of the details of that ruling were affirmed by an appeals court, but the government, insisting on the right to determine the information to which people have access, took it to the Supreme Court.

Much of the censorship at the time concerned the COVID-19 pandemic and the experimental shots that were developed and given to millions of people at the time.

That included giving shots to children, who had a very high resistance to COVID.

Further, evidence now has confirmed a multitude of side effects of the COVID-19 shots, up to and including death.

"I stand here representing the hundreds of millions of Americans who are not medical professionals, academics, or journalists but who simply knew that what was happening in America was not right. We went to social media to voice our opinions and were silenced by government employees who bullied social media snowflakes into silencing our voices. The government has no authority to police our opinions; they are protected speech. I would argue the government is the source of misinformation, and it is our responsibility as Americans to make every effort to correct that," said Jill Hines, one of the plaintiffs.

A report from NCLA said the case is Murthy v. Missouri, and the high court considered whether to affirm a historic preliminary injunction granted by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

That has been temporarily "stayed," but it would bar officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and Surgeon General’s office from coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

It originally sas U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty who blasted the government for its program to blacklist, shadow-ban, de-boost, throttle and suspend social media activity by those who disagreed with the Biden administration's chosen, and sometimes faulty, opinions on COVID.

"This censorship regime has successfully suppressed perspectives contradicting government-approved views on hotly disputed topics such as whether natural immunity to CVID-19 exists, the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, the virus’s origins, and mask mandate efficacy," the legal team said.

NCLA has pointed out that the First Amendment’s text forbids "abridging" the freedom of speech, "meaning the government’s scheme violates the Constitution even when it encourages social media platforms to suppress legal speech without coercing them."

Other plaintiffs are Drs. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Aaron Kheriaty, and Martin Kulldorff.

"Just down the street, the Constitution of the United States sits in the Archives. If Americans don’t stand up and defend our constitutional rights, it is just a piece of paper. I am honored to be here with NCLA and my co-plaintiffs to defend the constitutional right of free speech, which has been systematically suppressed by the federal government. I trust that the Supreme Court will do the right thing and uphold the injunction against government censorship of constitutionally protected speech," Kheriaty said.

Mark Chenoweth, president of the NCLA, said, "The First Amendment does not allow the government to abridge speech based on whether the speech is true or false. That is what the government did here, and if that is allowed then the First Amendment is a dead letter"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One part of the scheming by the federal government to censor information it dislikes has been uncovered and revealed in a new report by Mike Benz, Allum Bokhari, and Oscar Buynevich at the Foundation for Freedom Online.

It involves a "Disinformation Primer" that was unleashed by USAID in a 97-page document that was labeled "for internal use only."

USAID, which is a branch of the federal government that "purports to use taxpayer dollars for 'strengthening resilient democratic societies,'" the report said, instead has been "pushing private sector technology companies, media organizations, education ministries, national governments, and funding bodies to adopt social media censorship practices."

The report explains the document was obtained by American First Legal, which was forced by the feds to sue to gain access to documents subject to a Freedom Information Act procedure.

The revelatory paperwork shows USAID's pursuit of many damaging censorship strategies that were used to throttle comments during the 2020 election and more.

The document is dated February 2021, just after Joe Biden took office, and calls for censorship strategies for "virtually every governmental, non-governmental and private sector commercial actor," calling for them to "take action against disfavored speech online."

For example, tech companies could deprive those with objectionable speech of funding, governments could regulate those statements, media groups could attack any source of information that does not meet the standards for being politically correct, and more.

USAID told think tanks, non-profits, and others to "blacklist' sources of "wrong" opinions.

The report explains, for example, USAID calls for financial "throttling," "To disrupt the funding and financial incentive to disinform, attention has also turned to the advertising industry, particularly with online advertising. A good example of this is the concerted response to the discovery of the websites traced to the village of Veles outside of Skopje, Macedonia, which showed how easy it was to exploit the digital advertising model to flood the news ecosystem with fabricated content. Wired Magazine profiled the Veles case study in 2017. As most online advertisers are unaware of the disinformation risk of the domains featuring their ads due to the automated process of ad placement, they inadvertently are funding and amplifying platforms that disinform."

It claims that online competition with "traditional media" is the problem because it reduces the power of those leftist corporations that control networks and publications to "shape … dialogue."

So, it insists, those casting doubt on those partisan sources should be attacked.

"Because traditional information systems are failing, some opinion leaders are casting doubt on media, which, in turn, impacts USAID programming and funding choices," the warning came.

Having sources of information outside of the legacy media industry is problematic, it charges.

"It leads to a loss of information integrity. Online news platforms have disrupted the traditional media landscape. Government officials and journalists are not the sole information gatekeepers anymore. As such, citizens require a new level of information or media literacy to evaluate the veracity of claims made on the internet."

The report said FFO chief Mike Benz has released a video primer on the ideology of "media literacy."

The agenda also includes using Google to redirect people who come across information that the bureaucracy doesn't want Americans to see to other, "curated" videos that cast doubt, often falsely, on the sought-after information.

Those posts "debunk" the information that is being hidden from the public, the report said.

USAID also wants various of its compatriots in the war on "unapproved" information to do "prebunking," which involves "anticipating what disinformation is likely to be repeated" and having a different opinion already prepared.

"USAID’s Disinformation Primer also suggests various other technological tools for combatting disinformation," the report said.

The foundation report noted, "In addition to mis- (speech that unintentionally causes harm or is inaccurate) and dis-information (speech that is deliberately created to cause harm), the USAID mimics the censorship industry’s proclivity to also target factually true speech under the framing of 'mal-information.' Misinformation is speech that is factually accurate, but is deemed wrongthink by the censors because it presents an oppositional narrative."

USAID even attacks "satire or parody" in its "Ten types of mis- and disinformation."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

As the number of suspected terrorists reportedly plotting assassinations and deadly attacks in America continues to grow, so does the risk of interfering with this year's presidential election.

Historically, election cycles around the world have often faced disruption by adversaries, whether through election interference, threats of violence, or actual violence. For example, the commuter train bombings in Spain on March 11, 2004, carried out by Islamic terrorists, which killed 193 people and injured over 1,800, took place just three days before a national election. The coordinated attack is believed by many to have influenced voters to reject a Spanish government that participated in the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

For Middle East expert and terrorism scholar Adrian Calamel, attacks like the one in Madrid have him growing increasingly fearful about similar violence being used to disrupt November's presidential election in the U.S.

Calamel, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Arabian Peninsula Institute, tells WND the "specter of something like this happening in America" is related to an active assassination plot against several Trump-era officials. Earlier this month, news began to circulate that an agent of Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security, or MOIS, was "wanted for questioning in connection with the recruitment of individuals for various operations in the United States, to include lethal targeting of current and former United States Government officials as revenge for the killing of IRGC-QF Commander Qasem Soleimani."

In 2020, Soleimani was killed by a U.S. drone strike on the order of then-President Donald Trump. As a result, Iran pledged to retaliate and named multiple American targets, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security adviser John Bolton, former U.S. special representative for Iran Brian Hook, as well as other current and former officials of the U.S. government.

What this tells Calamel is that "Tehran is intent on hitting America inside its borders, on its soil." But it's how they'll do it that he questions. According to Calamel, "[Iran] has a lot to lose after gaining so much leverage during the Biden administration." Most recently, the administration has
reapproved a sanctions waiver that would allow as much as $10 billion in frozen assets to be released to the Iranian government.

For this reason, he said, "[Iran] will be looking for plausible deniability." While many believe Hezbollah is the primary terrorist threat to the United States, Calamel points a finger to al Qaeda. Although Iran's MOIS agents and proxies like Hezbollah might secretly help coordinate an attack on U.S. soil, he said, "they're too close to Tehran and have too much to lose from the United States to take the blame for it."

To grasp how the next terror attack could unfold on U.S. soil, Calamel said, "the West needs to put aside the whole Sunni and Shia differences of these groups, thinking that they hate each other and don't coordinate their intentions." While it's widely accepted that groups like Hezbollah and al Qaeda do not coordinate their efforts due to their religious differences, Calamel said this kind of thinking was "clearly disproven" by the 9/11 Commission Report.

In the events leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the report revealed (on p. 240), "... senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah."

In 2011, it was also concluded by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that "the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), and Iran's terrorist proxy Hezbollah, all materially aided and supported al Qaeda before and after 9/11."

"I believe al Qaeda is drawing up plans to attack the West, and these attacks could come to fruition as early as this election cycle," Calamel warned. According to him, the terror group is emboldened because "this American administration and their intelligence agencies think they're defeated when they are not."

"I fear Tehran may be using al Qaeda to facilitate an attack on the United States right under the noses of this administration," he said, adding that "the inability to connect the dots between Al Qaeda and the Islamic Republic of Iran will only harm the United States in the end."

In addition, Calamel said, "Al Qaeda may very well pin the attack to ISIS as they've often done in the past." By doing so, he argued, "Iran will undoubtedly build a couple of layers of plausible deniability, knowing this administration would struggle to connect the dots while Americans deal with the tragic loss of life and the most chaotic election cycle the country has ever seen."

National security agencies must remain vigilant, he asserted.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Long have there been charges that there are two tiers of justice in America: One for leftists and liberals and one for those who are more conservative. For example, the government failure to charge Hillary Clinton after she posted national secrets on an unsecured web server in her home.

Others have gone to jail for far less.

Jonathan Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, historically has discounted the idea that the identity of the suspect would determine the attacks by the feds.

But in an online column, he explained, "It is becoming harder to deny the existence of a two-track system of justice in the country as commentators and even a few courts raise concerns over the role of politics in prosecutions.

"For years, conservatives have objected that there is a two-tier system of justice in this country. I have long resisted such claims, but it has become increasingly difficult to deny the obvious selective prosecution in a variety of recent cases and opinions."

For example, he noted, there's the recent scandal in Georgia where Democrat Fulton County DA Fani Willis was accused of financially benefiting from the fact she hired, at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $700,000, her paramour to create an organized crime case against President Trump and others, then took exotic vacations with him as part of their relationship.

The paramour, Nathan Wade, now has been removed from the case. But Willis remains.

Citing the "odor of mendacity" referenced by play author Tennessee Williams in "Cat on a Hot Tim Roof," Turley said, "That odor was particularly strong after the hearings indicated that Wade may have committed perjury in his earlier divorce case and that both Willis and Wade were credibly accused of lying on the stand about when their relationship began.

"They are prosecuting defendants in the Trump case accused of the same underlying conduct, including 19 individual counts of false statements, false filings or perjury."

But there's more, he said.

That "odor" is coming from multiple courtrooms around the country, and now is "becoming intolerable for many Americans as selective prosecution is being raised in a wide array of cases."

He cited the "strong" evidence against President Trump for having government documents at Mar-a-Lago.

"However, the recent decision of Special Counsel Robert Hur not to bring criminal charges against President Joe Biden has undermined even that case. Hur described four decades of Biden serially violating laws governing classified documents. The evidence included Biden telling a third party that he had classified material in his house and reading from a classified document to his non-cleared ghostwriter," he said. "There is evidence of an effort to destroy evidence and later an effort of the White House to change the report."

Hur recommended against charging Biden because of his "diminished" capacities.

But special counsel Jack Smith, running virtually the same charges against Trump, now "is absurdly in conflict with the treatment Biden is receiving."

And then, in New York, lawmakers changed their law to let Trump be sued over financial dealings in which no one lost any money, he said.

The AG there, Letitia James, essentially campaigned on a pledge of "selectively" prosecuting Trump.

Not to be left behind, "Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has also come up with an unprecedented way of using a state law to effectively prosecute Trump for a federal offense that the Justice Department has already rejected," Turley noted.

On the other side, the DOJ proposed a "ridiculous" plea bargain for Hunter Biden "that would have allowed for no jail time and a sweeping immunity agreement…"

And, Turley wrote, it's not just Trump.

"In California, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney issued an opinion that found such evidence of selective prosecution against conservative groups. In considering a far-right group, Carney noted that the Justice Department has had sharply different approaches based on the political views of the defendants."

Carney ruled, "Such selective prosecution leaves the troubling impression that the government believes speech on the left more deserving of protection than speech on the right," something the Constitution forbids.

He said, "FBI Director James Comey received similar gentle treatment after removing FBI material and arranging for information to be leaked to the media. Meanwhile, defendants such as Trump’s National Security Adviser Michael Flynn were pursued relentlessly for making false statements to investigators under Comey’s watch."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Former U.S. President Barack Obama was caught on camera Monday entering and exiting 10 Downing Street in London, the home of British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, sparking questions and theories about the reason for his unannounced visit.

"Why is Obama having private meetings with world leaders?" asked American political activist Laura Loomer.

Loomer later added: "Glad it has now been confirmed that Obama is running the country. Guess Biden was too sick today to make the trip to the UK. His body is shutting down. It's only a matter of time now."

Reactions to the video include:

"He no longer trusts Joe Biden ... He is handling it himself."

"Because Obama has never stopped being POTUS. We know he's pulling the strings with Biden."

"He has been betraying America like this since Trump was first inaugurated. We should look upon foreign leaders who took these secret meetings with him as enemies."

"Lol, you have to ask? The real question is, why are they letting us know it's happening?"

"Well, if he's attempting to conduct foreign policy on his own, that would violate the Logan Act, which Mike Flynn was unfairly prosecuted for. Presumably, he's not doing that. Which means he's speaking for the government. Then you have to ask, why doesn't President Biden trust our ambassador to Great Britain to do their job properly? Bottom line, something is screwy somewhere."

"They have to discuss his 4th term."

"Yes, I love how people act like this is normal. It's not."

"Needs to pick up a certified copy of his forged birth certificate from MI6."

Sky News in Britain reports:

Our political correspondent Tamara Cohen says the meeting was a "courtesy visit" while Mr Obama is in London for meetings to do with his foundation.

Mr Obama and Rishi Sunak have never met before as the former president left office in 2017.

As it was a private meeting, Tamara says we will not be given a full readout of everything they discussed.

Likely topics, however, include the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

"Whether it touches on UK or US politics, we may not find out," Tamara says.

She adds that it "took us all by surprise to see him walking up the street" when Mr Obama arrived this afternoon.

© 2024 - Patriot News Alerts