This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'The real concern for the State Department was one concerning public relations and how it might look in the media'
The Joe Biden administration "completely ignored" a government official's warning that his plan to pull American troops out of Afghanistan abruptly would "almost certainly result in an extreme loss of morale among the Afghan military and that the territorial gains of the Taliban indicated the current government would likely collapse after the withdrawal…"
Which is what happened.
The report comes from the American Center for Law and Justice which pursued Freedom of Information Act projects after Biden's orders cost the lives of 13 American soldiers during that pullout, as well as the lives of 170 Afghan civilians.
Further, Biden ordered left behind for the Taliban to take over U.S. military bases and billions of dollars worth of American war machinery, some of which now has been sold to other terror organizations around the world.
"We have uncovered that the dissent cable appears to have been completely ignored in principle. This particular cable warned that the current U.S. withdrawal plan would almost certainly result in an extreme loss of morale among the Afghan military and that the territorial gains of the Taliban indicated the current government would likely collapse after the withdrawal was complete," the organization reported.
It explained such a cable is the "last resort" for a foreign service officer whose warnings about a situation have not been considered.
"They can send a dissent cable directly to leadership in the State Department. That's what happened, and the warning was still clearly ignored by Biden's top officials," the report said.
"The State Department repeatedly claimed that Secretary [Antony] Blinken had seen the cable, but there was no indication that anyone else did. But at this point, we know that Deputy Secretary Sherman, Deputy Secretary McKeon, and Under Secretary Nuland received the dissent cable on July 13, 2021," the ACLJ reported.
They all reported to Blinken, who was to report to the president, the report said.
"So, what was the response after receiving such dire news via the dissent cable prior to the imminent withdrawal from Afghanistan? Was it candid advice to the secretary? No. Nor was it a reconsideration of the advice provided to the president, nor a proposal to change or modify the withdrawal," the ACLJ explained.
Instead, the Deep State at State inquired, "Please let me know if you would like to provide initial guidance to shape our response on this matter."
The ACLJ explained, "The real concern for the State Department was one concerning public relations and how it might look in the media ('shape our response') and not actually addressing the very real concerns expressed in the dissent cable.
"The contents of these documents should deeply concern every American. They reveal the troubling actions of a misguided administration; and to this day, no one has been held accountable for the disastrous withdrawal. This serves as a stark reminder that, as commander in chief, President Biden bears the ultimate responsibility for the U.S. military's actions."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Agenda calling for fairness for American products, manufacturers … and consumers
President Donald Trump's campaign to reach fair trade deals with the international community, as expected, hit American consumers with "short-term" pain this week, as stocks measured by the S&P 500, Nasdaq and the Dow Jones Industrial Average all bumped down by a couple of points on the release of his tariff plan.
Trump's extensive tariff agenda includes tariffs for foreign goods imported into the United States that align with tariffs those nations charge for American goods delivered to their citizens.
Analysts have confirmed that the short-term pain is real, but the plan is for the end result to be a better market for American products and American consumers.
On Thursday, just hours after Trump's tariff program was revealed, doomsayers claimed the market "fell significantly." One report even said they "plunged."
The markets, in fact, were down a couple of percentage points, with those individual stocks whose managers have been relying on favorable import structures to make money hit the hardest.
Trump said, in all caps, "THE OPREATION IS OVER! THE PATIENT LIVED, AND IS HEALING. THE PROGNOSIS IS THAT THE PATIENT WILL BE FAR STRONGER, BIGGER, BETTER, AND MORE RESILIENT THAN EVERY BEFORE…"
Trump even has gone to the point of making sure those who have been gaming the system now will be playing in a fair field, by eliminating the so-called 'de minimus' exceptions that allowed overseas companies, from China and the like, to ship directly to American consumers and avoid tariffs.
Those rules had allowed shipments under $800 in value to avoid any payment, and billions of those shipments were routinely sent and delivered.
Trump had given the Commerce Department time to develop a plan to collect those payments, and he said that now is in place.
Starting May 2, shipments under $800 will be subject to an ad valorem duty of 30% of the value of the postal item or $25 per postal item. On June 1, the per-postal-item tariff will increase to $50, reports confirmed. Billions in revenue for America are predicted.
The Washington Examiner noted the S&P was down about 3%, the Dow Jones about 2.8%.
Also affected were international markets, with Japan's Nikkei 225 down 4% and South Korea's Kospi index down about 2.7%. Other markets in Europe, Germany, France and London were down between 1% and 2%.
Gold was at $3,090. And cryptocurrencies were down in the range of 3%.
Trump said, "For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike. With today's action, we are finally going to be able to make America great again – greater than ever before. Jobs in factories will come roaring back into our country."
There is a 10% base tariff for all, he said, and "reciprocals" will mean a 54% tariff for China.
Trump has explained the plan is all about the long game – getting trading partners who clearly are protecting their own economies at the expense of the U.S. to reduce or remove their barriers to fairness.
Analyst Charlie Gasparino noted Trump "knows trading partners will respond in kind; U.S. goods will get more expensive overseas and import prices spike. That's where the stagflation comes in. Everyone I know who knows Trump says he's committed to the tariff hammer because he believes in his heart that they will rebuild America, bring jobs back to the Rust Belt and as he explained in his press conference, the trade deals we have crafted with even our allies are so unfair."
He said the "good" that could happen is that, "Trump's art-of-the-deal making skills will change the protectionist behavior of our trade partners."
Sid Miller, of the Texas Department of Agriculture, said, "President Trump doesn't often hold back—and yesterday was no exception. The world is quickly realizing that in his second term, you either strike a fair deal or face the consequences. These tariffs mark a bold step toward ensuring that American farmers, ranchers, and producers are no longer subjected to unfair trade practices. The goal is clear: to reverse decades of one-sided agreements and secure fair, equitable deals for all U.S. industries—not just agriculture. Our president has proven yet again that he keeps his promises.
"I won't sugarcoat the reality that there will be short-term challenges for our agricultural community. However, this trade war is about something bigger: securing lasting, fair agreements that protect the American farmer. President Trump has made it clear that our small farmers will not be left behind. Under the guidance of Secretary Brooke Rollins, the USDA has already stepped up, demonstrating a strong commitment to providing the necessary support. I have full confidence that this administration will continue to equip our farmers and ranchers with the resources they need to weather this storm and emerge stronger than ever."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Puts out 2nd video saying Democrats 'have lost their minds'
Saying the left-wing media and Democrats "have lost their mind" over an earlier video of him posted on X, Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., put out his own response Wednesday, saying he stands by his response to a fired federal bureaucrat who pursued him as he got on an elevator.
In the first video, Banks says the man taping him, a terminated HHS employee, probably deserved to be fired because he seemed "like a clown."
Subsequent to media outrage, Banks posted his own video, noting that the man questioning him earlier had a "left-wing, woke job in the federal government that should have never been a job to begin with."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Investigative journalist Laura Loomer meets with president before action taken
President Trump has dismissed several "disloyal" staff members of his National Security Council team, shortly after he met with investigative journalist Laura Loomer who reportedly raised doubts about them.
The Washington Examiner pointed out that Loomer previously has charged that there were members of the staff who were disloyal to Trump, and further there have been "vetting failures" at the NSC.
The report said the firings came a week after there was a leak of a Signal app group chat, but NSC spokesman Brian Hughes said the organization doesn't comment on personnel matters.
In that Signal chat case, someone added the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, a virulently anti-Trump publication, to an administration discussion about terrorists in Yemen.
Loomer posted a statement saying, "I woke up this morning to learn that there are still people in and around the West Wing who are LEAKING to the hostile, left-wing media about President Trump's 'confidential' and 'private' meetings in the Oval Office. I want to reiterate how important it is that people who gain access to the White House or the administration respect the privacy of their conversations with President Trump and his senior staff.
"Out of respect for President @realDonaldTrump and the privacy of the Oval Office, I'm going to decline on divulging any details about my Oval Office meeting with President Trump. It was an honor to meet with President Trump and present him with my research findings. I will continue working hard to support his agenda, and I will continue reiterating the importance of, and the necessity of STRONG VETTING, for the sake of protecting the President of the United States of America, and our national security."
The Gateway Pundit, in its report, called it a "'neocon' bloodbath."
The report continued, "Per CNN, here are the names of the three known terminated officials and their titles:
Brian Walsh, a director for intelligence and a former lead staffer for now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio on the Senate Intelligence Committee. Thomas Boodry, a senior director for legislative affairs who formerly served as NSA Director Mike Waltz's legislative director in Congress. David Feith, a senior director overseeing technology and national security. He previously served in the State Department during Trump's first administration."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Environmental agendas? Traditionally Democrat. Immigrant advocates? Usually Democrats. Promoting labor causes? Also Democrats.
Until now, when the party's absolute hatred for all things President Donald Trump, and his Department of Government Efficiency chief Elon Musk, has prompted members to abandon their long-held ideals.
Now, according to constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, "Democrats have shown that very self-destructive quality of rage in adopting anti-immigrant, anti-free speech, anti-labor, and even anti-environmental positions to get at Donald Trump or his supporters."
He was referencing the exploding political violence of the left, especially that which has targeted Musk and his companies – even innocent owners of Tesla vehicles.
"What is most striking, however, is how Democrats have torched their core beliefs to pursue a scorched Earth campaign against Musk," he said.
The Democrats now are at risk, he said, of becoming "the very thing that they despise in others."
In fact, they are "jettisoning their most cherished values to strike out at those they hate."
He said the real issue is that those "rage addicts" "like it; they need it."
Even their advocacy for funding from billionaires, like George Soros, becomes a failing when another billionaire, Elon Musk, does it, because he's been supporting Republicans.
Such "scorched earth" actions now have infested the actions of Democrat lawmakers in New York, who are trying to "weaponize" state laws against Musk, he said.
He cited plans by state Sen. Pat Fahy, an Albany Democrat, who wants to ban Musk's Tesla corporation from direct sales in the state.
That's despite Fahy's long advocacy for electric cars.
"The move will make it more difficult not just for Musk but other EV dealers to survive, but climate change policies be damned. Fahy and her colleagues want to get at Musk in any way they can," Turley explained.
Turley documented:
He noted in California, labor advocates opposed more work at SpaceX that would benefit workers, because of Musk's connections.
And he cited the Democrats' "greatest hypocrisy" in their willingness to abandon environmental priorities "for political revenge."
The Fahy issue is that Tesla was allowed to sell cars directly to consumers at some locations because it was viewed as good for the state and the environment.
"The question is, what do Democrats like Fahy now stand for when everything they are is now defined by those they hate?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Elite reporters who have the privilege of attending White House news briefings actually considered an old-fashioned "sit-in" to try to keep their privileged seats amid a revolution in reporting.
For decades, writers for networks, legacy wire services, newspapers, and the like have had privileged seats in the White House briefing room, specifically the front couple of rows have been reserved for them.
However, there's now a revolution in reporting. Many people read X for their updates, and fewer and fewer are turning on the television for a news broadcast or opening up a newspaper.
The latest confirmation of the changes is that the White House announced it would take over making the seat assignments for White House briefings, a privilege that for years had been gifted to the leftist White House Correspondents Association, a private organization of writers that essentially managed that briefing room for themselves.
Elite reporters who have the privilege of attending White House news briefings actually considered an old-fashioned "sit-in" to try to keep their privileged seats amid a revolution in reporting.
For decades, writers for networks, legacy wire services, newspapers and the like have had privileged seats in the White House briefing room, specifically the front couple of rows have been reserved for them.
However, there's now a revolution in reporting. Many people read X for their updates, and fewer and fewer are turning on television for a news broadcast or opening up a newspaper.
The latest confirmation of the changes is that the White House announced it would take over making the seat assignments for White House briefings, a privilege that for years had been gifted to the leftist White House Correspondents Association, a private organization of writers that essentially managed that briefing room for themselves.
Now the Gateway Pundit reports the legacy writers were so upset at losing control that they considered staging an old-fashioned "sit-in" to try to maintain their privilege.
The report took the WCHA members to task, describing them as "apparently a bunch of toddlers throwing a tantrum" over the change.
The report noted Semafor described how the White House plan to set its own seating chart "has rattled the journalists who cover the president and left them mulling how exactly to push back."
The report said, "The WHCA's current system reflects the 20th century media power structure: wire services and broadcast and cable television networks occupy the front row, major newspapers and radio get the second and third rows, and a more fluid collection of news organizations sits further back."
The White House plan simply is to restructure the format to reflect today's media trends, which are more and more web-, podcast-, and social media-based.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Elon Musk, the owner of Tesla, X, and SpaceX, has been working with President Donald Trump in the administration's Department of Government Efficiency for months now, hunting down and eliminating government waste, fraud, corruption, and even criminal activity in its spending.
Not surprisingly, he's accumulated a few enemies along the way to cutting thousands of government jobs, hundreds of millions in wacky grant programs, and billions in spending.
He's taken it in stride, repeatedly going to social media to discuss the savings for American taxpayers, along with the atrocities they had been getting federal money. He's tackled issues such as illegal aliens being given Social Security numbers, and the benefits – and even voting privileges – they obtain because of that.
So it was perhaps with a hopeful attitude that some publications such as Politico reported Wednesday that Musk soon was to leave DOGE.
That was confirmed in a terse statement from the White House that the "scoop" actually "is garbage."
The reports had claimed that Musk would be "stepping back in the coming weeks."
Musk himself slammed the journalistic lie, saying, "Yeah, fake news."
DOGE originally was set up as a temporary structure to attack the waste and corruption in government, and Musk is expected to relinquish his White House work at that time, some months out yet.
The reports said, though, that Trump and Musk had "decided in recent days that it will soon be time for Musk to return to his businesses and take on a supporting role."
They said his exit is "looming."
The reports even suggested that Musk "is likely to retain an informal role as an adviser & continue to be an occasional face around the White House grounds."
One report claimed Trump told Cabinet members and inner circle confidantes that Musk "is stepping back."
The reports complained of his "unpredictability" and claimed he was a "liability."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently has been critical of district judges across the nation "shaping national policy" by asserting that they have control over certain Executive Branch responsibilities, issuing nationwide injunctions, and more.
During a recent interview with "Kudlow" he warned that this is a pivotal moment in history as, "You cannot have individual, random district judges who get up in the morning and say, 'I think I'll play president tonight, today. And some of their rulings are crazy."
But it's getting worse, to the point he believes America now is living through a potential "judicial coup d'etat."
"There is clearly a potential constitutional crisis involving the Judicial Branch's effort to fully override the Legislative and Executive branches," he said in testimony to Congress.
He pointed out that 15 lower court judges "effectively seized control of various Executive Branch duties" during just the first six weeks of President Donald Trump's second term.
"This is potentially a judicial coup d'etat," he confirmed. "It clearly violates the Constitution and more than 200 years of American history."
He said during the "Kudlow" interview, "There are already more of these [rulings] coming down the road than the Supreme Court has ever heard in a single term. I would hope that the Supreme Court Chief Justice [John Roberts] would intervene, indicate that there's something clearly wrong here, and that they're going to follow a procedure so that the executive branch is not being dictated to by random individual district judges."
He said Roberts' response to the crisis so far has been abysmal.
"He put out a press release about 10 days ago lecturing President Trump and saying there's an appeals process. That's nonsense. If you are involved with crime, with violence, with national security, you can't have some judge make rendered an injunction," Gingrich said. "And then, six weeks, eight weeks, nine weeks from now, maybe it'll get taken up."
The Gateway Pundit noted his testimony to Congress was before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet and the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government.
Gingrich also pointed out that there were 12 federal judges appointed by President John Adams "on his way out of office to hamstring incoming President Thomas Jefferson's agenda."
Impeachment was too slow, so Jefferson and Congress "simply abolished the courts in which they served via the Judiciary Act of 1802," he said.
He also noted the huge number of nationwide injunctions that judges are using to target the Trump administration.
And more than 90% are from "judges appointed by Democratic presidents."
"The notion that unelected lawyers can micromanage the Executive Branch – and override a Commander in Chief who received 77.3 million votes – should trouble every American," he warned.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Calley Means, one of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s advisers in the effort to MAHA, Make America Healthy Again, went into the lion's den Wednesday and shamed health care and pharma lobbyists sitting in the room as he responded to a question at a Politico "Health Care Summit."
Politico White House correspondent Dasha Burns asked Means about recent "massive cuts" to the number of employees at the Department of Health and Human Services.
"Fundamentally, what [Kennedy] has done is taken over a department that has utterly failed," Means said, pointing out that the federal health agencies have done nothing but preside over a disproportionately sick nation and "an abject devastation of American health."
Challenging lobbyists in the audience who laughed at his assertions, Means asked the media and others in the room to consider having some "humility" about the fact voters put Kennedy and Trump into office, "the two most popular political figures in America, by far."
Turning to Burns, Means stated, "It is insane for you to insinuate that the thing standing between us and better health is more government bureaucrats."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The justices on the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments in a case that would allow states to defund Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion corporation.
It now gets an estimated $700 million in taxpayer money each year, which has prompted a variety of protests over the possibility that taxes are being used for abortion, or to support the company's structure that promotes abortion.
Oral arguments were heard in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and concerns a decision by Gov. Henry McMaster, of South Carolina, to disqualify abortion providers from state Medicaid reimbursement programs.
It's significant because a ruling on behalf of the state could open the door for other states to make the same move.
The Washington Examiner reported that the issue wasn't clearly decided from comments made by the justices, as the leftists on the court clearly were advocating for Planned Parenthood, while others were harder to read.
"The future of state Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood remains uncertain following an intense oral argument session before the Supreme Court on Wednesday," the report said.
Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and one woman, Julie Edwards, sued over the governor's order, claiming the federal Medicaid statute guarantees access to "any qualified and willing provider."
But the state has explained it retains the authority to determine what counts as "qualified."
Much of the argument was over whether patients have a legal standing to sue because they are not allowed to pick one "provider" when a multitude of others are available.
Lawyer John Bursch, arguing for the state, explained the Medicaid Act does not create a private right of action, and the responsibility for enforcement rests with the Department of Health and Human Serivces.
Abortion lawyer Nicole Saharsky claimed Medicaid provides "a very individual choice."
Bursch told reporters outside the court that he was confident in the case.
"The Justices seemed to get the point that we were making, which is that Congress creates rights enforceable in federal court only when it uses clear, explicit language in the statute, and that provision that we're talking about today simply doesn't have that," said Bursch.
He suggested there were several justices open to the state's arguments.
Elena Kagan, one of the leftist justices, claimed that the state is required to ensure people "have a right to choose their doctor."
A decision could come as early as June.
The federal Hyde Amendment already bars direct federal funding of abortions, but critics note any government cash frees up the other cash abortionists have for abortion.
The legal team at Liberty Counsel, which has worked on a multitude of cases involving tax funding for abortion, said states are charged with protecting consumers from harm, and "also have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not funneled to repeat offenders and bad actors."
The organization pointed out that the Center for Medical Progress, which involved client Sandra Merritt, made undercover videos that "exposed shocking abuses against women and children and clear violations of multiple state and federal laws." One of those videos showed an abortionist insisting on more money for the body parts of unborn children, because, "I want a Lamborghini."
It noted South Carolina also approved a Heartbeat Law, which protects unborn children from abortion after six weeks.