This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge is allowing to move forward a lawsuit over the Biden administration's decision to deregulate an abortion chemical that is used to kill unborn babies.
The ruling comes from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, and allows the states of Missouri, Kansas and Idaho to continue their claims against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's anti-life agenda.
Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, "The FDA must be held accountable for its dangerous and unlawful actions. The FDA should no longer be allowed to circumvent safety laws to allow a eugenic drug to destroy innocent children and harm women. Abortion drugs have never been safe and harm women and kill children."
At issue is access to the dangerous Mifepristone drug, and the feds' decision to allow the drug to be shipped into those states and undermine their prolife legal frameworks.
"The ruling denied the FDA's request to dismiss the case and granted the states more time to amend and strengthen their complaint," explained a report from Liberty Counsel.
The states now can transition from a previous case brought by a group of pro-life doctors, who the Supreme Court said didn't have legal standing to use.
The new, and amended, claims, "could end up back at the Supreme Court in the future," the report said, as "The states assert they have the legal standing to sue the FDA because its relaxed restrictions involving a dangerous drug like Mifepristone puts lives and health at risk and undermines state pro-life laws protecting women, girls, and unborn children."
The focal point of the case is the FDA's allowing of the drug to be handed out via telehealth, without the patient ever seeing a doctor in person. Then the drugs are delivered by mail.
The report explained, "In April 2023, Judge Kacsmaryk presided over the original abortion pill case from the pro-life doctors and determined that the FDA shouldn't have approved Mifepristone for public use in 2000 and voided its approval. He noted the agency approved the abortion pill under political pressure, its safety studies were improperly conducted, and that the FDA's regulatory decisions allowing them to be prescribed via telemedicine, sent by mail, and dispensed at retail pharmacies were unlawful."
The Supreme Court then reversed the judicial course and allowed the deregulation scheme to remain.
"The states now want a ruling, including a preliminary injunction, that restores regulations on Mifepristone, including a plan for follow-up visits by the patient with a doctor, limiting the use of the drugs on unborn, restoring a requirement that doctors be involved, and demanding all serious and non-fatal adverse events be documented.
In the case, the states charge the federal bureaucrats have disregarded the health and safety needs of Americans, and have created conditions "where women and girls can face severe and life-threatening complications due to easy access to the drugs through the mail and little to no medical oversight while taking them – conditions that bypass state pro-life protections and send women and girls to emergency rooms."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Leftists running school districts in many places across America have adopted some extremist ideas these days, including transgenderism – especially after the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris administration spent four years promoting it.
And sometimes they've used their positions to select materials that indoctrinate children with such ideologies. Sometimes they let parents opt their children out of what the families consider offensive material, but not always.
And in one of those cases, the Supreme Court now will intervene.
It is Becket that confirmed the high court agreed to decide whether parents can opt their children out of such teaching in one Maryland district.
"Cramming down controversial gender ideology on three-year-olds without their parents' permission is an affront to our nation's traditions, parental rights, and basic human decency," explained Becket senior counsel Eric Baxter.
"The court must make clear: parents, not the state, should be the ones deciding how and when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality."
The case being taken up by the court is Mahmoud v. Taylor, involving the Montgomery County, Md., Board of Education, which "took away parental notice and opt-outs for storybooks" that celebrate "gender transitioning, pride parades, and pronoun preferences with kids as young as three and four."
Becket's report said older students can opt out when similar topics are introduced during high school health class.
But not in the early grades, so Becket has been representing families of Muslim, Jewish and Christian faiths who challenged the board's edict.
The school "inclusivity" promotions were announced in 2022 for students in pre-K through fifth grade, and, Becket explained, they "champion controversial ideology around gender and sexuality."
"For example, one book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes 'intersex flag,' 'drag queen,' 'underwear,' 'leather,' and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker," Becket explained.
Teachers are told to claim to children that physicians "guess" about a newborn's sex.
Then the board specifically revoked all notice and opt-out opportunities for parents.
"The school board has pushed inappropriate gender indoctrination on our children instead of focusing on the fundamental areas of education that they need to thrive," said Grace Morrison, of Kids First, an association of parents and teachers advocating for notice and opt-outs.
"I pray the Supreme Court will stop this injustice, allow parents to raise their children according to their faith, and restore common sense in Maryland once again."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Social media turned its sharpest barbs against Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., on Friday when he insisted that South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to lead the Department of Homeland Security, literally ignore the 300,000 children who have gone missing after entering America illegally during Joe Biden's administration.
Ignore the past, he said.
Why?
Because he wants Noem to focus on the 1,000 children he claims were separated from their families … under President Trump's first term.
"I'm sorry, can he repeat that – forget about the 300,000 during the past 4 years – let's go back to Trump's first time. Blumenthal voters – really you can't do better than him?" was one response.
"'Let's put aside what happened in the past…' while asking her to comment on things that happened in the past…" was another.
And, "'Let's put aside the 300K so I can focus on the 1000 I can try to politically exploit.'"
Blumenthal in his own words:
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: "Will you help me reunite children with their parents who were separated by Trump's family separation policy?"
KRISTI NOEM: "What I'm alarmed by is the over 300,000 children that went missing during the Biden administration."
BLUMENTHAL: "Let's put aside the labels and what happened in the past. There are still 1,000 children who were separated and waiting to be reunited. I'd like your commitment to continuing the effort to reunite them with their parents."
NOEM: "Well, I can't put aside 300,000 children. Keeping families together is critically important to me and to this country. I'm concerned about Laken Riley's family and that they no longer have her... We will uphold our laws and make sure we are doing everything we can to keep children safe from the trafficking and drug epidemics."
He wanted to know if Noem would help him "reunite children with their parents who were separated by Trump's family separation policy?"
She pointed out that she was alarmed by the 300,000 children gone missing and untraceable during Biden's years.
But Blumenthal said not to worry about them.
"Let's put aside the labels and what happened in the past. There are still 1,000 children who were separated and waiting to be reunited. I'd like your commitment to continuing the effort to reunite them with their parents," the Democrat said.
Noem admitted that she really is unable to "put aside 300,000 children."
"It said our laws would be followed," she explained.
She cited the victimization and trafficking to which those children under the Biden administration have been subjected.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Joe Biden, among a flurry of strange and odd behaviors he's exhibiting during the closing days of his term in the White House, now has declared, unilaterally and by fiat, that the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution.
His comments contradicted years of legal wrangling and fighting, and conclusions from not only the Department of Justice but the national archivist, whose responsibilities would include listing it.
A report from Reuters said the aging – and mentally declining – Democrat "called the Equal Rights Amendment 'the law of the land" on Friday."
That would be his political statement in support of changing the U.S. Constitution with an amendment that failed.
Reuters said, "It was unclear what practical impact Biden's comments might have. The White House issued his statement just three days before he leaves office, handing off to President-elect Donald Trump on Monday."
The ERA would have said, "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
The history of the ideology is long and convoluted but in every scheme, it has failed. And under the Constitution, a president lacks the power to reverse court precedent, congressional action, and legal determinations, all of which would be necessary.
The report noted that the U.S. Senate, on a 51-47 vote that failed to reach the required 60 votes, blocked the Equal Rights Amendment from being ratified into law in 2023,
WND reported recently when far-left Sen Kirsten Gillibrand demanded that the corpse of the amendment be dug out of its grave and added to the Constitution.
For the ratification of amendments to the Constitution, at least 38 states must adopt the proposal.
During the time allowed for the ERA to be ratified, 35 states did adopt it. But that was not enough, even after Congress extended the allowed time.
It failed to meet its ratification requirements by the first deadline in 1972, and again in 1982.
Archivist of the United States Dr. Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko explained in their statement, "As Archivist and Deputy Archivist of the United States, it is our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and ensure that changes to the Constitution are carried out in accordance with the law. At this time, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) cannot be certified as part of the Constitution due to established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions.
"In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President-elect Donald Trump on Friday promised that he's "reviewing" the situation concerning the ultra-popular social media app TikTok and that he'll be choosing a path forward very soon.
The issue is that lawmakers had a high level of concern over the app's links to the Chinese Communist Party and the likelihood it was collecting detailed personal information about some 170 million Americans and making it available to the CCP.
Congress then set a deadline of Sunday for the Chinese ownership of TikTok, ByteDance, to sell the app or close it down in the U.S.
Users and creators sued and the Supreme Court on Friday affirmed the legislative action.
Immediately, Trump commented on the dispute online.
"Ultimately goes up to me, so you're going to see what I'm going to do," he explained. "Congress has given me the decision, so I'll be making the decision."
He called for everyone to respect the court's decision, but confirmed, "'My decision on TikTok will be made in the not-too-distant future,
The Supreme Court's Friday decision said the provisions of the law were content-neutral, and targeted a foreign adversary's control of a platform rather than targeting particular speech.
Some 170 million Americans use the app, which provides for posting short videos.
It was the Daily Mail that opined, "The path forward now depends on how the incoming Trump administration responds as the CEO of TikTok Shou Zi will be seated in a place of honor with other tech leaders at President-elect Trump's inauguration on Monday."
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the dispute just a week ago, and at that time Trump expressed support for TikTok and suggested a negotiated solution might be achievable.
On social media, Trump explained, "The Supreme Court decision was expected, and everyone must respect it. My decision on TikTok will be made in the not-too-distant future, but I must have time to review the situation. Stay tuned!"
Joe Biden, who is leaving office Monday, passed the buck. A White House statement said, "Given the sheer fact of timing, this administration recognizes that actions to implement the law simply must fall to the next administration, which takes office on Monday."
Trump during his first term opposed TikTok, but recently has expressed having "a little bit of a warm spot in my heart" for the app, through which he was able to reach millions of voters during the 2024 vote.
Trump recently confirmed on Truth Social that, "I just spoke to Chairman Xi Jinping of China. The call was a very good one for both China and the U.S.A. It is my expectation that we will solve many problems together, and starting immediately. We discussed balancing Trade Fentanyl, TikTok, and many other subjects. President Xi and I will do everything possible to make the World more peaceful and safe!"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A conglomerate of anti-Israel, pro-terrorist protestors, and others, including a "radical imam," are planning to attend Inauguration Day on Jan. 20 – which prompts the question, will their presence be peaceful or not?
"Security will be at the maximum height for the Inauguration," Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst at the Capital Research Center, assured WorldNetDaily. And because the event will be "a hardened target, it will be difficult for these extremists to actually disrupt it." However, he added, fighting with law enforcement and damaging property in the vicinity of their protests is "very likely to happen."
Mauro is especially perplexed that a "radical imam" is scheduled to speak at the inauguration. "Husham Al-Husainy is a known supporter of Hezbollah, one that has refused to call them terrorists. So you have essentially an Iranian regime operative in the vicinity of Donald Trump on Inauguration Day at the very same time that the Iranian regime is trying to murder Trump." Interestingly, nine surface-to-air missiles have also reportedly entered the country, but which remain unaccounted for, to date.
Regarding Al-Husainy being scheduled to deliver a benediction at Trump's inauguration, Mauro comments: "If that sort of mind-blowing screw-up just happened, how confident can we be about any security measures anywhere? If we can't even stop a pro-terrorist extremist who is loyal to those trying to assassinate Trump from being 'chosen' to be near Trump, then it's safe to assume that suspensions of basic common sense are happening."
What's more, in addition to the controversial imam, Mauro also revealed, "there are overlapping coalitions of pro-terrorism groups planning to descend on Washington, D.C., on Inauguration Day."
As Donald Trump takes the country by the helm for a second term of office on Jan. 20, Mauro said, "The coalition and their respective groups will be there to protest, which could spark something larger than a simple demonstration."
For example, sponsored by The People's Forum, "We Fight Back" is one of the entities planning to protest. Interestingly, Mauro said, "The People's Forum is a pro-Hamas group linked to the Chinese Communist Party." Mauro was also able to confirm that the group that applied for their permit to protest is the "ANSWER Coalition", short or the "Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition." And according to Mauro, "the ANSWER Coalition is yet another pro-Hamas group that is also linked to China."
"In April 2024," Mauro revealed, "The People's Forum urged anti-Israel activists to recreate the violent protests of the summer of 2020." Within hours, more than 100 so-called protestors had occupied a building on the campus of Columbia University. In the same month, the forum urged its followers on X to convene at the City University of New York to "ensure that student protestors can hold their ground" during anti-Israel demonstrations.
Mauro explained that The People's Forum and most other similar groups often use social media to "compel not only anti-Israel but also anti-American protestors, to commit acts of crime and violence." Their presence can be substantial, he added, noting that "ANSWER's application for its January 19 to 21 permit states that it expects at least 15,000 participants to join their effort."
Mauro named still other protest organizers and participants, including the U.S. Palestinian Community Network or USPCN, Palestinian Youth Movement, CODEPINK, Palestinian Feminist Collective, Party for Socialism, Artists Against Apartheid, Diaspora Pa'lante Collective and even the pro-North Korea group Nodutdol. Interestingly, he added, "Nearly every one of the protests' initial convenors is identified as a pro-terrorism group in the Capital Research Center's 'Marching Towards Violence' report" that this reporter previously made public last November.
That report exposed over 150 extremist organizations behind the anti-Israel protests being witnessed across America. Most of these groups suggest the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks against Israel were morally and legally justifiable, according to Mauro.
Mauro admits to being "apprehensive" about what's being planned among the groups attending the presidential Inauguration Day. "Could the 'We Fight Back' campaign stir up something more than a mere protest?" he asks. "Will there be violence? Could that violence turn deadly?"
No matter how much preparation takes place to prevent bad things from happening, Mauro warns, "there's always a security gap."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to lead the CIA, John Ratcliffe, has boasted on social media that "There's only one country in the world that can parallel park a 200-foot rocket booster."
And that would not be the Chinese. Or the Russians.
"We do it," he said.
Stunning feat was in video thanks to a test launch, the seventh of the SpaceX Starship series.
RedState reported, "Elon Musk has done some astonishing things with SpaceX, including being able to bring back a booster and catch it, in a pretty incredible feat. He managed that again in a stunning display during the seventh flight test of the Starship unmanned mega-rocket from Starbase in South Texas, showing the first time wasn't a fluke. It had a successful lift-off, then separation of the upper and lower stage, with the lower stage making it back to Starbase to be caught by the tower."
The day wasn't without its mishap, however.
The upper part of the rocket, which was supposed to do a "controlled splashdown in the Indian Ocean," instead became part of a "rapid unscheduled disassembly."
RedState explained, "In non-nerd language, we would say it blew up."
The cause has been reported as a fuel leak.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
GOLAN – As Israel's seven-front war approaches 470 days and with more than 800 IDF soldiers and security forces killed, the tiny Jewish state has been stretched thin. Hamas has been all but eliminated in Gaza, and likewise, Hezbollah in Lebanon. The murderous Assad regime in Syria fell with minimal action by the IDF, but solutions for what comes after are still a quandary and the path to any kind of lasting peace is still unclear.
While morale remains high among the troops, many reserve soldiers have been away from their families and careers with little respite for a year and a half. This has taken a personal toll on the lives of Israeli civilians and soldiers.
Many Israelis have compared the current conflict with the 1973 Yom Kippur War when Israel's security establishment was caught off guard and forced to pay a heavy price in a multi-front war for the country's survival. Other similarities reflecting the mental state and attitude of Israelis are becoming apparent.
One symptom common to both wars is emigration. Immigration to Israel is referred to as "Aliyah," literally "ascending," hinting at the perception that moving to Israel is a spiritual ascension. Conversely, emigration is referred to as "Yeridah" or "descending."
The Central Bureau of Statistics reported that last year, immigration to Israel, compared to emigration, represented a net loss of 18,200. In 2024, 82,700 residents left Israel, and only 23,800 returned. The number of new immigrants to the country was 32,800, about 15,000 lower than in 2023. In total, during 2024, the population of Israel grew by 1.1 percent, a decrease in the growth rate compared to 2023 (1.6 percent).
Some 117,000 Israeli citizens have left the country for an extended period and have stopped living in Israel since the outbreak of the war on October 7, 2023 – a figure three times higher than from previous years.
According to the data, more Israelis emigrated from Tel Aviv and Haifa, considered secular enclaves, than from any other city.
The country has experienced several waves of emigration associated with wars. In the 1960s, Israel was hit with a crippling recession, leading to a period of increased emigration. The 1967 Six-Day War followed this wave. The most significant wave of emigration in Israeli history followed the Yom Kippur War. This has been attributed to a national trauma intensified by the belief that the government and military establishment failed the nation.
Once the war is over, Israel will need to cope with the economic repercussions of a protracted conflict.
One mitigating factor to emigration might be the high inflation and unemployment in Europe, the U.S., and Canada. This is exacerbated by the preceding period of COVID which also taxed the economy with shutdowns and restrictions.
Shimon (not his real name) has experienced this difficult period firsthand. He is a religious and strongly Zionist husband and father in his 30s. He served in the IDF at 18, completing a course for religious soldiers called Hesder that incorporated periods of learning interspersed with combat service. He also volunteered for a year of "shlichut," acting as an emissary in the U.S. to educate Jews and connect them with Israel. In total, Shimon served six years in the IDF. After his service, he learned Arabic at university, going on to work for the government as a liaison with the Arab community.
His language skills were of enormous value to the IDF, and he became an intelligence officer in the reserves, embedded in a combat unit. On Oct.7, even before the IDF called, Shimon drove to the southern border to join his unit. He described the disorganization which characterized the first days of the war with Gaza.
"In the beginning, things were crazy," Shimon said. "We didn't know for the first 24 hours or so what was really going on. I had no idea what was going on down south, and if I had known what was going on, there is a good chance I would have gotten my gun from a unit and just driven down there, in which case, there is a good chance I wouldn't be alive right now."
"Thankfully, I followed the plans we had set up, and I went to where the army told me to go in times of emergency and join my assigned unit. But many of the guys in my unit just went down and fought."
Shimon's job was to interrogate prisoners and pass on the information to his officers, a function which kept him busy night and day for several months. Shimon estimates that he has been home for three weeks in the more than 450 days since the war began.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
JERUSALEM – Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla,, whom President-elect Donald Trump tapped as his national security advisor, said Wednesday the incoming administration would support renewed IDF military action in the Gaza Strip if Hamas breaches any of the terms of the tentative ceasefire agreement.
Waltz has given two interviews recently, one on the Call Me Back podcast with Dan Senor, and later on FOX News with Bret Baier.
In the more recent interview with Fox, Waltz said the incoming administration would back Israel's military to go back into the Gaza Strip – which he stressed Hamas should play no part in governing – if the terrorist group did not "live up to the terms of the agreement."
The lawmaker said he understood Israelis' concerns about the potential of convicted Palestinian murderers being released from the country's jails, but brought the focus back to the 100 or so captives held in unimaginable circumstances.
"… at the end of the day those hostages have been down there in those tunnels getting raped, abused, in horrific conditions. They have been there longer than the 1979 hostages, in much more horrific conditions," referring to the Iran hostage crisis.
Waltz struck an even more strident tone with Senor, also drawing a sharp distinction between what he viewed as the Biden administration's lack of support for Israel, as opposed to how the Trump 2.0 team will deal with the situation.
"We've been clear that Gaza has to be fully demilitarized, Hamas has to be destroyed to the point that it cannot reconstitute, and that Israel has every right to fully protect itself," Waltz says. "Hamas cannot have a role. ISIS doesn't have a role. Al-Qaida doesn't have a role."
"These are hostage-taking, murderous, rapist, torturers that never should ever have any role in governing," he says.
Waltz assessed Israel's current strategic position as being a net positive, especially considering the series of events in the last quarter or so of 2024. He commended Israel's government and military strategists and decision-makers for not listening to the so-called experts in the Biden administration, who cautioned against several of Israel's actions, which have borne the ripest results.
"And now we are where we are, where Iran is in the worst position it's been. And that's not to say this administration didn't help with shooting down the missiles, [or that] they didn't help with arms, but they also tapped the brakes as well in a way that I just did not find rational."
One of the ways the Biden administration tapped the brakes was the withholding of munitions needed for the war effort, admitted to by the outgoing failure of a Vice President Kamala Harris on her disastrous campaign trail, and which went against a congressional vote.
The NSA pick added one of the key pillars of the Trump's foreign policy is to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which in the wake of the historic Abraham Accords signed in 2020 were well on the way to being realized. The Oct. 7, 2023, attacks were at least partly caused and timed for maximum effect to torpedo the growing cooperation between the desert kingdom and the Jewish state. If a deal can be reached Waltz said it would be "a tremendous historic region-changing agreement."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
One of the agendas for Joe Biden's administration was to push gun control.
His surrogates would erupt every time some criminal used a weapon to hurt someone with charges that gun control was the answer, that there would be no reduction in violence until the American public lost access to firearms.
One part of that agenda was his decision, through Merrick Garland, his attorney general, to order an in-depth analysis of how firearms enter illegal markets and get into the wrong hands, including Mexico drug cartels.
In a four-part series, it now has been released by the Department of Justice, covering "20 years of data."
It, Garland has claimed, is "vital to helping law enforcement nationwide solve crimes and take shooters off the street."
But it entirely ignores what many would consider the most egregious, the most offensive, the most awful gun-trafficking circumstances, when the Barack Obama administration actually delivered guns into the pipeline supplying Mexican drug gangs.
It is Judicial Watch, in its "Corruption Chronicles," that explains what has happened.
"In 2021 Attorney General Merrick B. Garland directed the same agency that orchestrated that fiasco, the ATF, to lead a drawn-out comprehensive study, known as National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA), aimed at curbing gun violence and illegal gun trafficking across the nation."
Those results, Garland claimed in a DOJ statement, represent "the most thorough research, analysis, and examination ever of firearms commerce and how firearms enter illegal markets and fall into the wrong hands."
Except for the fact it "conveniently omits Obama's disastrous Mexican gunrunning operation that let drug traffickers obtain U.S.-sold weapons."
That was run by the ATF and sent guns from the U.S. "to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels."
What actually happened was that federal law enforcement officers lost track of hundreds of weapons "which were used in an unknown number of crimes, including the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent in Arizona."
In the press release Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco said, "From conducting enhanced background checks to stopping firearms trafficking by cartels, the department has prioritized addressing the most significant drivers of violent crime and identifying emerging threats to our communities."
Fast and Furious isn't 'there.
It was, Judicial Watch reported, "a major scheme that illicitly sent firearms south of the border under the leadership of Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, who was cited for contempt by Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to the botched operation."
Judicial Watch reported the part of the report addressing the southwest border "only reveals that firearms originating in the U.S. and recovered in Mexico between 2017 and 2021 represented 74% of all international crime guns traced to a purchaser."
"Further analysis indicates that transnational gun traffickers exploit the same criminal channels to divert firearms from legal commerce as domestic gun traffickers," the report finds.
"Judicial Watch obtained Justice Department documents showing that Fast and Furious weapons were widely used by members of major Mexican drug cartels, including Joaquin 'El Chapo' Guzman, head of the Sinaloa drug cartel," the report said.
Eventually, 94 of the weapons unleashed by Obama were later found in Mexico City and 12 Mexican states.