This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., whom President Trump called a "disgusting degenerate" over alleged insider trading and who went ballistic on a reporter last month when confronted about her role in the Capitol mayhem of Jan. 6, 2021, will reportedly not seek re-election in 2026.
Scott Wong of NBC News reports: "Multiple Democratic elected officials and top aides in CA and Washington tell NBCNews they believe Nancy Pelosi will choose not to seek re-election in 2026, after nearly four decades representing her San Francisco-based district."
"I think she's preparing to exit the stage," said a House Democratic leadership aide.
"I wish she would stay for 10 more years," said one House Democrat from California. "I think she's out. She's going to go out with Prop 50 overwhelmingly passing, and what a crowning achievement for her to do that."
NBC News added: "Fueling speculation that she might retire, Pelosi has made no outward move to counter two Democrats who have entered the district's primary, despite having raised more than $2 million this election cycle so far and sitting on a $1.5 million war chest, according to campaign records."
As WorldNetDaily reported, the former speaker of the House, now 85, was asked last month by Alison Steinberg of Lindell TV: "Congresswoman Pelosi, are you at all concerned that the January 6th Committee will find you liable for that?
"Are at all concerned about the January 6th Committee finding you liable for that day? Why did you refuse the National Guard on January 6th?"
Pelosi, who was obviously disturbed by the questions, snapped at Steinberg.
"SHUT UP!" Pelosi screamed as she pointed her finger at the correspondent.
"I did not refuse the National Guard. The president didn't send it. Why are you coming here with Republican talking points as if you're a serious journalist?"
Reacting to the retirement news, best-selling author Brigitte Gabriel said: "Nancy Pelosi should have been forced to retire a long time ago. We need term limits."
In August, President Donald Trump launched a fresh attack on Pelosi, calling the California Democrat a "disgusting degenerate" as he again called attention to alleged insider stock trading by the congresswoman and her husband.
"Crooked Nancy Pelosi, and her very 'interesting' husband, beat every Hedge Fund in 2024," Trump said Saturday night on Truth Social.
"In other words, these two very average 'minds' beat ALL of the Super Geniuses on Wall Street, thousands of them. It's all INSIDE iNFORMATION! Is anybody looking into this???"
"She is a disgusting degenerate, who Impeached me twice, on NO GROUNDS, and LOST! How are you feeling now, Nancy???"
On July 30, as WorldNetDaily reported, Trump said Pelosi "should be investigated" for insider trading.
"You know, Nancy Pelosi became rich by having inside information," Trump indicated. "She made a fortune with her husband and I think that's disgraceful."
"What I do think is Nancy Pelosi should be investigated. She has the highest return of anybody, practically, in the history of Wall Street, save a few. How did that happen?
"She knows exactly what's gonna happen, what's gonna be announced. She buys stock and then the stock goes up after the announcement's made. And she ought to be investigated."
Pelosi has called Trump's allegations "ridiculous."
Trump was echoing sentiments expressed by popular podcaster Joe Rogan, who indicated: "Nancy Pelosi's the head witch."
"There's like a system and they all get funded, and they all make sure that there's this kind of crooked system that will allow someone like Nancy Pelosi who – what does she make like $200,000 a year? She's worth $150 million! How the f*** did that happen?" Rogan wondered.
"If insider trading is illegal, how the f*** is it legal for her husband to make all these purchases of stock right before these giant deals came out that she negotiated? And then he gets this windfall and they get insanely wealthy! Over and over and over again!
"And there's no investigation into it, there's no talking about it. It's f***ing wild, man, It's wild sh**. And they think Putin's a mobster. What are YOU?"
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, famous for her lawfare agenda against President Donald Trump, has been revealed to be caught up in yet another federal investigation.
She's already under indictment for alleged mortgage fraud involving claims she bought a house and claimed it was her residence to get a better interest rate, then rented it out. Further, one of her mortgage application documents allegedly listed her father as her "spouse."
She had created a massive "fraud" claim against Trump and his companies, and with the help of a leftist judge, obtained a massive half billion dollar penalty against Trump, a penalty that was thrown out by an appeals court for being unconstitutional.
Now a report at the Daily Caller News Foundation explains a judge has unsealed details about her fight against a federal criminal probe for alleged "selective enforcement."
Those allegations involve her lawfare against Trump, his business operations, and even a separate case involving the National Rifle Association.
"James's effort to block subpoenas issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) touches 'on matters of national concern, with implications that stretch well beyond this action,'" Judge Lorna Schofield wrote in her order making the filings public.
"Unsealing this action is not only permissible but compelled," the judge wrote. "One simple fact drives this conclusion: the information at issue is not secret."
Just weeks ago, it was revealed acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York John A. Sarcone III subpoenaed documents concerning James's civil fraud case against Trump and his company, along with her case against the National Rifle Association.
James has claimed that an investigation of her lawfare agenda actually is "retaliation" against her.
Her lawyers have told the court that she is being targeted by Trump administration over her lawfare agenda against him.
She already faces two charges for alleged bank fraud and false statements in a case in Virginia.
WND previously reported she had claimed she is not guilty of mortgage fraud but in a commentary Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett said she incriminated herself and the charges appear to be justified.
"She'll also claim, of course, 'Oh, it's a big misunderstanding, paperwork snafu, somebody else is to blame.' But under her own stated standard in the Trump case, she declared that is never an excuse. So she's hoisted on her own petard, as Shakespeare would say in Hamlet," Jarrett said.
Jarrett said that the case against James rests squarely on the paperwork she personally executed.
"It's a pretty serious case against her, Sean. You cannot claim an occupied residence, get a lower mortgage rate, and then rent it out. You're cheating the lender by lying, and James actually incriminated herself. Both her mortgage and her insurance documents said she occupied it, but on an IRS records form she admitted it was purely a rental with zero personal occupancy," Jarrett said.
"Predictably, today she just whined that the law is being weaponized against her. Spare me the moral outrage. It was phony. She was the one who campaigned on the promise to get Trump, then conjured up that ludicrous case only to get slapped down by the appellate court in an epic embarrassment," Jarrett said. "I think he or she's going to do exactly what James Comey is doing, claim selective, vindictive prosecution, try to get the case dismissed, avoid trial entirely. But, you know, under the law the burden shifts to her to prove by clear evidence that the case has an unjustifiable motive."
It was the Federal Housing Finance Agency that referred James to the Justice Department for the alleged crimes.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A foster cat being care for by a Merced, California, family decided to express her gratitude: By adding some spice to the family's soup cooking on the stove.
A report at Fox26, KMPH-TV, explained the owner was "out feeding the dogs, when Wendy (the cat) snuck into the kitchen and decided to contribute her own meat to the soup pot."
A mouse.
"Her mom only discovered the feline's culinary surprise after reviewing the footage when she found Wendy sitting on the floor, continuously crying and staring at the pot," the report said.
While there were comments claiming it was staged by AI, others pointed out that commenter hadn't interacted much with cats.
Further, a report from Not the Bee noted that other such videos have appeared in recent weeks.
The report said Wendy is a foster cat from SPCA Merced, and the organization shared the stills online.
"The family said it was takeout for dinner that night," the report said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A New Mexico woman's testimony about how she's been getting food-stamp benefits from American taxpayers has gone online.
A commentary as Twitchy explained, "Democrats are doing what they ALWAYS do, they are bringing out the sob stories about how Republicans will push grandma over a cliff or some other happy horse manure. This time, though, instead of healthcare, it's food stamps."
Social media commenters said, "Has she tried working?" and "THIRTY YEARS?" before one pointed out, "When I heard that she's been milking the taxpayers for THIRTY YEARS my heart went into my throat."
The commentary explained media interests are pushing "sob stories" as Democrats continue to prevent the federal government from opening up, so that programs like SNAP, to provide supplemental nutrition to the needy, is funded again.
Democrats have demanded Congress raid taxpayers' pockets to the tune of $1.5 trillion for public broadcasting propaganda efforts, health care for illegal aliens, and more, before they'll agree to a GOP plan that would have kept the government funding at the same levels for a couple of weeks.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Florida police have released borderline graphic video of when a sheriff's deputy was forced to take down a thug who had a knife and was threatening the life of a 7-year-old child.
The footage is from bodycam documentation of the confrontation between Antonio Gonzalez, of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, and the late Mario Comacho, 27, who died in the episode.
The video of the deputy confronting the suspect, who was reported to have a knife at the child's throat and was choking him, in a back room of a house in Brandon, Florida:
The sheriff's office later issued a statement about the incident.
Authorities said the confrontation happened on Sunday when deputies got a call about a domestic violence situation.
The caller said Camacho was armed with a knife and threatening the little boy.
"Once on scene, the suspect barricaded himself with his brother in a back bedroom. Deputies heard the child screaming for help and kicked down the door. Deputies encountered the suspect, who was holding a knife and refusing to let go of the child. The suspect was wearing a motorcycle helmet and two tactical vests with ballistic plates. After several commands to drop the knife, our deputy shot the suspect, rescuing the brother," authorities reported.
Camacho was pronounced dead at Brandon Regional Hospital.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
SNAP is back, according to confirmation from the White House, but its benefits now are being cut in half because of the Schumer Shutdown. And the White House has advised the judge who ordered all of the available reserves be spent there's now no way to address any emergency.
The government's SNAP program, basically food stamps for tens of millions, was closing down on Nov. 1 when its money ran out because of the government shutdown demanded by Democrats in the U.S. Senate.
While the GOP proposed a clean funding resolution, continuing the spending as it had been for several weeks, Democrats demanded the government raid Americans' paychecks for $1.5 trillion for broadcast propaganda, health care for illegal aliens and more.
GOP members in the Senate, and the White House, said that was impossible, so the government shutdown is into its second month.
Leftist groups sued when they realized food stamps was going bust, and a judge ordered the White House to spend down to nothing all the reserves.
The Washington Examiner reported Trump will "deplete" the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to provide half benefits for November.
"The [plan] will leave a total of $4.65 billion in the contingency fund for November SNAP benefits that will all be obligated to cover 50% of eligible households' current allotments," Agriculture Department spokesman Patrick Penn explained.
"This means that no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November, disaster assistance, or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely," Penn charged.
It was Judge John McConnell who had said the administration must use contingency funding for November, and claimed that the government could shift funding around to obtain more, a move the White House rejected.
Penn said the government could not access other USDA funding, such as the Child Nutrition Fund, because that would just move the problem "to millions of America's low-income children."
Those funds, he told the judge, are not "a contingency fund for SNAP."
The White House explained earlier it was not allowed to use the contingency funding because that was designated as a reserve for emergencies such as natural disaster.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom says he simply cannot stomach politicians who lie to the public, despite plenty of evidence the Democrat himself has deceived Americans.
Appearing on "Meet the Press" with NBC's Kristen Welker, Newsom indicated: "There is nothing I dislike more than a politician that just sits there and lies to you. And we all just sit there rolling our eyes going, 'Give me a break.'"
When asked about the decline of Joe Biden's cognitive abilities and why Newsom did not speak up, the governor said: "I'm not gonna substitute myself for someone else or for popular opinion. I'm gonna express my relationship to my truth with the former president of the United States including at the end of his term quite literally in December, which was a master class of foreign policy and domestic policy which I will never forget. … There was nothing to suggest [any problems with Biden's mental acuity]."
But the record tells a different story when it comes to Newsom's own veracity.
For instance, in a high-profile March interview with Charlie Kirk before his assassination, the governor claimed no one in his office used the woke term "LatinX" in reference to someone in the Hispanic community.
"By the way, not one person in my office has ever used the word LatinX," Newsom told Kirk. "I just didn't even know where it came from. What are people talking about?"
However, Newsom himself on many occasions has used that term, and Kirk posted a video noting, "CNN put together a brutal compilation of Gov. Gavin Newsom personally and repeatedly using the phrase.
"If he'll lie like this, directly to my face, on camera … ."
Newsom himself used the word LatinX on numerous posts on X.
Last month, as WorldNetDaily reported, Trump officials fact-checked Newsom after he promoted a false claim the Trump administration was closing parts of the Interstate 5 highway for a military showcase.
"Donald Trump and JD Vance think that shutting down the I-5 to shoot out missiles from ships is how you respect the military. PUT ASIDE YOUR VANITY PARADE AND PAY OUR TROOPS INSTEAD," Newsom wrote on X.
"Governor Newsom is deliberately spreading Fake News to Californians to fearmonger and score cheap political points," Taylor Van Kirk, the vice president's press secretary, told the Daily Signal.
William Martin, a special assistant to the president and communications director to the vice president, responded to Newsom's claim: "This is complete fake news. The Marine Corps said they are NOT shutting down the I-5 highway and that the event at Camp Pendleton is a training exercise. Also, President Trump IS paying the troops despite Chuck Schumer's efforts to hold their salaries hostage."
On Oct. 26, Newsom, who has been under fire recently for granting commercial driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, made no secret he's interested in following Donald Trump as the next American president.
Appearing on "Sunday Morning" on CBS, Newsom answered positively when asked about his White House ambition.
"Yeah, I'd be lying otherwise. I'd just be lying. And I'm not – I can't do that," Newsom said.
"I think the biggest challenge for anyone that runs of any office is people see right through you if you don't have that why. You doing it for the wrong reasons."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A significant enforcement move by the U.S. Department of the Treasury has exposed a sprawling human-smuggling enterprise led by an Indian-born couple that has funneled migrants from multiple continents via Mexico into the United States.
The individuals identified are Vikrant Bhardwaj, age 39, and his wife Indu Rani, age 38, both originally from New Delhi. They are alleged to head the so-called "Bhardwaj Human Smuggling Organization" (HSO), which operated out of Cancun, Mexico and maintained a network of front companies from India, the United Arab Emirates and Mexico.
From Treasury Dept. press statement
According to the Treasury Department's announcement, the smuggling blueprint worked like this: Migrants from Asia, Europe, the Middle East and South America, including some from countries deemed national security risks, would fly into Cancun, be housed in hotels or hostels controlled by the network, then travel north along Mexico's coasts and by land via the "Tapachula-Cancun-Mexicali Corridor," ultimately arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border. Bribery of airport and security personnel and cooperation with the notorious Sinaloa Cartel are also alleged. This blueprint was used to smuggle thousands of migrants into the U.S.
In parallel, the network is alleged to have laundered money through real-estate and hospitality businesses. Indian companies such as Veena Shivani Estates Private Limited are cited as part of the scheme.
Under the sanctions, all U.S. property or interests tied to the organization or individuals are frozen and U.S. persons are barred from transacting with them.
The significance is two-fold for American interests: It underscores the international dimension of undocumented migration and human-smuggling networks and it raises questions about how Indian nationals and companies factor into pipelines that effectively bypass border controls while undercutting legal migration channels.
For U.S. policy and worker-protection advocates, this case may trigger further scrutiny of India-linked operations that exploit global mobility and migration systems for profit, especially when American labor and border security intersect.
While no arrest information was detailed in the Treasury release, the sanctions themselves are being used as a lever to choke off funds and disrupt logistics before full criminal prosecutions follow.
This case presents a sharp warning: When transnational criminal organizations use sophisticated corporate and geographic cover to smuggle persons, the results are not just a border enforcement issue, they become national-security, labor market and human-rights concerns.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
There's no doubt that the leftists across America are using often-leftist judges to fight President Donald Trump.
One state alone, Colorado, clearly is demanding that judges in black robes rule the nation instead of the duly elected president, having gone to court 41 times already against the president.
The result is there's been a flood of rulings, both for and against Trump's agenda, from the lower courts. And because of the attempt by states literally to take over the functions of the White House, deciding foreign policy, border security issues and more, a lot of battles have landed on the Supreme Court's emergency docket.
The result of that was that dozens of judges, anonymously, have "whined" to the public that they don't like what's going on, that they're not getting their way as they want, that Trump's White House actually is being given permission to act as the White House.
It was the New York Times that publicized the judges' politics.
That publication said at issue are "the quick-turn orders the Supreme Court has issued dictating whether Trump administration policies should be left in place while they are litigated through the lower courts."
That emergency docket, a fraction of those judges on lower courts complained, wasn't being used property.
"Sixty-five judges responded to a Times questionnaire sent to hundreds of federal judges across the country. Of those, 47 said the Supreme Court had been mishandling its emergency docket since Mr. Trump returned to office," the report said.
But Mike Davis, of the rule-of-law-protecting Article III Project, says those judges are out of line and either the Supreme Court or Congress needs to punish them.
"Judges have a modest, but crucial, role. They resolve cases and controversies of the parties before them with redressable claims. That is their Article III power. Nothing more; nothing less. Their job is not to run crying anonymously to reporters because the Supreme Court is acting in a way that these inferior court snowflakes despise. Chief Justice Roberts must issue an order to judges to stop talking to the media, either on the record or anonymously," he explained in a column at the Federalist.
"Congress also must levy severe consequences against these judicial embarrassments. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees should open oversight inquiries to find out which anonymous and cowardly judges disgraced the bench through their pathetic public whining. If judges take off their judicial robes, climb into the political arena, and throw political punches, they should expect political counterpunches. Judges have life tenure to insulate them from political pressure, not so they can act like politicians in robes. Sadly, several dozen judges do not understand this basic tenet of our republic, and they must face public shaming."
The Times cited "more than three dozen" of the hundreds of federal judges because those are the ones who responded, claiming they were "confused" by the emergency orders from the high court.
Davis warned that the judges are violating the Code of Conduct for United States judges by "taking pot shots" at the Supreme Court.
"Some judges called Supreme Court reversals 'demoralizing,' while others whined that the Supreme Court's reversals at the very least created the perception of partisanship on the justices' part, as the Supreme Court mostly has been reversing rulings that had gone against Trump administration policies. One judge compared the relationship between the justices and that judge's district to 'a war zone,'" Davis explained.
There are about a thousand inferior judges, below the Supreme Court, who make rulings, and are bound by a code of conduct, which "prohibits judges from making political comments or even comments that a reasonable observer could view as such."
"The griping of inferior court judges stems from about two dozen rulings on the Supreme Court's emergency docket. This docket allows justices to pause orders from lower courts while the litigation proceeds. Radicals trying to grind to a halt President Donald Trump's electoral mandate repeatedly have run to district courts in leftist hellholes like the District of Columbia, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and Boston. The judges there are overwhelmingly radical leftists. Even the Republican appointees are, for the most part, milquetoast because home-state Democrat senators can veto quality conservative nominees thanks to a Senate tradition known as the blue slip. The Supreme Court has correctly reversed absurd inferior court orders issued by judges who refuse to accept that President Trump is implementing an agenda for which the American people voted," Davis wrote.
He noted the "cowardly" comments as the judges were not identified.
"These judges fail to see the obvious: their accusing the Supreme Court of partisanship in such a blatantly unethical way explicitly reveals their own partisanship. The biased authors of the article make sure to underscore that nearly half of the Republican-appointed judges who responded to questions about the Supreme Court were critical. But the authors do not tell us, for instance, where these Republican appointees sit. If these judges are in blue bastions like Massachusetts, Illinois, California, or Oregon, they do not remotely resemble judicial conservatives," he added.
Davis warned, "Chief Justice John Roberts needs to get his judicial house in order. This latest New York Times drive-by shooting by anonymous federal judges is the most recent blatant example of out-of-control rogue judges sabotaging the federal judiciary, the presidency, and American voters."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A lawsuit against a state demand in Oregon that groups holding religious beliefs fundamentally opposing the deliberate and willful destruction of unborn children fund abortion has been revived.
It is Oregon Right to Life that had sued state Insurance Commissioner Andrew Stolfi in 2023 charging that the state's Reproductive Health Equity Act violated the First Amendment, which protects religious beliefs and liberty.
The lawsuit had been thrown out by a judge at an entry level court.
But a report at Courthousenews now confirms that the case is alive again.
"ORTL put forth significant evidence of its religiosity, and there was no conflicting evidence against ORTL's claim that its views are religiously grounded," explained Judge Lawrence VanDyke, in an opinion from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The district court therefore erred by failing to conclude at the motion to dismiss stage that ORTL actually holds the beliefs professed in the complaint and that ORTL's opposition to abortion is genuinely religious."
The order explains the lawsuit now will proceed. ORTL charges that the state cannot demand that it provide funding for abortions for its employees without violating the Constitution.
In the state a 2017 law demands that employers pay for abortions, but lets religious groups choose insurance lans excluding that coverage.
Bill Clinton-appointed Ann Aiken, a lower court judge, claimed the group's lack of religious requirements prevailed and dismissed the case.
"There are numerous assertions in the record by Oregon Right to Life that their belief in the sanctity of individual human life and opposition to abortion is based upon religious tenets," lawyer James Bopp, representing ORTL, said in an appeals court hearing.
State officials claimed the organization wasn't religious, despite evidence from Oregon Right to Life that expressed affirmation of Judeo-Christian beliefs in its founding documents.
Circuit Judge John Owens, a Barack Obama appointee, joined VanDyke in the majority.
The decision also cited a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that favored a Catholic nonprofit in Wisconsin.
The court said, "It is worth pointing out that the unanimous Supreme Court emphasized that the issue in Catholic Charities (and a fortiori the issue here) was not a 'hard call.' That was because the court was breaking no new ground. Since long before Catholic Charities, it has been black letter law that the Free Exercise Clause bars laws that discriminate against some or all religious beliefs."